SOUTH Africa’s quality assurance body, Umalusi, has revealed alarming flaws in the marking guidelines for the November 2025 Senior Certificate (NSC) exams, raising questions about the integrity of the education assessment system.
Image: FILE
SOUTH Africa’s quality assurance body, Umalusi, has revealed alarming flaws in the marking guidelines for the November 2025 Senior Certificate (NSC) exams, raising questions about the integrity of the education assessment system.
The findings are contained in Umalusi’s latest report on the quality assurance of the Department of Basic Education (DBE), which oversees the administration of the annual matric exams.
According to the report, errors were identified in 65 out of 144 marking guidelines during the first level of moderation.
These guidelines are critical documents that instruct exam markers on how to allocate marks consistently across all subjects nationwide.
While many of the errors were described as typographical, Umalusi noted broader issues affecting the reliability and usability of the guidelines.
“Forty-four marking guidelines failed to include all the correct answers for the subject matter. This is alarming because the accuracy of the marking guidelines is crucial for fair and consistent scoring of candidates’ work,” the report stated.
The report further highlighted multiple deficiencies:
In one case, a guideline did not follow the principle of awarding marks positively, while another failed to use a rubric where necessary.
Umalusi spokesperson Biki Lepota emphasised that the problems were identified early in the moderation process, and ultimately did not affect pupils’ results.
“The findings presented in the DBE report are based solely on the first level of moderation of question papers and marking guidelines.
“It should be noted that for the November 2025 National Senior Certificate (NSC) examinations, all DBE question papers and marking guidelines administered during this period ultimately met the prescribed quality standards, and were accordingly approved by Umalusi for administration,” Lepota said.
He stressed that the moderation process was iterative; and designed to catch and correct such issues.
“Errors identified in the 65 marking guidelines were detected at the first level of moderation. Following submission to subsequent levels of moderation, all identified errors were fully corrected. Consequently, no errors compromised the accuracy of marking.”
Lepota explained that multiple rounds of review, coupled with detailed feedback to the DBE, ensured that all exam materials met required standards before being used.
However, education experts say the findings point to deeper systemic concerns about quality control within the examination process.
Professor Wayne Hugo, from the University of KwaZulu-Natal, warned that flawed marking guidelines could have serious consequences for pupils.
“We need to consider what a marking guideline actually is. It is the instrument that translates a pupil's effort into a number, and that number into a future,” Hugo said.
“When a guideline omits a correct answer, a marker working under time pressure in a hot marking centre has no basis on which to award the mark. The pupil who produced the right response gets zero for it.”
He added that poorly-constructed guidelines increased the likelihood of inconsistent marking, particularly disadvantageous pupils in under-resourced schools.
“The downstream cost falls on the pupils least able to absorb it,” he said.
Hugo also questioned the standards applied to those responsible for drafting the guidelines.
“We run a system that preaches to 17-year-olds about attention to detail. Yet the officials responsible for the foundational documents of the entire marking process could not be bothered to ensure that every correct answer was included, and every word was spelled right before submitting their work.
“The standard we demand of a Grade 12 pupil is, apparently, higher than the standard we demand of a national examining panel,” he said.
While Umalusi maintains that its quality assurance processes ultimately safeguarded the integrity of the 2025 exams, Hugo argues that detecting errors during moderation is not enough.
“Catching errors after the fact is damage limitation, not quality assurance,” he said.
He called for greater accountability within the DBE.
“Who, inside the DBE, is responsible for ensuring that marking guidelines leave the building in a fit state? And what are the consequences when they do not?”
Hugo also raised concerns about how examining panels were appointed, suggesting that merit should take precedence over patronage.
“If the supposed best of the best cannot get the basics of a memo right, then we need to rethink how we appoint them,” he said.
The KwaZulu-Natal Department of Education did not respond at the time of publication.