A report helps a reader understand what was investigated, what the evidence showed and what action would address the problem. Its recommendations should grow from its findings. A polished heading cannot rescue a report that turns rumours into facts or proposes actions unrelated to the investigation.
This KCSE report writing example develops a complete report from fictional notes, then tests the same skills in two further tasks. It focuses on an investigative report. An event report may need a different organisation, and minutes record a meeting rather than reproduce this format.
Read the reporting brief carefully
Before planning, identify your role, your reader, the reason for the report and the required subject. If the task gives findings, preserve them accurately. If it asks you to imagine an investigation, create plausible, consistent details that serve that brief. Never present classroom inventions as real school research.
Useful headings for an investigative report include purpose, method, findings, conclusion and recommendations. They show how the argument develops. Follow any format or headings the task specifically requires; this model is one workable structure, not a universal official template.
- Purpose: what question were you asked to investigate?
- Method: how did you gather the information?
- Findings: what did observation, records or interviews reveal?
- Conclusion: what do those findings reasonably suggest?
- Recommendations: what should happen, and who could carry it out?
Practice 1: turn notes into a complete report
Original fictional brief and investigation notes
You are Amina Otieno, secretary of the library committee at Upendo Secondary School. The deputy principal asked your committee to investigate queues at the library borrowing desk. Write a report using the following notes and recommend practical improvements.
- Request received on 4 May 2026; observations conducted during lunch breaks on 5, 6 and 7 May.
- The committee observed the borrowing desk and spoke with the librarian and twelve learners who used it.
- Borrowers and learners returning books joined the same queue.
- On each observed day, some borrowers reached the desk before choosing a book and left the queue to search.
- The librarian checked borrower details in a paper register. The committee did not measure how long this step took.
- Eight of the twelve learners interviewed did not know which shelves held the books they wanted.
- A display table near the desk narrowed the approach. The librarian said it could be moved to the side wall.
- No extra staff or purchasing budget had been approved.
Model report: Queues at the library borrowing desk
To: The Deputy Principal, Upendo Secondary School
From: Amina Otieno, Secretary, Library Committee
Date: 8 May 2026
Purpose
Following the request of 4 May, the committee investigated factors contributing to queues at the library borrowing desk and considered practical improvements.
Method
The committee observed the desk during lunch breaks on 5, 6 and 7 May. It also spoke with the librarian and twelve learners who used the desk. The investigation covered these three lunch periods rather than all library opening times.
Findings
Borrowers and learners returning books used one queue. On each observed day, some borrowers reached the desk without having selected a book and then left to search. Eight of the twelve learners interviewed did not know where to find the books they wanted.
The librarian checked borrower details in a paper register, but the committee did not time this process. A display table narrowed the approach to the desk. The librarian confirmed that the table could be moved to the side wall.
Conclusion
The shared queue, interruptions while borrowers searched for books and restricted space around the desk appeared to contribute to congestion. The evidence was insufficient to determine whether the register was a major cause of delay.
Recommendations
The committee recommends that the librarian display clear shelf labels and a notice asking borrowers to select books before joining the queue. A supervised return point could be trialled separately from borrowing, provided returned books are still recorded correctly.
The display table should be moved to the side wall with the librarian’s agreement. After these changes, the committee should observe another three lunch periods and record waiting times to assess whether further action is needed. Any proposal requiring additional staff or purchases should be submitted for approval.
Prepared by: Amina Otieno, Secretary, Library Committee
How the model uses the evidence
The method defines the investigation’s limits. Three lunch periods cannot establish what happens every day of the year. Similarly, eight out of twelve interviewees does not mean that two thirds of the entire school have difficulty finding books. The report keeps the actual group visible.
Each recommendation has a reason. Shelf labels address difficulty finding books; choosing books first addresses interruptions; moving the table addresses restricted space. A separate return point is presented as a trial, with a safeguard for records, rather than an already approved system.
The model also admits what is unknown. It does not accuse the librarian of working slowly or claim that a computer would solve the queues. Neither conclusion follows from the notes.
Use an objective but readable style
Objective writing distinguishes evidence from judgement. “Three chairs had broken legs” is a finding. “The room was a disgrace” is an unsupported evaluation unless the task explicitly calls for a personal response, and even then it needs explanation.
Use past tense for completed investigation activities and observed events. Recommendations can use “should”, “could” or “the committee recommends”. You do not have to make every sentence passive. “The committee interviewed twelve learners” states responsibility clearly and is suitably formal.
Give readers enough detail to understand the issue, but avoid a diary of every conversation. Organise findings by subject. If two interviewees express different views, report the difference rather than pretending there was agreement.
Practice 2: repair unsupported findings and recommendations
Original fictional evidence: At a sports-equipment store, a committee checked ten footballs. Four needed inflation. The pump was available, and a games teacher could supervise its use. The committee did not inspect the other equipment.
Weak report: “All the school’s sports equipment is useless because nobody cares for it. The school must buy twenty new footballs immediately.”
Task: rewrite the finding and recommendation so that both fit the evidence.
Improved finding: Four of the ten footballs checked needed inflation. The committee did not assess the condition of other sports equipment.
Improved recommendation: The games teacher should supervise inflation of the four balls using the available pump, then check whether they hold air before considering replacements.
The revision removes an accusation about people’s attitudes, an unsupported claim about all equipment and an unexplained purchase. It recommends a practical first step. If the balls later fail to hold air, that new evidence could support a different recommendation.
Practice 3: transfer the method to another investigation
Original fictional notes
As environment-club secretary Joel Barasa, report to the club patron on litter after a school exhibition. On 12 June 2026, the club inspected the courtyard after visitors left. Paper cups were concentrated near a refreshment table. The nearest bin was behind a closed classroom door. The caretaker confirmed that two movable bins were available. No inspection of other areas was carried out.
Model short report: Courtyard litter after the exhibition
To: The Environment Club Patron
From: Joel Barasa, Club Secretary
Date: 13 June 2026
Purpose and method: The club inspected the courtyard after the exhibition on 12 June to identify a practical way of reducing litter at future events. It also consulted the caretaker.
Findings: Paper cups were concentrated near the refreshment table. The nearest bin was inaccessible behind a closed classroom door. The caretaker confirmed that two movable bins were available. Other areas were not inspected.
Conclusion and recommendation: Accessible disposal points were lacking near the refreshments. Before the next event, the organisers should position the available bins beside the refreshment area and check that they remain accessible. The club should inspect the courtyard afterwards to assess the result.
Prepared by: Joel Barasa, Environment Club Secretary
This report avoids claiming that visitors were deliberately careless. The observations support an access problem, but do not establish each person’s motive. Its recommendation uses an available resource and includes a way to check whether the change helped.
Frequently asked questions
Must every report use these exact headings?
No. Choose headings that suit the type of report and follow the task’s instructions. An investigation benefits from clear separation of method, findings and recommendations; an event report may follow activities and outcomes.
What is the difference between a finding and a recommendation?
A finding records what the investigation established. A recommendation proposes an action. Writing “the school should add labels” under findings confuses a proposed solution with observed evidence.
Can I invent statistics in a report-writing exercise?
Use supplied figures accurately. If a fictional task allows you to create details, keep them plausible and consistent. Do not add numbers merely to make a claim look researched.
Should I use first person?
Use a clear, consistent voice suited to the brief. “We observed” can be appropriate for a committee report. “The committee observed” is another option; passive wording is not compulsory throughout.
What makes a recommendation useful?
It addresses a finding, proposes a realistic action and identifies responsibility where possible. Include approval needs or a way to evaluate the change when those details matter.
How is a report different from minutes?
A report presents information about an event or investigation. Minutes record the business and decisions of a meeting. A report may be discussed at a meeting, but the two documents serve different purposes.
What should I check before submitting?
Check the reader, role, dates, evidence, required content and format. Trace every recommendation to a finding, remove unsupported accusations and ensure your conclusion does not exceed the investigation’s scope.
Further functional writing practice
The existing KCSE English topical resource page requires login to view its content. You may also check the English past-paper resource page for available materials. This lesson’s fictional notes, complete models and revision explanations are all provided above.
Turn a meeting record into complete minutes
The report above separates findings from recommendations. Minutes answer a different question: what happened at a meeting, what was decided, and who accepted an action? A report’s recommendation does not become a meeting decision merely because somebody mentions it.
Original meeting brief and record
The Library Committee at the fictional Upendo Secondary School held a follow-up meeting on 11 May 2026 in the library, 4.00–4.30 p.m. Present were chair Daniel Kito, secretary Amina Otieno, librarian Grace Wema and member Joel Tamu. Member Nuru Sena sent apologies. These were all five committee members. The agenda was agreed: opening; report on queues; proposed trial; next meeting; closure. This new committee had no earlier minutes to confirm.
Record: Amina presented the 8 May report reproduced above. Grace confirmed that existing materials could provide shelf labels and a movable return tray; no purchase was needed. Joel proposed a supervised separate return point for three lunch breaks, 12–14 May. Grace accepted supervision. All four present agreed to the trial and to moving the display table to the side wall. Daniel and Joel accepted responsibility for moving it before lunch on 12 May. Amina agreed to record waiting times on the three trial days and report on 15 May. Daniel said any permanent arrangement would be decided after that review. No permanent change or purchase was approved. The next meeting was set for the library on 15 May at 4.00 p.m. Daniel closed the meeting at 4.30 p.m.
Completed model minutes
MINUTES OF THE UPENDO SECONDARY SCHOOL LIBRARY COMMITTEE MEETING, 11 MAY 2026, LIBRARY, 4.00 P.M.
Present: Daniel Kito (chair), Amina Otieno (secretary), Grace Wema (librarian), Joel Tamu (member). Apologies: Nuru Sena (member).
1. Opening and agenda. The chair opened the meeting at 4.00 p.m. The agenda was agreed. There were no earlier minutes because this was a new committee.
2. Report on queues. Amina presented the report dated 8 May. Grace confirmed that shelf labels and a movable return tray could be provided from existing materials without a purchase.
3. Trial and actions. Joel proposed a supervised separate return point during lunch on 12–14 May. All four members present agreed to the trial; Grace accepted responsibility for supervision. The committee also agreed to move the display table to the side wall. Daniel and Joel would move it before lunch on 12 May. Amina would record waiting times on the three trial days and report on 15 May. A permanent arrangement would be considered after that review. No permanent change or purchase was approved.
4. Next meeting and closure. The next meeting was set for 15 May 2026 in the library at 4.00 p.m. The chair closed this meeting at 4.30 p.m.
Prepared by: Amina Otieno, secretary. Status: draft for later checking and confirmation; no signature or confirmation is represented.
The record of unanimity applies to four attendees, not all five members. The three dates describe the trial, while 15 May is the review date. The report’s recommendation became only the trial actually agreed. The minutes do not invent a proposer/seconder rule, quorum rule or approval signature.
Error contrast: “All five members approved a permanent returns system and bought a tray.” This changes attendance, duration and spending. Replace it with the exact trial decision in item 3. A short minute can be complete; an invented vote cannot.
Independent complete minutes
The Art Club committee meets in Room 2 on 9 June 2026, 1.00–1.20 p.m. Present: chair Lila, secretary Omar and member Tia. No apologies or absences; these are all members. The chair opens the first meeting, and the agenda “display labels; next meeting; closure” is agreed. Tia proposes ten new labels. All three agree. Tia accepts preparing ten labels from existing card by 11 June. Omar proposes a new cabinet; the decision is deferred until prices are available. Omar will obtain prices for the next meeting, 12 June at 1.00 p.m. in Room 2. The chair closes at 1.20 p.m. Write complete draft minutes.
Model and checks
Art Club Committee: draft minutes, Room 2, 9 June 2026, 1.00 p.m.
Present: Lila (chair), Omar (secretary), Tia (member). Apologies and absences: none.
1. Opening: Lila opened the first meeting at 1.00 p.m. The agenda was agreed; there were no previous minutes.
2. Display labels and cabinet: All three members agreed to Tia’s proposal for ten labels. Tia would prepare them from existing card by 11 June. The decision on Omar’s proposed cabinet was deferred pending prices. Omar would obtain the prices for 12 June; no purchase was approved.
3. Next meeting and closure: The next meeting would be in Room 2 on 12 June at 1.00 p.m. Lila closed at 1.20 p.m. Prepared by Omar, secretary; draft awaiting checking and confirmation.
A complete alternative retains identities, place, date, decisions, deferred purchase, owners and deadlines. It does not claim that price collection is an instruction to buy.
WhatsApp Us Now