In an own initiative report by the Ombudsman, Dr Joseph Said Pullicino said that in Malta, only the Examinations Department accepts that a candidate can access his script as part of the exercise of his right to a revision of paper.

In investigating the situation, the Ombudsman identified various institutions in the public sector which, based on the experience of his Office, had received requests for a revision of candidates’ examination scripts.

The institutions were the University of Malta and the Institute of Health Care, the Malta College of Arts, Science and Technology (MCAST), the Education Division, the Institute of Tourism Studies, and the Public Service Commission.

They were requested to provide details in respect of legislation/policies and practices applied in their sector whenever there was a request for a revision of examination papers, including what happens when a candidate requests a copy of his/her script as marked by the examiners.

In drawing up his report, Dr Said Pullicino also considered cases decided by the European Ombudsman.

He found that the Examinations Department of the Education Ministry was one step ahead in respect of transparency of the processes. This department is responsible for conducting various public examinations, he says. In the process of revision of examination scripts, the candidates who request such a revision have the right to examine their script together with a tutor of their own choice in the presence of the Director of Examinations and are therefore given the opportunity to better defend their case if they need to have recourse to the Board of Examiners.

The Ombudsman found many positive points in the circular issued by the Director, Curriculum Management, of the Education Division regarding half-yearly examinations, especially when it states that “Half-yearly examinations are an excellent opportunity for teachers to provide their students with form-ative feedback. The provision of such feedback to students contributes immensely towards the enhancement of learning. Students benefit enormously when they become aware of the strengths and weaknesses they demonstrate in examinations. Besides improving learning, such feedback would help them know what to do in order to improve their performance in forthcoming examinations.”

But the Ombudsman found there was an increasing awareness of the right of examination candidates to be informed not only of the result itself but also of the details of how the examiners reached their conclusions.

In addition, public institutions responsible for conducting examinations were in turn becoming more aware of their obligations and striving to ensure that this right was put into practice.

The Ombudsman recommends that institutions in the public sector that have not yet officially recognised within their policies regulating the conduct of written examinations the right of examination candidates to access their script should review such policies in order to incorporate this right of access.

Access could vary from that given to the candidate alone, or accompanied by a tutor of his own choice to view the script as marked, to giving the candidate a copy of the marked script. When examiners do not put down their personal annotations on the candidate’s script, the documents on which such annotations are kept should also be accessible to him.

As a corollary to this, the respective institutions should ensure that the criteria of how examinations scripts are to be marked are properly and preventively established by regulation. These regulations should provide that, when a candidate is given access to the script or the documents containing the relative annotations, these should be legible and decipherable in a way as to provide the candidate with a clear message of the examiner’s evaluation of the replies given by him.

In any case, Dr Said Pullicino added, procedures regarding access must be set out in advance in a precise and uniform manner to ensure the highest degree of transparency and seriousness in the examination process. Nothing should be done to diminish the citizen’s faith in the process as a fair means of certification of a candidate’s level of competence. The public examination, in all of its various forms, should remain an effective tool for evaluating the candidates’ qualities and abilities.