AIBU to not pay this exam 'remark' fee?

[nandio]

DD got a C in one of her history A level papers (the one with the biggest weighting). She got A*s in her other 2 papers; this was her working-level prior to the exam.

We requested a review (they don't call it a remark) and the mark was unchanged so we ordered the script. As DD was planning to study for a degree in history she wanted to know where she had gone wrong; she felt that this paper went as well as the other two.

When she saw the returned script the first thing she noticed was that the booklets had been scanned in the wrong order with the third booklet scanned in before the second one.

She wrote to her teachers asking for their feedback. They responded but did not address the booklet order and even went on to discuss her marks incorrectly i.e. not matching the right mark with the right essay.

Has anyone else ever had this happen? Did you pay up??

Excuse all the typos. Crap dictation software!

Exam markers would notice if they were marking the wrong question. It's common to mark the same question at a time rather than paper by paper particularly with essays, i.e you go though the whole stack and mark question 1, then start again marking Q2, then q3 and so on.

You would think so but seeing as DD got seven marks after 25 for each question in the paper we don't think was remarked/reviewed I wonder if that's always the case. She got over 22/25 for everything else before you tell me that she just isn't very good and is doing a degree in the subject so I think she did deserve more than a fail.

after out of

Wow that’s really poor
Why aren’t her teachers analysing her papers more closely given that even tho it may be too late for yourDD it has implications for their future teaching

How disappointing
Really hope your DD is okay uni now
Missing out on Cambridge is a huge thing

Teachers don't routinely get exam scripts back. They are expensive for schools and quite often don't tell you much. All they tell you is one person's opinion on what score a candidate got.

Maths is more precise but even then we don't bother, the mark scheme is the mark scheme.

We do send off for remarks for any students near the borderline of a grade boundary.

Teachers don't routinely get exam scripts back. They are expensive for schools and quite often don't tell you much. All they tell you is one person's opinion on what score a candidate got.

It's not that expensive and it depends on the exam board- some are free online. I agree that for some subjects it's just one person's opinion though and arguing with the mark is probably futile at the moment. That is why it is very unfortunate that rather re-mark they just "review" nowadays. I suspect that for subjects such as English and history they don't really bother looking at it again as it's practically impossible to prove it was marked unfairly anyway. It's not in the exam boards interest to change the mark.

Firstly have others said you are way out of time. I think it very unlikely that even in the unlikely event of the original examiner missing part of the answer that the senior examiner conducting the remark would too.

They don't remark though. They they just "review" and it is not clear what this actually involves. I suspect that for subjective subjects they may not even read it at all half the time.

I don't really understand what you mean by saying she got an a*on some papers and a c on the one paper in question. I thought grades were only assigned to the total score.
I have had 4 kids through a levels so far and very different grades on different papers within the same exam is really not uncommon.

@Tvstar it’s just that she got a C on a paper having never previously got a C on any history essay ever. Overall grade came out as A but she was disappointed as she really worked towards getting an A overall. Like many students in a similar position she needed the A to secure her first choice at uni.

They don't remark though. They they just "review" and it is not clear what this actually involves. I suspect that for subjective subjects they may not even read it at all half the time.
They check to see if the mark scheme has been appropriately and fairly applied.

Eg. If examiner A says the answer is capped at X Mark due to a rubric infringement, then a review of marking would check it was an infringement and adjust the mark accordingly if there was an errors
Eg. If marker A has said there is a lack of subject terms for English for AO3 and placed it in the "some" band, but actually the student has done it throughout so needs to be in the next band higher then the review would pick up on it.

Eg. If marker A said there was a full range of punctuation used accurately, but on review marker B found it was used but not accurately then then mark would go down to the lower band.

That's a review. Reviews are looking at the incorrect or inaccurate application of the mark scheme, which is why there are bigger jumps where errors are found.
It is not a remark where people say "personally I agree with the criteria you've ticked but I would give it 2 marks more".

As a centre we have had some bizarre issues in the early runs through specifications, but to be fair the reviews have picked up on major issues.
What people (including parents) need to understand is that it's no longer the case of 'not happy with your mark so ask for a remark to gain the 1-2 marks'.

They check to see if the mark scheme has been appropriately and fairly applied.

Yes I know that is what they are meant to be doing but it is not clear what actually happend. Often the mark given is entirely subjective in subjects such as English and History so it really would be a matter of opinion as to whether it had been fairly applied. One markers idea of "simple/generalised" may be another markers idea of "perceptive/assured". There probably wouldn't be so much difference in opinion if they were all experienced but many aren't.

And considering that the mark rarely seems to change for English etc I wonder if they even bother reviewing it. I'm sure some examiners do but I bet not all.

Often the mark given is entirely subjective in subjects such as English and History so it really would be a matter of opinion as to whether it had been fairly applied.

One markers idea of "simple/generalised" may be another markers idea of "perceptive/assured".
That's not the case though because there's a set of bullet points, and descriptors and training with exemplar materials.

There's no doubt that human error can and does occur. However trying to argue that it's all subjective is a stretch and one that leads to misinformation.

And considering that the mark rarely seems to change for English etc I wonder if they even bother reviewing it. I'm sure some examiners do but I bet not all.
The mark wouldn't be expected to change unless the marking was found to be out from the mark scheme, in which case there'd be larger jumps either way. You'd not expect a lot of changing marks because it's not a remark.

This is exactly my point. For all my personal issues with how the new spec was rolled out, there's a lot of misinformation largely stemming from "we didn't get the result we wanted / we went for a review and didn't get the change we wanted, therefore the board didn't bother or it's all subjective etc".

That's not the case though because there's a set of bullet points, and descriptors and training with exemplar materials.

If it's so exact their wouldn't be such a large variation in studies where they have given the same paper to different exam markers. There also wouldn't have been so many big changes in marks in subjects like English when they did actual remarks rather than just reviews. Isn't that why they stop doing remarks in the first place?

The mark wouldn't be expected to change unless the marking was found to be out from the mark scheme, in which case there'd be larger jumps either way. You'd not expect a lot of changing marks because it's not a remark.

Conversely if the marking isn't expected to change their will be some examiners who don't bother reviewing it properly which is why mistakes are not necessarily found. It's not a misinformation to say that AQA were fined over £1 million last year for serious breaches in remarks.

their there

They were fined in the early runs of the specification when there were notable issues. Schools were supportive of those challenges. There were also some issues of different representatives giving different advice in the first run through.

Remarks were stopped because people were just putting any paper they didn't like the mark for in for a remark on the off chance it went up. Remarks allowed for markers to differ within the mark scheme band and the higher mark would automatically be awarded with associated refund, then there's the pressure / subconscious bias on knowing you're doing the second mark (just like there's that issue with mock exams internally where people can subconsciously push marks a bit generous).

But as someone who deals with reviews of marking and the GCSE courses every year, there's nowhere near the sort of issues claimed on MN which seem to almost always centre on "my child didn't get what we wanted therefore we'll blame the system". If my child didn't get what we wanted then there's any other reason behind it than they didn't perform on the day. Those sorts of claims almost always come from people who've not actually taught, or haven't taught the new GCSE courses in schools (hello private tutors), or have some personal beef that means they take their single experience without any frame of reference beyond it.

It happens a lot on threads linked to schools. People think "in my limited situation I saw X, therefore I shall pronounce on a whole system" whereas the people in the system tend to say "X isn't perfect, but on balance here is a more measured and informed view".

She lost her place at Cambridge because she got an A rather than an A*?! Are you serious?! That sounds extraordinarily harsh. And I say this as an Oxbridge graduate so I have some familiarity with the system, although doubtless out of date.

They were fined in the early runs of the specification when there were notable issues. Schools were supportive of those challenges. There were also some issues of different representatives giving different advice in the first run through.

I am talking about the million pound fine last month actually. Nothing to do with early runs of the specification. I would take your patronising tone a bit more seriously if you seem to know we were talking about.

Remarks were stopped because people were just putting any paper they didn't like the mark for in for a remark on the off chance it went up. Remarks allowed for markers to differ within the mark scheme band and the higher mark would automatically be awarded with associated refund, then there's the pressure / subconscious bias on knowing you're doing the second mark (just like there's that issue with mock exams internally where people can subconsciously push marks a bit generous).

If it was such an exact marking system as you claim then the marks wouldn't consistently go up would they? One of DD's friends went from an two grades at A-level.

But as someone who deals with reviews of marking and the GCSE courses every year, there's nowhere near the sort of issues claimed on MN which seem to almost always centre on "my child didn't get what we wanted therefore we'll blame the system".

You acknowledge that there are issues while at the same time claiming that everyone who complains is just "blaming the system" because their child didn't get the mark they want. What proportion of people on MN complain compared with the proportion of inaccurate marks? You don't know either figure -you are just making assumptions based on your own bias.

I am talking about the million pound fine last month actually. Nothing to do with early runs of the specification. I would take your patronising tone a bit more seriously if you seem to know we were talking about.
It was for an investigation in the period of 2016-2018.
First exams for new specifications were started for English and Maths in 2017.
Other subjects followed in a phased roll out to the new 9-1 system.
Yes it was for early runs of the new specifications.

Out of interest do you teach the new specifications with AQA?

I'm not saying the current system is perfect. I've already said human error exists. Any assessment situation has the possibility for human error, but then maths and science also see human error where method marks are awarded.
That doesn't mean you can claim that a list of bullet points clearly stating one thing Vs another means that simple and perceptive get treated as the same thing because it's all subjective. It isn't.

You don't know either figure -you are just making assumptions based on your own bias.
I'm saying that people who actually teaching the specifications and working with whole cohorts and dealing with boards, doing the board training, working as examiners, dealing with review of markings and appeals are in a better place to make informed assessments of the new procedures rather than people who aren't doing all of that are want to claim (as the OP has for example) that their child is being let down by a system that doesn't value their hard work, they never got a C so it couldn't be a C etc. It's textbook "we didn't get what we want and because the review hasnt changed the mark we'll blame the system".

We send reviews off each year where we thing the board have got it wrong. We hold them to account and our parents/students do too.
Some come back changed because there's been clear errors in application of mark schemes. Usually that involves a jump because there is a band change.
Some come back unchanged. That's also ok. It doesn't mean school have been awful. It doesn't mean the board have been awful. It means that on that day the student hasn't pulled it out the bag and that's also ok. It's not a conspiracy that they got a 4 and not a 6 because they had a bad day or didn't get on with the sources, or they didn't quite read the question properly or any other reason. It's just part and parcel of exams.

@RhiWrites yes it was harsh this year, dd was in exactly the same position. In fact for her chosen course of 40 offered places only 24 secured their places and noone was pooled . So it seems every candidate missing their offer, however slightly, was rejected.

It was for an investigation in the period of 2016-2018.
First exams for new specifications were started for English and Maths in 2017.
Other subjects followed in a phased roll out to the new 9-1 system.
Yes it was for early runs of the new specifications.

The fine was regarding the fact that 7% of the remarks for GCSEs and A levels were done by the original markers so nothing to do with the new specification for GCSE.

It seems to go in cycles from what we see Liz.

Some years we see really popular courses accepting students with a grade under and places in clearing, others it's a case of meet the offer or no place. Sometimes we get Oxbridge offers without A* and other times it's deemed essential.

We send reviews off each year where we thing the board have got it wrong. We hold them to account and our parents/students do too.

You can only speak for your school though. I think that there is variation. One of the stated reasons for remarks was that it was deemed unfair to those pupils who were at schools who wouldn't bother or couldn't afford to pay compared with private schools.

for remarks for stopping remarks

The fine was regarding the fact that 7% of the remarks for GCSEs and A levels were done by the original markers so nothing to do with the new specification for GCSE
Which was down to problems in getting examiners for the new specs.

We were getting requests through to apply for examiner roles in the middle of the marking season. Friends of mine who worked that session had a number of issues where they were getting locked out of the online portals, having allocations changed, then weeks later being told they were needed to pick up more. At one point it was getting to the point of them being willing to take anyone with a degree in the subject (Vs usual minimum of 3 terms teaching the course)

The first run through was chaotic in places in ways that weren't the case for the older specs.

Changes to specifications throw up all kinds of issues in terms of content, assessment, organisation, examiner recruitment.

I'm not in any way saying the boards are perfect, which should be obvious given I've mentioned how we've done reviews, centres raised some issues, there's human error

I'm challenging the idea that people not teaching and marking specifications have any relevant professional knowledge to claim to know how mark schemes work.

Put it this way, I'd not dream of telling a History or Geography teacher how their mark schemes work or are applied because even though I'm up to date in my subject and board, I haven't the professional knowledge or subject knowledge to comment on someone else's. Even within my subject, I'd not be telling a school that does a different board how their board does things because it's about having the humility to know where expertise and relevant professional experience ends.

Yet for whatever reason people who neither teach GCSE/A level, nor examine the specifications seem to feel entirely qualified to make claims about how marking, reviews, assessment objectives etc are applied (even down to being annoyed that their child worked hard so the system let their DC down for not giving them the grade they want).