To keep reputation, avoid exam malpractice

By Hamis Kaheru

The editorial in Mwalimu of January 25, 2012 entitled, “UNEB should not disclose schools whose results are withheld” echoed popular sentiments.

The writer argued that UNEB should not name schools whose results are withheld on suspicion of examination malpractices because the schools which may be cleared after investigations will have suffered irreparable damage.

True, the ideal situation would be to complete investigations first and name the schools afterwards. However, this would mean that even examination centres and candidates who did not engage in any suspicious behaviour would suffer by waiting longer to know how they performed.

That would probably be fair to the suspects but unfair to those who kept their hands clean throughout the examination exercise.

Prior to 2010, UNEB used to cancel results outright where evidence of malpractice was obvious and withheld those where further investigations were deemed necessary.

This changed following a court case that was decided in favour of three plaintiff schools. Court ruled that it was against the rules of natural justice to cancel candidates’ results without giving them a hearing.

Subsequently, the board only withholds and does not cancel results until the affected candidates and centres have been heard. Under Section 4 (3) of UNEB Act (Cap 137), the board requires approval of the minister to delay, withhold, cancel or release examination results. Therefore, under the law the Board seeks permission of the minister to release results of those cleared while at the same time seeking approval to withhold results of those suspected of involvement in malpractice.

The Board must attach a list of all affected and must inform all schools, centres and candidates of the nature of allegations against them. This means that those who violate examinations regulations cannot be kept a secret.

To avoid the trauma of withheld results, schools, candidates and parents should keep away from any form of malpractice.

The Board tries to conduct investigations before releasing results but the process of natural justice takes a lot of time. Some witnesses come from very far and their testimonies are usually long. If all hearings were to be conducted and decisions taken before, it would delay release of all results.

The Board is, therefore, forced to put suspected centres under “withhold” category to enable other processes like selection of students to higher classes proceed as scheduled. Some commentators have argued that the Board should not penalise anybody because it is its work to eliminate cheating in exams.

This is not true. Under Section 4 of the Act, the Board has a duty to make rules regulating the conduct of examinations.

In addition to face-to-face briefing of candidates and their teachers, all school administrators and examiners get copies of the rules every year. It is the duty of the schools to follow the regulations and avoid cheating. If they do not they should be ready to pay the price.

The Board commits enormous resources to deploy invigilators, scouts and other spies but human beings are prone to being compromised. Some of the forms of malpractice the Board gets are even unimaginable that even somebody who has never seen the rules would know those things are not permissible.

While the Board does not pursue a “name and shame” policy, it is possible that knowing the centres and candidates whose results are withheld will encourage all of us to avoid any forms of malpractice.

Examination malpractice goes to the moral foundation of our nation and if not checked will undermine the credibility of our academic qualifications in the eyes of the whole world. Surely we do not want our grades to be doubted whenever we go.

This is why UNEB tries to make sure that the results and grades issued reflect the true abilities of the candidates.

The writer is the Public relations officer, UNEB