General Comments

The paper compared favourably in standard and scope with that of previous years. The rubrics in the question paper were clear and easy to understand. Virtually all domains of learning featured significantly in the paper. Candidates’ performance varies from good, bad to ugly but was comparable to previous years. The marking scheme was detailed, specific and less ambiguous.

The time allotted was adequate. The candidates’ raw mean score of 15 out of 60 and standard deviation of 08.06 with a candidature of 54,614 indicates a poor performance than that of WASSCE FOR PRIVATE CANDIDATES 2017, which recorded a raw mean score of 28 out of 60 marks and a standard deviation of 10.64 with a candidature of 63,546.