When Education Becomes an Expensive Cycle of Failure: How FBISE’s Rushed Second Annual Examination, Crushing Fees and Reported Mass Failure of Students Expose the Ministry’s Indiff

By: Hurish Shah

Published By :ANI News Agency

Education is supposed to provide hope, opportunity and intellectual development. It must never become a mechanism through which students are repeatedly failed, hurried into another examination and burdened with unaffordable fees. Unfortunately, the Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education’s schedule for the HSSC Second Annual Examination 2026 presents a deeply disturbing picture of administrative insensitivity, financial exploitation and disregard for students’ academic futures.

The Federal Ministry of Education and Professional Training deserves condemnation in the strongest possible terms for allowing such an unreasonable policy to be imposed upon students, particularly the children of overseas Pakistanis. A ministry entrusted with protecting educational interests cannot remain a silent spectator while its subordinate examination system places students under severe academic, psychological and financial pressure.

The FBISE fee notification was issued on 9 September 2026, while the deadline for submitting admission forms with the normal fee was fixed as 21 September. In practical terms, students were given only 12 days to understand their results, decide whether to reappear or seek improvement, arrange the necessary documents and deposit a substantial examination fee. Those unable to meet this narrow deadline would immediately be pushed into the double-fee and triple-fee categories.

What educational justification exists for such an unnecessarily compressed schedule? Students who have failed one or more subjects require time to identify their weaknesses, consult their teachers, revise the syllabus and prepare themselves mentally for another attempt. Instead of providing this opportunity, the Board has placed them on an administrative conveyor belt consisting of the result, fee, form and another examination, all within a remarkably short period.

The examination is scheduled to commence on 28 October 2026. This gives affected students little meaningful preparation time. The situation is even more alarming because these candidates must simultaneously continue their second-year studies. They are effectively being forced to choose between preparing for their failed first-year subjects and attending to their ongoing second-year syllabus.

Previously, a more practical arrangement existed under which students having a compartment in first year, or wishing to improve their marks, could appear in those subjects alongside their second-year annual examinations. That system enabled students to continue their regular classes without unnecessary disruption and provided them with sufficient preparation time. The present arrangement abandons that academic balance.

Under the new schedule, students may lose a considerable portion of their second-year academic session while preparing for first-year papers. After appearing in the second annual examination, they will have to return to a second-year syllabus from which they have already become disconnected. When the second-year annual examination arrives, many may again be inadequately prepared. The result could be another failure, another admission form and another heavy fee. This is not educational reform. It is the creation of a cruel cycle of failure, repeated examinations and repeated payments.

The financial burden is equally indefensible. At the prevailing exchange rate, the examination fee of US$130 amounts to approximately Rs. 36,100 per part. A non-registered candidate must pay approximately Rs. 63,800, including nearly Rs. 27,700 as a registration fee. These amounts may increase further when bank conversion rates and transaction charges are included.

Even more objectionable is the condition that a student appearing in only one failed or improvement paper must pay the full fee for the entire relevant part. How can it be fair to charge a candidate the same amount for one paper as another candidate appearing in several subjects? A just examination system should determine fees according to the number and nature of papers. The present policy has no reasonable connection with the actual examination services being provided to individual students.

Reports that nearly 90% of certain overseas students were declared unsuccessful make the matter far more serious. If this reported failure rate is accurate, it cannot simply be dismissed as poor student performance. Such an extraordinary outcome raises legitimate questions about the difficulty and relevance of the papers, differences in curricula, examination administration, marking standards and the preparedness of institutions affiliated with FBISE abroad.

A failure rate of this magnitude is not merely a student problem. It is evidence of a possible institutional failure. When the overwhelming majority of candidates cannot succeed, responsible authorities must examine the system before blaming the students. The Federal Education Ministry and FBISE must disclose the results according to institutions and subjects, explain the reasons for the reported mass failure and order an independent investigation into paper setting, assessment and marking procedures.

The Ministry’s silence is unacceptable. It cannot celebrate educational development in official speeches while ignoring policies that cause distress to Pakistani families abroad. Overseas Pakistanis contribute significantly to Pakistan’s economy and national development. Their children deserve fair treatment, reasonable examination schedules and affordable fees. They do not deserve an arrangement that appears more interested in collecting revenue than correcting academic deficiencies.

When students are failed in unusually large numbers and then immediately charged substantial amounts for another examination, the process naturally creates the impression that education has been turned into a commercial enterprise. Whether or not revenue generation was the intention, this is the perception produced by the policy. The Ministry and the Board are responsible for removing that perception through transparency, fairness and urgent corrective action.

Affected students should not be required to bear the financial consequences of possible systemic weaknesses. If the reported mass failure resulted from deficiencies in paper setting, assessment or institutional coordination, the candidates must be allowed to reappear free of cost. At the very least, fees should be charged according to the number of subjects, and students appearing in one or two papers should not be forced to pay the full fee for an entire part.

The examination schedule should also be extended substantially. Alternatively, first-year supplementary and improvement papers should once again be conducted alongside the second-year annual examinations. This would protect students’ regular studies and give them a realistic opportunity to prepare.

The Federal Minister for Education must personally take notice of this matter. The Ministry should order an independent inquiry, extend the schedule, review the fee structure, abolish disproportionate double-fee and triple-fee penalties and provide relief to the affected overseas students.

Education cannot be managed like a fee collection counter. Every unreasonable deadline, unexplained mass failure and excessive charge affects a student’s confidence, family and future. If the Ministry continues to remain indifferent, it will not merely be guilty of administrative negligence. It will be responsible for turning an educational setback into prolonged academic and financial punishment.