KCSE is not a weather forecast: Teachers must stop chasing examination shortcuts

There is something increasingly worrying about the conduct of some teachers during the Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education (KCSE) examination period. Across WhatsApp groups and other social media platforms, teachers are busy asking for predictions. They want to know which questions the Kenya National Examinations Council (KNEC) is likely to set, which topics will feature in particular papers and which areas candidates should concentrate on at the expense of others.

One is left wondering: Have we reached a point where teaching has been reduced to gambling with examination predictions?

KCSE is not a weather forecast. It is not a football match whose outcome can be speculated upon. It is a national examination designed to assess learners' understanding, knowledge, competencies and ability to apply what they have learned over several years. It should not be approached through guesswork, rumours, recycled predictions or supposed insider information circulating in WhatsApp groups.

Let us be honest. If you have adequately covered the syllabus, prepared your learners, assessed their progress and addressed their weaknesses, why should you be desperately looking for someone to tell you what KNEC is likely to examine?

A competent teacher prepares learners for the examination; a careless teacher prepares learners for predictions.

The greatest danger of examination predictions is that they create a false sense of security. A teacher who convinces learners that certain topics are unlikely to appear may unknowingly encourage them to ignore important areas of the syllabus. When the examination eventually tests those supposedly neglected areas, the consequences are borne by the candidates.

Imagine a candidate who has spent months revising only the topics highlighted in a WhatsApp prediction, only to encounter an examination paper that demands knowledge of areas they were advised to ignore.

Who will take responsibility? Will the person who circulated the prediction accept responsibility for misleading hundreds of candidates? Will the WhatsApp group administrator explain why learners were encouraged to gamble with their academic future?

Certainly not. The candidate will be left to face the consequences.

Teachers must understand that examination preparation is a professional responsibility, not a guessing competition. Our work is to interpret the curriculum, identify learning gaps, provide adequate instructional support, expose learners to different question formats and develop their confidence in handling unfamiliar questions.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with analysing previous KCSE papers. In fact, past papers are valuable instructional resources. They help teachers understand examination formats, identify recurring assessment approaches, appreciate the depth of questions and familiarise learners with the demands of national examinations.

However, there is a fundamental difference between examining trends and predicting questions.

A serious teacher uses previous examinations to strengthen learners' understanding of the entire syllabus. A misguided teacher uses the same papers to convince learners that certain topics will not appear because they have supposedly been examined too frequently.

KNEC is not obligated to follow anyone's predictions. It is not required to maintain a predictable pattern simply because teachers have identified trends in previous examinations. Assessment approaches can change, questions can be framed differently, and familiar concepts can be tested in unfamiliar contexts.

That is precisely why learners must be prepared broadly and deeply.

### Teachers must return to professional responsibility

We must also question the professional culture that encourages teachers to spend valuable time searching for examination leaks, speculative predictions and alleged examination insiders instead of evaluating their own instructional effectiveness.

How many teachers have reviewed their schemes of work to establish whether they have covered every required topic? How many have analysed learners' performance in topical tests to identify persistent weaknesses? How many have organised meaningful remedial lessons? How many have taken time to explain difficult concepts rather than simply dictate notes and rush through the syllabus?

These are the questions that deserve attention.

A teacher who has not completed syllabus coverage has no business misleading learners with confident predictions about what will appear in the examination. A teacher who has neglected continuous assessment cannot compensate for that failure by forwarding a colourful document titled *KCSE 2026 Sure Predictions*.

And let us address the uncomfortable truth: Some teachers rely on shortcuts because they have not done enough professional work. They want to appear knowledgeable by circulating predictions, yet they have not invested sufficient time in understanding the curriculum or preparing their learners comprehensively.

That is not examination expertise. It is professional negligence.

Our candidates deserve better. They have invested years in their education. Their parents and guardians have made enormous sacrifices. Schools have invested resources in teaching and learning. It would be unfortunate for all these efforts to be undermined by teachers who choose speculation over preparation.

School administrators and heads of departments must also take responsibility. They should monitor syllabus coverage, demand accountability from subject teachers, encourage collaborative lesson preparation and ensure that learners receive adequate revision support.

The focus should be on instructional quality, not the number of prediction documents circulating in departmental WhatsApp groups.

Teachers should instead be sharing well-prepared revision materials, challenging questions, marking schemes, practical exercises, concept explanations and effective revision strategies. Such resources add genuine value to teaching and learning.

There is also a moral and professional obligation to protect the integrity of national examinations. Any individual claiming to possess confidential KNEC examination information should be treated with extreme caution. Teachers must not expose learners to examination malpractice or encourage dependence on information whose authenticity cannot be established.

Ultimately, examination success should be built on competence, confidence, discipline and adequate preparation.

To my fellow teachers, let us return to the fundamentals of our profession. Teach the syllabus. Assess understanding. Correct mistakes. Address learning gaps. Encourage independent thinking. Prepare candidates to tackle questions they have never encountered before.

Stop making learners believe that academic success depends on knowing tomorrow's questions today.

KCSE is not a lottery, and KNEC is not a weather station. The examination should find our candidates prepared, not lucky.

If you have taught effectively, covered the syllabus and prepared your learners adequately, you do not need someone on WhatsApp to tell you which question is coming.