• Probe committee highlights gross discrepancies in marks totalling, unchecked answers and other anomalies in detailed report submitted to Sindh govt
• Finds all answer scripts were checked by examiners at home, in violation of SOPs
• Observes unfair deduction of marks in most copies reviewed by committee
• Recommends reforms for exam procedures, including uniform guidelines and increased supervision

KARACHI: With intermediate exams just around the corner next month, concerns over the credibility of the Board of Intermediate Education Karachi (BIEK) remain the same as the report of a fact-finding committee has revealed widespread irregularities in the checking and marking of answer copies of the exams held last year.

The house committee — which was formed by the Sindh Assembly on Jan 13 to investigate the controversial exams of last year — found issues such as unchecked answers, errors in the totalling of marks and inconsistent marking practices, etc.

The committee report, a copy of which is available with Dawn, states that a large number of answer scripts submitted for scrutiny showed “serious key-punching/data entry anomalies, a large number of totalling and counting mistakes, and significant portions unassessed or not graded”.

These discrepancies, according to the committee’s report, significantly undermined the credibility of the examination process.

One of the major findings was that 100 per cent of the answer scripts were checked at home by co-examiners, in violation of the board’s standard operating procedures (SOPs), which require centralised checking at designated centres.

The committee observed that this lack of centralised oversight led to inconsistencies in marking, with some examiners awarding marks leniently and others making unjustified deductions.

The report said that the method of assigning head examiners to different distribution centres contributed to biased assessments.

In multiple reviewed copies, the rationale behind the marks given was unclear, and discrepancies were found in the evaluation standards applied by different examiners.

“The BIEK has no mechanism for student learning outcome [SLO] attainment or sampling of questions from each subject after paper assessment. It [the board] has no idea how many questions were answered correctly by how many students. This leads to problems with the passing percentage, which, if handled properly, will resolve this issue permanently,” the report says.

“Choosing head examiners for different answer scripts distribution centres is also causing biased assessments. Some copies are leniently assessed, and the rationale behind the marks assigned is unclear. In most of the reviewed copies, an unfair deduction of marks was observed,” the report says.

Due to the shortage of co-examiners, many of whom refused to participate in the marking process citing low and delayed remuneration, the quality of assessment was further affected.

The shortfall resulted in an excessive workload for the available evaluators and raised concerns about the accuracy and fairness of the marking process.

The committee also pointed out the issues in the compilation of marks. The process which was carried out in multiple manual steps, was found to be prone to human error. In some cases, the marks recorded on the final result sheets did not match those awarded on the answer scripts. The report further highlights that in several instances, revised marks after scrutiny were either not updated or not reflected in the students’ final results.

Additionally, the committee found discrepancies in the scrutiny review process itself. The roll numbers shared with the committee for reviewed cases were fewer than the actual number of applications submitted, raising concerns about record-keeping and transparency.

The report recommends comprehensive reforms in checking and tabulation procedures, including uniform assessment guidelines, expanded centralised marking facilities, and increased supervision during the evaluation phase.

Published in Dawn, April 28th, 2025