AI didn’t break the SBA system, CXC’s weak oversight did

EDITOR: Parents demand transparency, fairness, and a modern exam system worthy of our children.

Until governance, quality control and real parent and student engagement improve, exam reform may deepen inequity – not fix it.

Our commentary comes from a parental perspective – the largest national constituency. Parents are our children’s first teachers. We are also the ones who feel the consequences of poor policy, weak accountability, and exam chaos most directly. No education system can succeed without strong, parental engagement being respected.

Too often parents underestimate the power we collectively hold to demand meaningful change.

We are proud CARICOM citizens and beneficiaries of our home grown education system. Our critiques are not attacks; they are acts of care. When concerns go unanswered, we go public because silence from decision makers leaves us no choice. Public awareness is also essential: education is the bedrock of national development, and its failures affect every child and thus affect all of us. Education outcomes ripple across every household, every community, and every future.

We welcome any reform that strengthens the validity, reliability, and, above all, fairness of CXC’s exams – the global gold best practice standards of assessment.

But CXC’s recently announced overhaul of CSEC and CAPE exams, effective May/June 2027, demands far more scrutiny than it has received. The removal of SBAs from most ‘non practical’ subjects and their replacement with yet another high stakes exam, Paper 032, is not a minor adjustment.

It is a fundamental restructuring of how hundreds of thousands of Caribbean students are annually assessed.

The official justification – inappropriate AI use by students – is incomplete and unfair. SBA integrity issues existed long before AI.

To frame students as widespread abusers of AI is disrespectful to those who followed the rules. A serious regional exam body should not hide behind a convenient narrative. We need transparency about how other international exam bodies are responding to AI, and how CXC’s approach compares.

AI is already embedded in every aspect of modern life, including teaching and learning long before external exams. Has our national education system trained teachers and students in ethical AI use from primary school upward? If not, then blaming students is a deflection.

If CXC is serious about exam integrity, it must confront long standing flaws in the SBA process that contributed to this crisis.

Master Teachers have raised these issues for decades. Many SBAs were not truly school based practicals but largely completed at home. Long before AI, abuse was reported: some students paying others to do their SBAs, reusing SBAs from previous years, and/ oror accessing work from siblings and friends. What quality controls did CXC have in place? How widespread was this abuse? Where is the public data?

And what happened to the promised 100% moderation (review) of SBAs by CXC after the 2020 CXC Grading Fiasco? Thousands of students were negatively affected, education paths derailed, many permanently, after they did all asked them in the middle of a pandemic, and yet we still have no clear explanation of how moderation was strengthened – or whether it was even feasible. Many students still receive ungraded results or inaccurate grades because SBAs were not properly transmitted or received, apparently due to insuffi cient checks in the system. The removal of SBAs from most subjects may be a tacit admission that CXC did not have the capacity to manage them at scale.

This raises a critical question: will this reform disadvantage many students who struggle with traditional high stakes exams and relied on SBAs to earn honest passing grades? SBAs provided teacher support, exposure to research, and critical thinking skills that many students desperately need. The Barbados Union of Teachers has rightly highlighted this concern.

CXC must provide evidence – not just assurances – that the new Paper 032 replacing SBAs for non-practical subjects will not deepen inequity.

The reform also places CAPE students in an impossible position. Those who completedYear 1 under the old system will suddenly face an untested assessment model inYear 2, 2027. This is reckless.

Major exam changes should be phased in, tested, and accompanied by mock exams, in accordance with best practice. Instead, that CAPE student cohort are being treated like guinea pigs.

CXC has not even published a clear list of subjects losing SBAs.

This should have been released with the initial announcement.

In the absence of essential information, fear and misinformation flourish. Parents and students deserve clarity, not confusion.

CXC claims “extensive consultation” on this SBA reform.

Yet many parents and students – major stakeholders – report little to no meaningful engagement.

This is unacceptable. Consultation cannot be a box ticking exercise or a conversation with a carefully selected few.

A broader conversation is urgently needed on how global exam bodies are adjusting assessments to cope with AI misuse, and how CXC’s decision compares.

AI literacy – ethical, responsible, and practical – must be taught from primary school. Without this foundation, exam reform can be perceived as punitive.

An effective, comprehensive discussion about CXC’s exam integrity must go beyond SBAs. It must address:

● Too many recurring flawed exam questions and grades, with limited student recourse

● Sudden structural changes that ambush students mid exam

● Multiple choice papers where up to 55/60 questions are repeats and easily accessible

● Allegations that AI was used to set flawed 2026 exam questions ● The disastrous January 2026 launch of digital hybrid exams for CSEC Maths and English A, which caused hours long delays and severe student confusion and anxiety in Barbados and Trinidad & Tobago, followed by dismissive official CXC responses. This track record does not inspire confidence. CARICOM taxpayers fund CXC. We are entitled to accountability, transparency, and respect.

For six years – since the 2020 Grading Fiasco, and others long before – we have consistently called for independent external oversight, stronger exam paper and grading quality assurance and control, genuine engagement and enhanced communication with parents and students. Without these reforms, accountability will remain opaque and mired in “pass the buck.”

Regional education transformation efforts will not be effective if the exam system remains flawed.

What is the point of Barbados’ and CARICOM’s massive investment in education transformation if the final student assessment mechanism, CXC, is not similarly modernised, transparent, and reliable?

Who holds CXC accountable?

And in a global marketplace, should our children have the right to access other exam bodies to ensure true competitiveness?

Our children deserve nothing less than a system worthy of their futures.

Paula-Anne Moore Parent Advocate Spokesperson and Coordinator Group of Concerned Parents of Barbados Caribbean Coalition for Exam Redress