Växjö and Kalmar under scrutiny over proctored exam access

Distance students in Sweden are increasingly being pushed back into supervised exam halls as universities tighten rules to curb AI-assisted cheating. An SVT review highlights how gaps in local exam provision force students to travel long distances and pay fees—an issue now drawing attention in Växjö and Kalmar as demand for proctored sittings rises.

AI tools are reshaping assessment—and logistics

For years, many distance students could complete assessments from home. That model is now under pressure. Generative AI systems can draft coherent essays, solve quantitative problems, and paraphrase source material at scale, making traditional take-home exams harder to secure without redesigning assessment formats.

Sweden’s higher-education sector is responding. A recent report from the Swedish Higher Education Authority (Universitetskanslersämbetet, UKÄ) indicates universities and university colleges plan to increase requirements for physical, supervised exam sittings. The intent is straightforward: reduce opportunities for AI-enabled misconduct and strengthen identity verification.

But the operational consequence is equally clear: when exams move back into controlled environments, the burden shifts to local infrastructure—rooms, invigilators, booking systems, and clear public information—especially for students who do not live near their campus.

A student’s costs show how uneven access can become

One example cited by SVT is Matilda Nivard, a Växjö resident studying economics remotely at the University of Gävle. Because she must sit supervised exams, she has had to travel to the neighboring municipality of Värnamo to find an available exam location. That option comes with a fee; she reports spending 6,000 SEK so far.

Her criticism is directed at her home municipality: Växjö does not currently provide a local solution for distance students needing supervised exam halls. In SVT’s reporting, local politician Martin Edberg (Social Democrats) responds that he had “never heard of” the need—an answer that underscores how quickly AI-driven policy shifts can expose blind spots in municipal planning.

SVT says it spoke with around ten distance students in different parts of the country who all described a strong need to find exam places.

Småland’s numbers reveal a capacity bottleneck

SVT’s mapping of Småland illustrates the structural issue. Only 9 of 33 municipalities offer specially adapted premises for distance examinations. That means the remaining municipalities effectively export demand to the few that have built capacity.

Värnamo is a clear example of what happens next. The municipality received close to 300 exam registrations during 2025, and about 80% came from students living outside the municipality, including from Växjö. When a small number of towns become regional “exam hubs,” they face staffing and scheduling pressure—while students shoulder travel time, transport costs, and sometimes per-exam fees.

This kind of uneven provisioning also raises equity questions. Distance education is often marketed as flexible and accessible for working adults, caregivers, and rural residents. If the assessment model requires frequent in-person attendance without nearby options, the practical accessibility of distance programs declines.

Kalmar’s underused resource highlights an information gap

Kalmar presents a different failure mode: capacity may exist, but students are not being told about it. SVT reports that Kalmar has “Kunskapsnavet,” with premises and staff that could potentially receive students for distance exams. Despite that, the municipality currently chooses not to inform the public about the option.

The stated reason is concern about demand management—fear that the organization cannot handle an influx of students. That is a real operational risk, but it also points to a governance challenge: as universities raise proctoring requirements, the demand curve for supervised exam spaces becomes more predictable, and municipalities can plan accordingly rather than relying on informal or hidden availability.

After SVT’s questions, Kalmar politicians said the issue will be raised politically. Municipal councilor Dzenita Abaza (Social Democrats) told SVT a meeting at the end of February will address distance students’ needs to sit physical, supervised exams locally.

Why this matters for the AI industry and education policy

The story is not only about municipal services; it is about how AI adoption forces institutions to re-architect trust.

Generative AI has accelerated a broader shift in assessment security:

• Universities are moving toward controlled environments (in-person proctoring) or redesigned assessments (oral exams, project-based work, iterative drafts, and in-class problem solving).
• Digital proctoring tools exist, but they raise privacy, bias, and reliability concerns, and they can be costly to deploy at scale.
• In-person supervision remains the simplest high-assurance method for identity verification and preventing unauthorized assistance.

As a result, local exam capacity becomes part of the education supply chain, similar to broadband access for remote learning. If Sweden’s universities continue tightening requirements in response to AI-enabled cheating, municipalities that do not provide clear, affordable exam options risk creating a two-tier system: students in well-served areas progress smoothly, while others pay more and travel farther.

The immediate policy question is practical: who should fund and coordinate supervised exam provision for distance students—universities, municipalities, or regional partnerships? SVT’s findings suggest that without coordination, demand will keep concentrating in a few municipalities, creating higher costs for students and operational strain for the exam hubs.