Challenging the Ban on Buying Examinations from Commercial Examination Bureaus by Davis Owomugisha

Challenging the Ban on Buying Examinations from Commercial Examination Bureaus by Davis Owomugisha

The recent circular from the Ministry of Education and Sports banning the practice of buying examinations from commercial examination bureaus raises several points of concern. While the intent behind this directive—to maintain professional conduct and uphold the integrity of the education system—is commendable, it is important to consider the broader picture and challenges that schools and teachers face in delivering quality education.

First, the reality on the ground is that many schools, especially those with large student populations, rely on external examination bureaus to manage the overwhelming assessment load. With teachers already stretched thin by the demands of preparing lesson plans, managing large classrooms, and providing individualized attention to students, the option of purchasing ready-made examinations has provided a measure of relief. It allows teachers to focus on actual teaching and ensuring that students understand the content. Banning this practice without offering a viable alternative may inadvertently increase the workload on already overburdened teachers, reducing the time they have to deliver quality lessons.

Second, commercial examination bureaus often have experienced professionals who understand the demands of assessing learners. These bureaus can offer well-structured examinations that complement the curriculum and reflect the level of difficulty learners should be exposed to. The issue, therefore, may not be with the existence of these bureaus, but with regulating their operations to ensure they meet the required standards. Instead of an outright ban, the Ministry should consider accrediting and licensing reputable bureaus to work in conjunction with schools. This would ensure that the tests provided are aligned with the national curriculum, thereby maintaining a high standard of assessment.

Moreover, it is important to note that assessment is a key part of education, but not the only part. Schools must balance regular testing with comprehensive teaching and learning. Rather than banning external examinations altogether, perhaps a limit should be placed on how often these tests can be used. Teachers should still create their own tests for classroom assessments, while external exams could be used for more significant milestones, such as mid-term or end-of-term assessments. This would prevent over-reliance on commercial exams while still allowing teachers and schools some flexibility in managing their workloads.

The accusation that schools are exploiting parents by overcharging for exams is also a sensitive issue. While it is true that some schools may take advantage of commercial exams to increase fees, the focus should be on regulating how schools charge for assessments, rather than penalizing the examination bureaus themselves. Transparent guidelines on examination fees and frequency of assessments could ensure that parents are not overburdened, while still allowing schools the autonomy to use external resources when necessary.

Additionally, it is worth considering that commercial examinations can offer a broader range of test types, exposing students to different styles of questioning. In today’s world, where students are expected to sit for national exams as well as external ones like UNEB, it can be beneficial for them to encounter diverse testing formats. Well-crafted external exams from licensed bureaus could provide this variety, helping to prepare learners for a range of future assessments.

Furthermore, while the circular emphasizes the need for teachers to follow the curriculum, write schemes of work, and create lesson plans, it is crucial to acknowledge the immense pressure this puts on teachers in an already strained system. Schools in rural areas, for example, often face a shortage of teaching staff, and teachers are expected to perform administrative duties in addition to teaching. In such cases, commercial examination bureaus may provide valuable support. Rather than outright banning them, why not focus on improving teacher training and providing resources that enable teachers to create their own exams without burning out?

Finally, the involvement of various stakeholders such as District/Municipal Education Officers, Inspectors of Schools, and Principals of Primary Teachers Colleges should not just be focused on enforcement of the ban, but on finding collaborative solutions. The Ministry should work closely with these stakeholders to address the root issues: overworked teachers, underfunded schools, and the pressure to perform on national assessments. Together, they could develop a framework that allows schools to use external resources responsibly while maintaining educational integrity.

While the Ministry’s circular banning the purchase of commercial examinations aims to protect the integrity of the education system, it may have unintended negative consequences if implemented without consideration of the challenges that teachers and schools face. Rather than imposing a blanket ban, the Ministry should focus on regulating and accrediting examination bureaus, providing clear guidelines on the use of external assessments, and offering support to teachers in creating their own tests. By doing so, the Ministry can strike a balance between upholding professional standards and meeting the practical needs of schools across the country.