Teachers enrolled in Guyana’s Education Management Certificate Course (EMCC) are demanding answers from those responsible for the programme after being instructed to resit the final examination without receiving their marks, marking breakdowns or feedback explaining why they did not pass.
In an anonymous statement shared on Prime News, the educators raised concerns about the fairness and transparency of the examination process, the marking system and the handling of appeals, calling for an independent review of allegations surrounding the assessment.
The teachers said candidates nationwide completed an examination lasting almost three hours, marked out of 100, which required extensive written responses to school management scenarios designed to test critical thinking and practical application.
Despite their efforts, they said they were informed that they had to resit, without being told their scores or where they had fallen short.
“No scores. No marking breakdown. No feedback. No explanation. Just a resit notice.”
The teachers said the absence of feedback left them unable to identify their weaknesses or prepare effectively for another examination.
They also cited unconfirmed reports that more than 200 teachers across Guyana had been required to resit, saying the figure, if accurate, warranted clarification from the programme’s administrators.
Questions raised over marking process
The educators questioned whether the marking arrangements allowed for a thorough assessment of the lengthy examination booklets.
According to the statement, they were informed that markers received $120 per booklet and that one marker was assigned approximately 50 scripts. They questioned whether the responses were adequately read and fairly assessed under those arrangements.
The statement also alleged that no panel marking was conducted and that candidate numbers were reportedly provided to markers so that selected individuals could receive passing grades.
The teachers stressed that the claims remained unverified but said they warranted investigation.
“While these claims remain unverified, they raise serious questions about the fairness and integrity of the marking process. Were all teachers assessed fairly, or was preferential treatment given to some? These concerns deserve an independent review.”
No evidence substantiating the allegations was provided in the statement, and no response from the EMCC administrators was included.
Appeal process under scrutiny
The teachers said the EMCC handbook allows candidates to appeal within three days of the release of examination results. They reported emailing the course coordinator to request a review but said they had received no response.
Instead, they said, Master Trainers informed them that they should prepare for the resit, leaving their concerns about the original results unresolved.
“What is the purpose of an appeal process if teachers cannot even receive a response? How can we appeal results we have never seen?”
They also pointed to the handbook’s provision that a resit carries a maximum grade of C or Pass, arguing that access to their original scores and a fair appeal process was therefore particularly important.
The educators further expressed concern over reports that teachers who do not complete the resit could be removed from the programme. They questioned what would happen to the eight quizzes they had completed and the Action Research paper they had invested time in preparing, and whether one examination could determine the outcome of the entire course.
The statement did not establish whether the reported removal policy had been formally confirmed.
Fear of victimisation
Beyond the examination itself, the teachers said some participants were reluctant to speak publicly because they feared victimisation, harassment or being targeted for raising concerns.
They said educators preparing for leadership roles should be able to question decisions and expect the same standards of fairness they are expected to uphold in schools.
“We are not refusing to accept failure. We are refusing to accept an examination outcome without being shown our results or given a reasonable explanation.”
The teachers said they were not seeking preferential treatment or undeserved passes but wanted their scores, meaningful feedback, clarification of the marking process and access to the appeal procedure outlined in the handbook.
They called on those responsible for the EMCC to explain the resit decisions and ensure that concerns about marking and appeals are addressed fairly and transparently.
See letter below:
SERIOUS CONCERNS REGARDING THE EMCC FINAL EXAMINATION AND RESIT PROCESS IN GUYANA
We are deeply frustrated and disappointed with how the Education Management Certificate Course (EMCC) final examination and resit process have been handled. As educators, we are expected to uphold fairness, transparency, accountability and professionalism. Yet, these very principles seem to be lacking in how we are being treated.
Teachers across Guyana completed an almost three-hour examination, marked out of 100, consisting of numerous school management scenarios requiring critical thinking, practical application and extensive written responses. Despite the demands of the examination, we gave it our best, only to be informed that we must resit.
No scores. No marking breakdown. No feedback. No explanation. Just a resit notice.
How is this fair? How can teachers be expected to accept failure without knowing their marks or where they fell short? How are we supposed to prepare for another examination without knowing what we did wrong?
We have heard unconfirmed reports that over 200 teachers nationwide have been required to resit. If accurate, this raises serious concerns that deserve clarification.
Another troubling issue is the marking process. We were informed that markers were paid $120 per examination booklet and that one marker was assigned approximately 50 booklets. Considering the length of the examination and the amount of writing required, what kind of marking was really done? Were our responses properly read and fairly assessed?
We were also informed that no panel marking was done and that candidate numbers were allegedly given to markers so that selected individuals could receive passing grades. While these claims remain unverified, they raise serious questions about the fairness and integrity of the marking process. Were all teachers assessed fairly, or was preferential treatment given to some? These concerns deserve an independent review.
What makes this situation even more frustrating is that the EMCC handbook provides for appeals within three days of the release of examination results. We sent an email to the Coordinator requesting a review, and to date, we have received no response. Instead, our Master Trainers have informed us that we must prepare for the resit, even though our concerns remain unanswered.
What is the purpose of an appeal process if teachers cannot even receive a response? How can we appeal results we have never seen? We understand that Master Trainers may simply be communicating instructions, but this does not address the lack of feedback from those responsible for the examination.
We are also concerned about reports that teachers who do not complete the resit may be removed from the programme. What happens to the eight quizzes we completed and the Action Research paper we have invested so much time in preparing? Does one examination determine whether we pass or fail the entire programme? If so, this should be clearly explained.
The handbook also states that a resit carries a maximum grade of C or Pass, making access to our original scores and a fair appeal process even more important.
Let us not forget the sacrifices teachers made. We adjusted our schedules, gave up personal and family time to attend the examination on a Saturday and completed almost three hours of demanding written work. After all that effort, is it unreasonable to expect our results and an explanation?
Even more disturbing is that some teachers are afraid to speak out for fear of being victimised, harassed or targeted. Teachers should never feel intimidated for raising legitimate concerns. We teach students to think critically, ask questions and stand up for what is right, yet some educators feel afraid to do the same.
We are being trained to become educational leaders, but what kind of leadership example is being demonstrated here? Would we be allowed to tell students they failed, withhold their marks, provide no feedback and simply demand that they rewrite an examination? Absolutely not! Why should teachers accept different treatment?
We are frustrated, disappointed and mentally exhausted. We are not asking for undeserved passes or special treatment. We want our examination scores, meaningful feedback, clarification of the marking process and fair access to the appeal procedure outlined in the handbook.
We are not refusing to accept failure. We are refusing to accept an examination outcome without being shown our results or given a reasonable explanation.
If we failed, show us where we failed! If a resit is necessary, explain why! If an appeal process exists, honour it! And if concerns have been raised about the marking, investigate them fairly and transparently!
A programme designed to develop effective educational leaders should lead by example, not leave teachers frustrated, fearful and questioning the very principles it claims to promote.
We are not asking for favours. We are asking for answers, fairness and the respect we deserve.
Concerned EMCC Teachers
(Anonymous)
