ORDINARY Level and Advanced Level Zimsec results for 2025 are now out.
This presents a different dynamic for children who want to make decisions about their future.
For some, accessing the results is not easy as they may be owing their school in school fees.
It is sad that some fail to access their results at all, resulting in failure to transition to the next level.
We will put on a child rights lens, but this is not with a blurry vision. We explore what happens to a child’s emotional well-being and future when duty-bearing systems on child protection falter, from the parent, to the school, to the relevant ministry and eventually enabling systems of care and support.
Ministry’s standing and public-private schools’ scenarios
Keep Reading
- School of sport: Who is in charge?
- Govt pleased with teacher turnout, but ...
- Teacher shortage hits rural schools
- Govt warns schools turning away learners
For the 2026 results, the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education MoPSE, is reported to have quickly issued a statement that reminds schools not to withhold Grade 7/O/A level results. This follows a standing circular issued years ago. The question is then why do schools do it when the ministry’s position has been clear all along? There are also a number of court cases over the issue. In 2018, the Bulawayo High Court declared the practice of withholding examination results unconstitutional and unlawful. In a different but somewhat similar case, the Harare High Court in 2009 upheld the upholding of contractual enforcement in a private-school context. Zimbabwean case law is not perfectly uniform because contexts differ (private “trust schools” with contracts vs broader public-exam rights and constitutional framing) For public examinations (Zimsec), the MoPSE’s policy direction and the public schools’ discourse push strongly towards “release results; pursue parents for debt separately” while for private/contractual settings, courts have at times been receptive to strict contract enforcement so schools often rely on contractual clauses.
Impact on children
While the issue is often framed as an administrative or a financial matter, its consequences are deeply personal for children. The impact of withheld results extends far beyond paperwork. When children cannot access their results slips or certificates, their futures are immediately disrupted. They may be unable to enrol in Form 1, Form 5, university, polytechnic or vocational training, missing critical opportunities for academic and personal development or employment applications that require proof of academic achievement. Time lost in such transitions cannot be recovered, as in some cases scholarship deadlines lapse, apprenticeship offers are missed and pathways are closed. The psychological toll is equally significant. Anxiety, shame and social stigma summed up in the thought that “everyone has their results except me” can lead to isolation, diminished self-esteem and tension within families.
This impact is also not felt equally. Children from low-income families are disproportionately affected, effectively penalising poverty and deepening inequality. From a child protection perspective, denying access to results undermines not only education but a child’s right to dignity, growth and opportunity. Every child deserves to be treated as a learner first, not a debt collector’s proxy. It, therefore, infringes upon a child’s constitutional right to education and violates the best interest principle, both recognised in Zimbabwe’s Constitution and education policies.
The right to protect and promote: who bears it for children?
Protecting learners is a shared responsibility. Parents and caregivers are often the first on the duty bearer ladder. They occupy the lowest rung, which to us is closest to the child and most significant. We call them the “first line of accountability and support.”
Their roles when it comes to protecting the child are fourfold. Firstly, they need to appreciate that schools rely on them to run successfully.
That means that paying school fees helps the schools to run smoothly. Where they are likely to face challenges, they need to plan early and engage the school to negotiate written payment plans before the results season.
They can also use the school development committee/school parents assembly channels to communicate challenges or proposals where applicable.
They should also abide by any agreed repayment plan. They should also use district/provincial-level authority, such as the provincial education director, if the school refuses to co-operate.
Finally, they can approach the litigation providers as their last option, where they feel their child has been unfairly treated.
On the second rung sits the school, which is in loco parentis when it comes to child protection.
In loco parentis means the school should act as a responsible guardian while the child is under its authority.
In this context, good practice is for the school authority to separate the child from the debt dispute and treat the fee issue as a parent–school civil matter, not a learner sanction.
The schools need to use lawful debt recovery methods such as written demands, repayment plans, mediation, civil action against parents where appropriate; rather than holding “hostage documents”.
The school needs to apply its own safeguarding lens and consider the best interests of the affected child, stigma and harm to the learner’s prospects.
Every school needs to employ a hardship-pathways programme with fee exemption/waiver criteria and social welfare referrals for vulnerable cases.
The school can rope in charity organisations or their alumni to help with vulnerable children. They also need to comply with ministry regulations on safeguarding.
We have put MoPSE on the third rung. MoPSE’s role is to make the “no-withholding” rule real through:
- Issuing enforceable compliance guidance to all schools each exam cycle (for both public + private).
- Drawing up a complaint and enforcement mechanism: a rapid channel (district/provincial) with consequences for repeat offenders.
- Putting in place a standard operating procedure for results release and debt recovery alternatives.
MoPSE has already publicly reiterated the directive; the gap is consistent enforcement and monitoring.
On the fourth rung is the Finance ministry, the “system fixer”. The ministry’s lever is not disciplining schools but decisively reducing the conditions that produce arrears through;
- Providing predictable school financing so that schools don’t resort to coercive collection.
- Providing more funding for targeted learner support for exam classes.
- Putting in place a “results release guarantee” fund where the government pays a portion (or provides a bridging facility) for verified vulnerable learners, then recovers through social protection or payment plans where appropriate.
This is where win–win becomes possible: schools stay solvent without punishing learners.
Conclusion
Zimbabwe’s legal framework is clear that children have a constitutional right to education and their best interests are central to the country’s child protection standards.
As such, the responsibility of parents and guardians to pay school fees does not fall away when results are released.
Nevertheless, children should not be caught in conflicts between parents and school authorities over school fee payment. Other countries provide useful models that Zimbabwe can consider adopting.
South Africa prohibits withholding report cards for any reason under its National Protocol on Assessment, while Kenya is moving exam certificates out of school control to prevent children from being caught in financial disputes.
Zimbabwe can adopt similar measures, ensuring learners access Zimsec results directly while separating fee disputes from educational progression. Withheld exam results are more than an administrative problem; they are a child protection issue. Every learner deserves to advance, grow and thrive!