Sign Language not for all candidates - Knec

Knec has rejected demands to recalculate the 2025 KCSE grades for hearing students who sat the Kenyan Sign Language exam.

In a response to Busia Senator Okiya Omtatah, the Kenya National Examinations Council CEO David Njengere said KSL was never intended to be a general elective for all students, but was introduced in 2010 to provide an equitable assessment for learners with hearing impairments.

The council said that the Kenya Institute of Curriculum Development has never revised the KSL syllabus to accommodate learners without hearing loss. 

“Specifically, the clause on subject selection for examination purposes remains unchanged… Clause 4.1.5 Kenyan Sign Language is to be taken only by candidates with hearing impairment,” Njengere explained. 

Consequently, guidelines issued in 2010 remain in force, dictating that KSL is to be used for grading purposes only for those candidates it was designed to support. 

Njengere said the framework ensures these students are evaluated in a manner that recognises their unique circumstances while maintaining fairness across the broader education system.

“However, it is important to note that not all subjects can be adapted to accommodate the diverse categories of learners with special needs. A case in point was the Kiswahili subject, which presents technical challenges that are not compatible with learners with hearing impairment.”

The council maintained that the 3,493 candidates who sat the exam—comprising the majority of the 4,162 total candidates—were ineligible for grading from the outset. 

Their registration for KSL was therefore "an abuse of the system" designed to assist hearing-impaired learners with language challenges in place of subjects such as Kiswahili.

This practice should be condemned by the public, Njengere added, as it undermines the inclusive measures intended to safeguard equal opportunities for vulnerable candidates.

The council reaffirmed its commitment to transparency and inclusivity in the national examination process and welcomed further dialogue with stakeholders to strengthen these principles, but remained firm that the existing grading does not constitute discrimination.