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??

Which was down to problems in getting examiners for the new specs.

If it was just down to the new specs for GCSEs it wouldn't have also applied to A levels and it would have effected all exams boards.

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)

I know and that is one reason I am very skeptical that the quality of marking is as good as it should be all that the remarks are done properly every time.

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.

I am not a schoolteacher but an academic so I do have experience of marking papers and I was seriously unimpressed when I saw the marking of one of DD's papers. It wasn't just DD that was affected and it was a specific marker. It costs a lot to appeal after the remark stage and not that many schools are successful.

If it was just down to the new specs for GCSEs it wouldn't have also applied to A levels and it would have effected all exams boards
A level reforms happened at the same time. We were teaching:
Old IGCSE To some y11
Old GCSE language to other y11 (exam 2016)
Old GCSE literature to other y11 (exam 2016)
New GCSE Language to the first cohort of y10 (started teaching 2015/16 year)
New GCSE literature to the first cohort
Old A Level Language to the y13s
New AS Level language to y12 whilst we made the decision whether to go linear or not
Old A level literature to y13
New AS literature to the y12 as above

I am not a schoolteacher but an academic so I do have experience of marking papers and I was seriously unimpressed when I saw the marking of one of DD's papers
So not a school teacher, zero experience of teaching the GCSE/a level courses I expect, zero training on how they are marked, and yet because you're an academic you're somehow have enough knowledge and experience of GCSE/ A level teaching and marking to judge specifications and marking you don't work with. I'm sure you'd be just as happy for any Tom, Dick and Harry to pass judgement on how you mark undergraduate assignments. After all it's all marking so anyone from any discipline and any background is totally qualified to weigh in.

This is exactly my point: people not in GCSE/A level teaching deciding they know better than those in the system.
You've told me that it's not about new specs because the fine was recent, for me to explain it absolutely was for a time period around new specs.
You've then told me it couldn't be new specs due to A levels being affected and then I've had to outline KS5 changed at the same time.

And what's more insulting is that you've told me that I don't know what I'm talking about by saying: I would take your patronising tone a bit more seriously if you seem to know we were talking about.

It's not patronising to suggest that those in a sector who are subject specialists working with specific boards might actually know a bit more about the pros/cons/challenges etc than someone who doesn't do that job.

As I've said, I don't have the subject knowledge or professional experience to tell a geography teacher how their qualifications are assessed. I don't have enough relevant experience to tell other English departments on different boards how their board words.

A level reforms happened at the same time.

Not to the extent that GCSEs changed and as I said, if it was just due to the reforms than other exam boards would have had the same problem. Unless there are only senior marker for the whole subject, the exam being remarked by the same original marker suggests a lack of care rather than anything else and/or the attitude that as they aren't going to not change the mark anyway there is no need for someone to look at it with a fresh pair of eyes.

So not a school teacher, zero experience of teaching the GCSE/a level courses I expect, zero training on how they are marked, and yet because you're an academic you're somehow have enough knowledge and experience of GCSE/ A level teaching and marking to judge specifications and marking you don't work with.

The fact that I am an academic gives me the knowledge that if one of my recent graduates was marking with very little or no teaching experience then the standard of marking is not going to be good. I also know as an academic that double marking does not involve giving the paper back to the same original marker.

As I've said, I don't have the subject knowledge or professional experience to tell a geography teacher how their qualifications are assessed. I don't have enough relevant experience to tell other English departments on different boards how their board words.

I bet you have no problem questioning the knowledge/wisdom/experience of health care professionals or any other profession though.

I bet you have no problem questioning the knowledge/wisdom/experience of health care professionals or any other profession though.

What an odd assertion. There is a difference between reasonable questions to understand someone else's area and thinking you know it all.

You have been told by someone with the direct experience and expertise that your assertions are unreasonable. You've got another person here, with similar, telling you the same.

The QA systems the exam board use are sufficient to catch any major marking quality issues in my subject. It's certainly harder in essay subjects (and there are doubtless specific problems we don't hear about) but I've seen enough effort into getting it right over many years and courses for me to be reasonably confident that you are drawing wild conclusions based on very limited data.

The order of the scanning makes no difference. Exam papers are sent to different markets eg.q1 goes to marker a, q2 goes to marker b etc etc it's a fair way

I bet you have no problem questioning the knowledge/wisdom/experience of health care professionals or any other profession though
Absolutely not.
I'm not arrogant enough to think that I know more about someone's job than the people doing it.
If I have a query or concern then I will raise it appropriately through the relevant and then have the tiniest bit of common sense to know that my personal experience, plus limited knowledge means I couldn't possibly weigh in on a sector I'm not in.

What a bizarre assertion to throw around.

It's almost like you've not liked having misinformation corrected and being challenged on claiming people in the sector don't know what they're talking about.

Donquixotedelamancha
I agree with you.
Obviously being an academic and having very limited experience of GCSE/A level processes means knowing more than people doing the job day in day out.
Honestly, it's a wonder we manage to do our jobs without the wisdom and insight of people who have lack the subject knowledge, professional qualifications or experience in our area.

You have been told by someone with the direct experience and expertise that your assertions are unreasonable. You've got another person here, with similar, telling you the same.

So which assertions are unreasonable? Is my assertion that the AQA were fined over 1 million a month ago for breaches in remarks? That is well documented. Is my assertion that not everyone who marks is an experienced teacher? I know people who mark and they are not all experienced teachers. Is my assertion that now that papers are not actually remarked but simply reviewed there is the potential for some markers not to bother reviewing them properly? It could be unreasonable but unless you know every single person who marks how will you know any better than me?

It's almost like you've not liked having misinformation corrected and being challenged on claiming people in the sector don't know what they're talking about.

You haven't done anything other than give me your opinion so I would hardly say I have been corrected.

Woodchuck the exam boards do have some issues with marking and the consistency of mark schemes being applied. This is down to individual interpretation of the mark schemes in essay based subjects. This doesn't mean that the marks given are wrong, just that someone else may have marked them slightly higher or slightly lower. Usually the reviewer places them within the same band and grades don't change.

With Maths the errors are human error from missing working out or misreading an answer. There's very little interpretation required. The one mark answer maths questions could be marked by trained monkeys, they are right or wrong. There is still room for human error in this. These type of question are usually marked by non teaching staff, because they don't need to be.

Woodchuck the exam boards do have some issues with marking and the consistency of mark schemes being applied. This is down to individual interpretation of the mark schemes in essay based subjects. This doesn't mean that the marks given are wrong, just that someone else may have marked them slightly higher or slightly lower.

The problem is that sometimes there is more than a slight difference in this is why I think the review rather than actual remark is a really bad move. It seems designed to prevent fair marking rather than the other way around.

I'm an English teacher & examiner (GCSE, IB, various boards, 20 years at the chalkface etc etc) & I'd agree with LolaSmiles on pretty much everything here.

I analyse the subject results for my school, & advise on reviews. We do it by grade boundary.

Student with a disappointing result & considerably closer to the higher than lower boundary? Worth a punt! We're private, & parents routinely pay anyway, but obviously we tell them if we think it's worth their while or not.

Student significantly closer to lower boundary? We will advise against, in case the result goes down, but if the parent or student absolutely insists we give them the caveats, they pay, & it's on them if it goes badly wrong.

Honestly, shifts which affect a final grade are vanishingly rare.

I've processed 20 odd appeals in my subject this year over both GCSE & IB & had one upheld - & that was a 4000 word extended essay for IB, not an exam paper. I examine extended essays myself & they are tricksy little buggers & subjective AF. Exams, not so much.

The scanning issue shouldn't be a problem. The software prompts you, as an examiner, to flag up ANYTHING untoward in terms of missing bits of answers ie wrong question wrong booklet.

Although 9/10 times it's missing additional sheets. Top tip: learn to write within the answer booklet provided, because some examiners won't be arsed to flag up an answer that carries on to additional sheets if those have somehow fallen down the back of the scanner, & they quite often do - if you do use additional pages indicate very clearly 'cont next booklet', so it's not assumed you just ran out of time.

Also, OP, sorry, but yes, you absolutely need to pay up & no, often teachers won't be in on Results Day.

This year I was furiously arguing with my Head of 6th Form that he (on the spot on the day) should authorise a review for a girl in my IB class who had uncharacteristically tanked a key paper. I was having this argument whilst squinting at a spreadsheet on my phone from a tent on a different continent.

As it turned out, she had just absolutely mucked it up, bless her.

But no, teachers aren't required to be on site in results' day. It's our unpaid holiday.

Sorry your dd didn't get the result she hoped for, though

You haven't done anything other than give me your opinion so I would hardly say I have been corrected

You said it wasn't first runs through new specifications because the fine was recent = I've given the facts that it absolutely was a period between 2016-2018 when the new specs were launched

You claimed it couldn't be to do with spec changes because A levels were hit = I've pointed out that during the time investigated KS5 reforms were made and the new specs were introduced

This isn't opinion. They are facts.

You think that because you're in academia you are placed to comment on a system to teaching, assessment and exam boards that you have zero front line experience with and yet despite having factual claims debunked you're claiming this is nothing more than opinion.

In addition to this you've claimed that:
I don't know what I'm talking about
That my belief that those in sectors and subjects and situations know more about a situation than someone outside it means I'm the sort of person who'd be challenging other professionals in their line of work (despite me being very vocal about the arrogance of people who do this in education).

The system isn't perfect, nobody in secondary thinks it is, but I'll take the views and colleagues who do this day in day out as more credible and reliable than someone outside the sector who thinks their tiny outside snapshot qualifies them to judge a sector totally beyond their experience and qualifications.

So which assertions are unreasonable?

I mean, Christ, you've made a lot of assertions. For example:

for some subjects it's just one person's opinion though

I suspect that for subjects such as English and history they don't really bother looking at

You haven't done anything other than give me your opinion

You've not merely had some randomer's opinion. You've had the qualified opinion and direct testimony of people who are in a position to know: that there is no large scale inconsistency in marking and that boards try hard to mark correctly.

Of course that can be wrong, but to reject it without evidence is silly. If you don't understand why this is so you should not be in academia.