…Why the 2027 SSCE Calendar Must Go Beyond Scheduling to Address Examiners’ Welfare and Institutional Efficiency
By Ahmed Umar Jimada
Nigeria’s education sector is at a critical crossroads, and the proposed 2027 Senior School Certificate Examination (SSCE) calendar presents an opportunity to address some of the persistent challenges confronting the country’s examination system. While the proposed adjustment to examination dates deserves consideration, the government must look beyond scheduling and confront a fundamental issue affecting the quality and sustainability of public examinations: the remuneration and welfare of examiners.
Having participated actively in the 2025 and 2026 marking exercises organised by the West African Examinations Council (WAEC), the National Examinations Council (NECO), and the National Business and Technical Examinations Board (NABTEB), I have observed significant differences in the remuneration offered to examiners. These differences raise important questions about fairness, professional motivation, and the ability of examination bodies to attract and retain experienced personnel.
My experience has convinced me that Nigeria needs a more transparent, equitable, and sustainable framework for remunerating examination professionals. An examination system that depends on the expertise of teachers and subject specialists must also demonstrate a commitment to their welfare.
A Troubling Gap in Examiners’ Remuneration
The remuneration differences observed during the 2025 and 2026 marking exercises deserve serious attention.
In 2025, WAEC paid English Language examiners approximately ₦33,000. In 2026, the rate for English Language examiners in the EG III category increased to approximately ₦41,000. For EG I personnel serving as team leaders, the remuneration was approximately ₦50,000, according to my experience during the marking exercises.
By contrast, NECO paid approximately ₦26,000 to examiners in 2025, with the same rate maintained in 2026. NABTEB’s remuneration for examiners across the EG I, EG II, and EG III categories was reported to be below ₦30,000.
These figures, based on my participation in the marking exercises, reveal a substantial difference in the remuneration offered by the examination bodies. The exact rates should be interpreted in light of the duties, categories, and payment structures applicable to each assignment. Nevertheless, the differences raise a legitimate question about whether examiners performing demanding assessment duties are being remunerated fairly and whether the rates adequately reflect prevailing economic realities.
For example, the approximately ₦41,000 paid by WAEC to an EG III English Language examiner in 2026 represents an increase of about 24 per cent over the approximately ₦33,000 paid in 2025. NECO’s rate, by comparison, remained at approximately ₦26,000 across the two years.
These differences are concerning, particularly when the cost of transportation, feeding, accommodation, and other basic necessities continues to place pressure on workers.
It is difficult to justify a system in which professionals undertake similarly demanding examination-marking responsibilities but receive substantially different remuneration without a transparent explanation of the differences.
Although the examination bodies operate under different administrative and financial arrangements, those differences should not prevent them from establishing fair, transparent, and competitive payment policies.
The issue is not simply that one examination body pays more than another. It is that remuneration should reflect the responsibilities involved, the demands of the assignment, the prevailing economic situation, and the need to sustain professional participation.
WAEC’s Improved Remuneration: A Lesson Worth Studying
WAEC’s decision to improve its remuneration rates between 2025 and 2026 deserves recognition. From my experience, the increase brought greater encouragement to examiners and demonstrated the importance of reviewing payment structures in response to economic realities.
The adjustment from approximately ₦33,000 to ₦41,000 for EG III English Language examiners represents a welcome development. Similarly, the remuneration received by EG I personnel serving as team leaders reflected a higher payment level for those responsibilities.
Such improvements send an important message: institutions that depend on professional expertise must be willing to reconsider the conditions under which that expertise is provided.
NECO and NABTEB should therefore examine their existing remuneration structures and consider appropriate adjustments. Maintaining old rates while living costs rise may make marking assignments less attractive to experienced professionals.
This concern should not be dismissed as a mere complaint about money. Examiners have regular teaching and professional responsibilities, and accepting marking assignments requires additional time, concentration, and commitment. Fair remuneration helps recognise that contribution.
It is also important to acknowledge that payment alone does not determine the quality of an examination system. Training, effective supervision, standardised marking schemes, adequate working conditions, and professional integrity remain essential. Nevertheless, fair compensation is a significant part of creating an environment in which qualified examiners are willing to participate consistently.
Electronic Recording: An Innovation Worth Sustaining
Beyond remuneration, another important development deserves attention: WAEC’s use of electronic systems for recording and transmitting examination marks.
Over the past two years, I have observed the use of a system through which examiners transmit recorded marks electronically using a designated online link after marking has been completed.
This development is a welcome step towards modernising examination administration. It offers the potential to improve record management, reduce the need for certain paper-based processes, and make the transmission of marks more efficient.
Electronic transmission can also reduce some administrative expenses associated with handling and transporting physical records. Where implemented effectively, it may help examination bodies streamline operations and improve accountability.
However, the benefits of digital systems depend on reliable technology, adequate training, data security, and appropriate procedures for correcting errors. Examiners must understand how to use the system, and institutions must provide support when technical difficulties arise.
The experience also raises an important policy question: if electronic recording and transmission systems help reduce certain administrative costs, should some of the resulting efficiencies not be used to improve examiners’ welfare and strengthen the marking process?
Examination bodies should investigate the costs and savings associated with these systems and use the findings to inform their remuneration policies.
Digital innovation should not be viewed merely as a way to reduce expenditure. It should also contribute to a more efficient, transparent, and professionally sustainable examination system.
The Risk of Losing Experienced Examiners
One of the most serious consequences of inadequate remuneration and delayed payment is the possibility that experienced examiners may become reluctant to participate in future marking exercises.
The concern is particularly relevant as Nigeria approaches the 2027 examination season.
When professionals believe that their time and expertise are not adequately rewarded, they may reconsider whether to accept future invitations. If enough qualified examiners make that decision, examination bodies could face difficulties recruiting experienced personnel.
Such a possibility deserves serious consideration because the marking process requires more than simply assigning scripts to available personnel. It depends on qualified examiners who understand the relevant subjects, can apply marking schemes consistently, and can complete their assignments within stipulated deadlines.
NECO and NABTEB should therefore not wait for recruitment difficulties to become more serious before reviewing their remuneration and payment procedures.
In addition, delayed payment after the completion of marking exercises can weaken confidence in the institutions responsible for organising them. Examiners should not have to pursue their entitlements repeatedly after fulfilling their professional obligations.
A credible examination body must demonstrate responsibility not only in the assessment of candidates but also in its treatment of the professionals it engages.
The Federal Government Must Intervene
The Federal Government should initiate a comprehensive review of remuneration and payment practices across Nigeria’s examination bodies.
The review should examine the rates paid for different examiner categories, the responsibilities associated with each grade, the duration of marking assignments, the time taken to process payments, and the operational costs associated with administering examinations.
The findings should inform a framework that encourages fair remuneration while recognising the distinct mandates and financial capacities of the institutions involved.
Several practical measures are necessary.
First, periodic reviews of marking fees. Examination bodies should regularly assess their remuneration rates against inflation, prevailing living costs, the complexity of subjects, and the responsibilities assigned to examiners.
Second, transparent payment structures. Examiners should be informed of their approved rates and payment conditions before accepting assignments. Differences in remuneration between grades and institutions should be clearly explained.
Third, prompt payment of entitlements. Examination bodies should establish realistic payment deadlines and effective procedures for resolving outstanding payments.
Fourth, investment in digital administration. Successful electronic recording and transmission systems should be maintained and improved, with adequate technical support and training for examiners.
Fifth, consultation with professionals. Teachers’ associations, experienced examiners, and other relevant stakeholders should participate in discussions concerning remuneration, marking procedures, and working conditions.
Finally, institutional accountability. Examination bodies should monitor the effectiveness of their payment systems and assess whether their remuneration policies are helping them retain qualified examiners.
These measures would encourage a more professional relationship between examination bodies and the personnel on whom they depend.
Rethinking the 2027 SSCE Examination Calendar
The proposed 2027 examination calendar should also be considered within the broader context of examination reform.
Nigeria needs an examination schedule that allows candidates adequate preparation time, gives examination bodies sufficient opportunity to organise their activities, and supports the timely release of results.
My recommendation is that the government give greater consideration to the strategic importance of indigenous examination bodies when arranging the national examination calendar.
I would welcome an arrangement in which NABTEB is scheduled second, NBAIS third, and WAEC last, provided that a careful assessment establishes that the sequence is practical and beneficial to candidates. This is my recommendation for consideration, not a claim that the government has adopted this order.
The objective should be to strengthen indigenous examination institutions, improve coordination, and ensure that candidates are not disadvantaged by avoidable administrative delays.
However, changing examination dates alone will not resolve the challenges facing the system. A well-coordinated calendar must be supported by adequate funding, qualified examiners, effective digital processes, fair remuneration, and prompt payment.
The government must therefore approach examination scheduling as part of a broader programme of institutional improvement.
Students Must Remain the Ultimate Beneficiaries
Every reform of the examination system should ultimately benefit students.
Candidates deserve credible assessment, reliable results, and a predictable timetable that allows them to pursue further education without unnecessary complications.
The quality of an examination system depends partly on the professionals who assess candidates’ work. If examination bodies struggle to attract and retain experienced examiners, the resulting pressures may affect the organisation of marking exercises and the timely processing of results.
This does not mean that differences in remuneration automatically lead to poor assessment. Rather, it highlights the importance of creating working conditions that encourage sustained professional participation.
Nigeria should seek to build an examination system in which examiners are adequately supported, institutions are accountable, and students can have confidence in the fairness and reliability of their results.
The government must also ensure that reforms are based on evidence. A comparative assessment of remuneration rates, payment timelines, administrative costs, and examiner participation would help identify the most effective interventions.
Conclusion: Fair Remuneration Is Essential to Educational Progress
Nigeria’s examination system cannot be strengthened by changing dates alone. It requires a broader commitment to institutional efficiency, professional welfare, and accountability.
My experience during the 2025 and 2026 marking exercises organised by WAEC, NECO, and NABTEB has highlighted significant differences in examiners’ remuneration. WAEC’s increase in payment rates for English Language examiners in 2026 offers an example of the importance of reviewing remuneration in response to changing economic conditions. The unchanged NECO rate and the comparatively lower NABTEB rates observed during the period raise concerns that deserve urgent attention.
The government and the examination bodies should respond through evidence-based reforms rather than allowing dissatisfaction to accumulate among professionals.
They should also sustain useful digital innovations that improve record management and reduce administrative inefficiencies, while ensuring that the benefits of such innovations contribute to a more effective examination system.
Nigeria cannot demand professional commitment while ignoring the conditions that sustain it. Fair remuneration, timely payment, efficient administration, and credible examinations must go hand in hand.
As the country prepares for the 2027 examination season, the Federal Government should take decisive steps to strengthen indigenous examination bodies, improve examiners’ welfare, and protect the interests of students.
The future of Nigerian education depends not only on the examinations we conduct, but also on the fairness of the processes, the integrity of the institutions, and the respect we show the professionals entrusted with assessing our children.
It is time to reform the system, reward professional service fairly, and place the welfare of examiners at the centre of Nigeria’s examination policy.
- Ahmed Umar Jimada writes from Minna, on Education, Literature, and Public Policy.
