Once again, the West African Examinations Council (WAEC) has released one of its examinations, the Basic Education Certificate Examination (BECE) and as usual many are accusing WAEC of bias in awarding grades in the examination.
Indeed, what is particular of note this time is the allegation by the Ghana National Council of Private Schools and the Ghana National Association of Private schools that their candidates were disadvantaged in the marking of this year’s scripts, saying that private schools have consistently observed significant disparities between the sustained academic performance of many of their candidates.
It is common knowledge that experienced examiners, especially those who have marked scripts for years, can often infer the school or examination centre from a centre code.
But knowing is not identifying. WAEC does not officially disclose the identity of a school to the examiner marking its candidates' scripts, and the entire architecture of the marking process is deliberately built to keep that inference from ever translating into influence.
Consider what actually happens to a script from the moment a candidate drops the pen.
It is sealed at the examination centre immediately after the paper.
It is moved under security to WAEC depots and onward to designated marking centres, with custody records maintained at every stage to guard against loss or tampering.
Before a single mark is awarded, the Chief Examiners' Conference sits to review the question paper, agree on expected answers, settle the marking scheme among other processes.
Examiners are then handed sample scripts to mark independently in a trial or coordination exercise; their marks are compared against the agreed standard, and any examiner whose scoring strays too far from that standard is retrained.
Or where the gap persists, reassigned altogether.
Only after this calibration are scripts allocated for full marking. Even then, team leaders, assistant chief examiners and chief examiners exercise continuous supervision, including arithmetic verification and spot-checks, throughout the exercise.
It is this system, watertight by design and reinforced at every checkpoint, that the Daily Graphic finds difficult to reconcile with claims that a particular school could be singled out for victimisation or, conversely, favoured in the award of grades.
The safeguards do not just discourage bias; they are structured to make it exceedingly difficult to execute and even harder to conceal.
None of this, however, is a reason to dismiss the anguish of private schools unhappy with the 2026 BECE results.
The Daily Graphic sympathises with them. Indeed, we admit that no proprietor, headteacher or parent takes pleasure in a poor outcome, and their frustration is understandable and, in its own way, justified.
But dissatisfaction, however genuine, must not be allowed to curdle into an assault on the credibility of the one examinations body that has stood the test of time in this subregion for decades. WAEC's legitimacy is not a private school's to spend, nor a critic's to squander on the strength of suspicion alone.
Crucially, no aggrieved school is without recourse.
WAEC's grievance procedures grant every candidate and institution the right to demand a remarking of scripts.
That door remains open, and it is the appropriate one to walk through, not the court of public rumour.
We say this while urging the affected private schools to also turn the lens inward: to interrogate their own teaching, supervision and preparation, and to address whatever gaps the results may have exposed. Introspection is not an admission of guilt; it is the beginning of improvement.
At the same time, we place a responsibility squarely on WAEC's shoulders.
The Council must do far more to sensitise schools, private and public alike, on how its processes and how results are released.
A better-informed public is a less suspicious one, and clearer communication would go a long way in curbing the rumours and misinformation that continue to cloud perceptions of the subregion's foremost examinations body.
In as much as we are not holding brief for WAEC, we are of the reasoning that confronted with a process this rigorous, and a remedy, i.e. remarking, that remains available to every aggrieved party, we find it difficult to accept that WAEC would simply invent marks or deliberately mark down specific schools.
We urge all in our discussions and registration of any grievances, to allow facts, not suspicion, to lead the way.
