Help! GCSE Paper Re-Mark advice

[honeydue3]

Hi, Has anyone had any luck going up a grade in their GCSE after a re-mark/check? My son is missing 3 marks off a higher grade in Maths and 4 marks in English.

My DS is feeling down as now he has to change 2 of his A Level choices. he did well in his other subjects - 6 and 7s but he needs the 6 for Maths and English.
We are also applying for retakes in November but not sure how successful that will be as he will be studying his other subjects.....any advice very welcome.
One very stressed Mummy!!

The people reviewing will have no more idea of proximity to grade boundaries than those who marked in the first place. And they won't be looking for marks but checking those given were reasonable

@honeydue3, Does your son need the extra levels to go onto the next stage? If not, I'm not sure it makes much f a difference.

I don't know if there are more mistakes this year as generally a number of students will hover around grade boundaries so will always be debated. The boundaries for top grades are broad and relatively low for some subjects. This year, max marks 200 then a 9 could be as low as 132. Does that mean that getting 130 or 131 should be challenged? If more papers are reviewed higher then should all the boundaries be increased so 132 becomes 134?? Obviously that wouldn't happen but highlights that cut off points always brings challenges.

@Livinghappy Thanks for info, I do understand.
There has been issues with AQA this year though and not right that this has not been challenged. Many students received lower marks in English than they have been achieving throughout the year in mocks and assessments.

Will this be the same issue with GCSE resits? Do they generally make resits harder or will it be at the same level?

Will this be the same issue with GCSE resits? Do they generally make resits harder or will it be at the same level?
Grade boundaries are based on the performance of the paper.

Will this be the same issue with GCSE resits? Do they generally make resits harder or will it be at the same level?
Grade boundaries are based on the performance of the paper.

Friend shared the review of marking her DC had back in RS GCSE today.

The mark went up by 16 marks and to the next grade. They shared the script and grid which came with it that showed the original marks and new marks and comments.

This was a paper with 20 Qs ranging from those wroth 1 mark to essays worth 12. Of the 20 Qs, 9 were upgraded. Regularly next to them was written ‘Misapplication of markscheme’ or ‘Error in academic knowledge of examiner’ with a bit more info. One essay increased from half marks 6/12 to 12/12. That was a boost of 6 marks on one GCSE essay!

I was shocked. Really basic errors in the application of markscheme were identified. Obviously friend snd their DC are delighted. I was horrified. This ‘rogue marker’ will have marked all of their school for that paper, plus many other schools too. How many other kids are out there with significantly lower marks.

Friend told me school suggested they get the review because the DC had been expected to get a much better grade and one paper scored very highly, but this one they had remarked was very low. So this wasn’t really looking for one or two extra marks, but about questioning something much bigger….which turned out to be correct.

This thing about the difference between re-mark and review of marking…..in lots of cases it’s actually the same thing. In Maths, if the ‘reviewer’ sees something has been marked wrong when right, then there is an error of marking and an extra mark awarded. This isn’t different to before. In an essay subject, if a reviewer sees factual info was included or an approach is in the answer, which was in the markscheme, but not credited, extra marks are awarded. It is the same outcome as a remark. Only in essays, can I really see a potential difference….markscheme applied and a Level chosen…and if there is agreement about the Level, then any mark in it is left the same by reviewer, but if a different level given, then this is a misjudgement and more marks given. I can see there is some difference, but not very much at all.

I don’t think examiners remarking in the last before reviews were ever ‘looking for extra marks’ as some people put it. That was never their purpose. They simply marked the paper, and their new mark could be higher or lower than original. As they were senior examiners, their judgement was meant to be more accurate. The idea that the new system is significantly different doesn’t seem to be right. Since it has been introduced, schools and especially humanities subjects still report putting in large numbers of scripts for a review, with similar changes to marks as before.

In my view, for someone close to a grade biundary above in Maths/Science and far from the grade below, it’s worth requesting scripts to look for basic factual marking errors. In humanities, it’s worth requesting scripts if someone is close to the biundary above, especially if it’s a paper with a number of smaller questions, as there is scope for error. It’s always worth requesting scripts to look at if a paper seems very out if kilter with the other paper and that’s unexpected or the grade achieved is significantly below what was expected and the student felt it went well. In almost all cases, parents will be required to pay and that will be a stumbling block for many, as will the risk of being downgraded. But if a student is very close to the next grade and there’s a big drop to get to the one below, it’s unlikely.

I don’t understand really why one or two posters make such a big thing if it now being a review of marking and not re-mark, when actually vast numbers still go up. It’s because sadly significant numbers if examiners don’t mark correctly to the markscheme or standard set. Because they mark incorrectly, the marks are wrong. This was always the way and still is.

Realise the examiners are paid less an min wage and there’s a huge shortage and moderation and training of examiners isn’t always as through as it could be. But so crap to think that large numbers of students don’t get the right grades (and never know) and that schools can teach GCSEs for 2 or 3 years and not get the grades the students deserve. How dispiriting when your role is to lead students to exams…but the marking of them can’t be relied upon.

"vast numbers" don't go up.

But some schools do see in the teens or twenties rise. It starts with one or two who have a review seeing a big jump like the one I describe above. This highlights a likely rogue marker. And then the school encourages more to get reviews and it can be that vast numbers in just one centre rise. And this is without anyone in other centres even knowing they have been marked by a ‘rogue marker’.

Rogue markers are clearly out there. The moderation process clearly doesn’t weed them out when 15-20 students in one centre can and still see their marks reviewed and increased by enough for a grade rise.

Yes, they are not the majority. As an overall percentage we don’t know accurate figures of errors in marking, because even when there is a rogue examiner whose marking has been changed for multiple students, they might have incorrectly marked huge numbers in other centres without it being picked up or addressed.

Yes, the majority of reviews don’t result in a grade change. That’s true and has always been the case when the system was ‘re-marks’ too. But the suggestion that it’s rarely worth asking for a review doesn’t seem warranted. Marks and grades changing are not infrequent enough to make this the case. Lots still do change.

My disappointment lies in the levels of inaccuracy that some students experience, like the one I mention above, but also how many don’t get a review…because they can’t afford it, or quite simply their school isn’t one which shows them the different marks for the different papers or doesn’t make clear what the grade boundaries were…so they remain in the dark about the fact their grade reflects two extremely different marks for their 2 papers which is often a red flag. I don’t think many students have enough information to make informed choices about whether to seek a review or not - that’s the problem. Access to information is unequal.

And these threads show that unsurprisingly parents don’t know the information they actually need to make informed choices. Only after results day do some wonder about grade boundaries and then struggle to find them because they don’t know the exact code of the paper sat. They don’t know their child scraped a grade or just missed the next one. And then if they know that, they don’t know the break down between papers to see that there might be an anomaly. The informed seek out this info and they are the ones seeking reviews and seeing their grades rectified when errors have been made, but others can’t access this info or even know it’s relevance, so are left with the incorrect marking. It’s wrong. I know reviews were introduced to try and reduce the impact of economic inequality favouring those who could afford remarks, but to be honest, the situation is the same today.

Mrs Hamlet, I know you always like to emphasise that it’s a REVIEW and not a REMARK. You’ve picked up on one point in my long post, and challenged my comment about the number of grades which change. That’s fine.

Do you have any thoughts about any of the other things I raised…about review and remark not being much different in reality, or the issues about rogue examiners, or inequality of access to knowledge about the process or to actual reviews being pretty similar to access to re-marks previously? Interested to know your thoughts. I am discouraged. Are you able to defend the system or suggest some of the failings I mention aren’t there? It would be nice to hear that if it’s possible. Thanks.

Review and remark are very different. A remark would mean that if you marked a student as 10/12 and I looked at it at review and thought it should be 11/12, my mark would trump yours. But if 11 is demonstrably reasonable, then 11 can and should stand.
In right/wrong answers, there's perhaps more scope for minor mark changes. If I've marked it wrong and it's right, then the mark should move. That's a misapplication of the mark scheme.

Of course any system with people in it will have potential problems. The awarding bodies do have monitoring systems in place to try to mitigate against that, and that's why the vast majority of reviews don't see movement.

As for equality of access to information, that is down to the centres. They have all of that information and it's up to them to share that with candidates. If they're not doing so, then they need to be challenged by the candidates. I know what each of the students I taught got on every question on every paper. That was available to me online. I know there was a lot of fuss about "missing" English data - centres had it but their information management system couldn't cope with their being so many results for English. Again, not the fault of the awarding bodies (or the centres, in fact)

As far as informed choice goes, centres are often keen to seek review near to grade boundaries and to ask parents to pay. But unless they look at the scripts first, they're taking a risk at others' expense. I don't think it's reasonable to ask parents to fork out unless there's a good chance of a grade change.

Thanks Mrs Hamlet.

And do you have confidence in the system? I assume you’re in a school as well as an examiner?

I just ask, as being in schools where every year, at least one subject at either A Level or GCSE seems to find they have had a rogue marker, with substantial numbers if students mis-graded, I find it hard to have confidence in it. It’s not the same subject each year, but usually one or more department have this every single year. Their results don’t quite fit with what they expected or the school norm. They get some scripts back. The most extreme ones and encouraged to have a review. Their marks come back substantially changed. A few more an encouraged to get a review. They do and their marks really substantially changed. Time drifts on. It’s hard to hit the proportions required so the whole centre gets a review. Who knows what’s happened to that examiners marking of other centres. Some students remain with their lower than deserved grades. They didn’t want to take a risk of a review or couldn’t afford it, or the family decided the exiting grade was ‘good enough’ regardless if it was deserved.

What about examiner reports of unclear standardisation meetings and poorly selected exemplars used to illustrate different levels….which just don’t work and leave examiners more confused?

And is the accuracy good enough to reflect the fact students and staff have out in 2 or 3 years work to this and their next steps and beyond can well be impacted by it?

I get that it will never be perfect and human error will creep in. But is the system robust enough to make sure it’s the very occasional error so you can have confidence, or is it more fragile than that?

I am indeed a teacher, primarily of GCSE and A level students.

I can only speak for my own experience, which is that I do have confidence in the system. I've been working with and within it for a long time. I've never felt unclear about the standard, although I do understand that less experienced people
might. I ask questions if I'm not sure and there's a very clear chain of support.

There will always be mistakes made, but there are systems of checking, both automated and human, and I would hope that every component is managed in the same way - I think paper marking is much more of a logistical challenge in that respect.

My point overall is that we used to get all sorts remarked in the hope of a few more marks here and there. And it very often worked. But when centres don't bother to look at the papers, they're often wasting parents' money. I looked over some scripts in centre recently and said I didn't think it was worth review. The parents decided to go for it anyway, which is their prerogative. No change to the marks and a chunky bill. Centres have a responsibility to understand the process and I don't think they communicate that clearly enough. I know we don't.

Whilst I think on, I do think that any subject that doesn't require expert markers is more likely to have issues. When I started, you had to have at least 2 years teaching the specification. Now some subjects are so understaffed that they don't even require that.

@MrsHamlet I know there was a lot of fuss about "missing" English data - centres had it but their information management system couldn't cope with their being so many results for English. Again, not the fault of the awarding bodies (or the centres, in fact) Please can you PM me with what you know about this? Pulling our hair out with AQA and missing marks!

In our case it was simply that SIMS couldn't cope with the speaking mark as well - the data is all in centre services.
SIMS were meant to be working on it but it was abandoned 🤷‍♀️

Thanks Mrs Hamlet. I agree about using under qualified staff for marking. The pay is so poor that Boards struggle to recruit and therefore rely on less experienced or suitable examiners, to the detriment of all. It’s another element if the underfunding of education which slowly but surely takes more on a toll on the education and outcomes of young people. Those least able to seek out information and understand the systems and the ‘game’ and to fund reviews where they are needed, lose the most by this underfunding. What a shame.

I have examined too and think back to the days where team leaders gathered for a day before the team of examiners gathered to mark together and come to an understanding of the markscheme and standards required - to discuss and argue it out and then to go away to mark and communicate with their team leader as needed. It was always hard work and never perfect, but they required experienced teachers and trained people properly ahead of marking and although the pay wasn’t great, it was worth doing. Personally I wouldn’t do it now. And many experienced teachers feel like this, which is a loss to the overall system.

I’m saddened by it. I’m an experienced teacher with many years of very successful exam class teaching - but each year feels like a gamble. You hope for a solid marker who understands the markscheme and rewards what they are supposed to. Most years it’s fine, but every few years it certainly isn’t, and. En with reviews Or whatever the current system is, whilst some go up, the whole cohort don’t really get justice. It’s so frustrating when you work hard and they work hard but the system isn’t robust enough.

Thank you for the work you do as an examiner and as a teacher and I hope (but don’t expect) that the system can become better funded so better examiners will do the work and slow for a more accurate outcome for all students.
Thanks for your replies.

Ah @MrsHamlet We’re actually missing marks in centre services!

*I am indeed a teacher, primarily of GCSE and A level students.

I can only speak for my own experience, which is that I do have confidence in the system*

I'm a GCSE and A Level teacher too (and an examiner) and I'm afraid I DON'T have faith in the system. One of my pupils went up from a 4 to a 7 on a review recently. That's pretty appalling.

WombatChocolate, this is so interesting. My DC scored a high 8 in RE paper 1, high 6 in paper 2 and just about scrapped a 4 in paper 3 (ethics and philosophy). Needless to say we are having this paper reviewed.

When I looked through paper 3, DC had received 0 marks for several questions which looked odd and in one instance, one mark for a 12 mark short essay question. I guess that this mark alone equates to a U or fail. So strange.

I'm one school and we've had 19 go up in my subject alone.

This ‘rogue marker’ will have marked all of their school for that paper

Are you sure about that? I'm an examiner and I know I marked a random selection from a variety of schools. I was told by my exam board that the whole marking all papers from one school thing is a thing of the past.

And no, a remark is definitely different to a review. A review is about tolerance. In my subject, for A Level, there was an 8 mark tolerance level each way. I agree there is likely little difference in subjects like maths, but a big difference in subjects like English. But they are still different things.

My daughter's drama paper review found the mark scheme not applied correctly (as I could see from a glance at one page!) and has gone up from 5 to 6. Yay. Now to get that money back!

Excellent news!

My DS only needed 1 mark for the next grade in English Language, waited for 2 weeks and grade didn't change, not even one mark.

How do we know that it was even checked? After hearing about the nightmare of AQA this year, how can they be trusted with reviews?

My DS only needed 1 mark for the next grade in English Language, waited for 2 weeks and grade didn't change, not even one mark

But that's the difference between a renark and a review. It might have gone up by a mark on a remark. But on a review, if there is no identifiable error (ie the marks awarded weren't outside tolerance), the original mark stands.

You can appeal a review by the way if you are convinced it is wrong, but there's a whole process to go through for this. Why do you think the English language mark should have been higher? Does the marking not match up with the mark scheme?