GCSE exam fees £750

[MrsHGWells]

GCSEs are upon us in the coming weeks - do all pupils need to pay £750 for exam fees . Is this standard practice or negotiable by school? how do parents cover this fee ?

@MrsHGWells the thing you are missing/ignoring is that the exam entries are not free for anyone - but state schools choose to pay them out of their own budgets same as they pay for teachers, books, etc. Your school could choose to do the same - possibly by charging slightly higher fees. I suggest you direct your ire at the management of your school who have obviously sent you an unexpected bill.

It is normal for independent schools to charge for examination entries. Either by including exam fees in the school’s normal fees or by charging for them as extras.

At least you are only being charged the examination entry fees and not as much as taking exams costs private candidates.

IGCSEs typically cost more than GCSEs because they cost more to administer in comparison to GCSEs.

Why do you think IGCSEs should be phased out?

Yes I also wondered this.

IGCSEs are useful for HE students as they often do not include a practical element (which can be challenging to do). They are also available to international students (er, obvs) so can be useful to those who are based abroad but want to gain a qual recognised in the UK.

You’ll be told @ChasingMoreSleepthey should be phased out because they are easier, which is not true but state school parents like to think their children work soo much harder and have much harder exams than our privately educated children. It’s quite pathetic really.

The only subject which I know in sufficient detail to comment on this is MFL (my subject) and I would say that in some ways Edexcel IGCSE is easier (speaking test has an advance element) than say AQA GCSE. The tasks on the papers are all quite different from GCSE to IGCSE – who can say if a grammar test is harder than a translation from English into TL? it depends on the student I think. IGCSE questions are all in TL which on the face of it is harder as you need to understand the qus; but OTOH you could use some of the vocab in your written answer. So it's not easy to say either way (and fairly pointless to compare because of that I suspect).

The Cambridge IGCSE is much harder imho especially the speaking text which is very unforgiving and inflexible.

(edited to make my point clearer)

That is what I suspected the answer would be. I have DC who between them have done/are doing a mixture of GCSEs, IGCSE and other qualifications. I have looked at a lot of specifications as part of planning for 2 of my DSs EOTAS/EOTIS packages. From what I have seen, IGCSEs and GCSEs are different. I don’t think it is a case of which is easier. Just different. I don’t have DC in an independent school BTW.

Well, I didn't like teaching there, but assuming you're not anti private schools altogether, there's no reason why there shouldn't be private schools which cater for the less academically able and more sporty students. It's not as if they don't do GCSEs and A Levels. They just prefer and do better at rugby!

If you're going to suggest that I'm being disingenuous, please can you point to where I suggested that saving the state money was a factor in my decision. It wasn't. I didn't say it was. But it undoubtedly has that consequence. I notice you didn't deal with the actual point I raise.

I'm sure you can appreciate that 'Because that is how it is' does not begin to justify a policy. I don't mean that to be argumentative; I am just frustrated that there appears to be no good reason for this, and yet we are told that we must just live with it (or stand for Parliament and try to persuade the majority not to vote in their self interest).

It wasn't, and I made no pretence of saying it was. But that's not the point of the post.

What percentage of private of schools are run for profit? Not the one that my children attend, and none others that I know of. But the way you seek to create the dichotomy is telling.

It was not me that posted that but I am puzzled as to why you think specifically exam fees for private school students should be funded by the taxpayer?

Why exam fees? Why not lunches, or uniform? I know you say that 16yos are mandated to take GCSEs but that's not actually true, as others have flagged. Some private schools offer other qualifications. And some students even in state schools take very few GCSEs or sometimes none.

Education is mandated (not necessarily in school). But that's paid for in private schools by parents (or GPs etc).

I do think it's odd that there is such strong feeling, if only from a few posters, about something that is surely a drop in the ocean of what they have spent on private schooling. Even just secondary education at the lowest-fee private is going to be getting on for £100k.

If paying for education is so noble why are you kvetching about paying for GCSEs?

I never said you had . I was simply pointing out that it wasn't a factor in your decision, which you have now confirmed.

It's actually somewhat ironic, though, that having apparently spent "tens of thousands of pounds overall" on independent sector education with all the advantages that presumably were factors in your choice, that you apparently feel the state should subsidise your choice.

Exam boards are private companies and have to make their money by selling their services.
" Simply that .. why the inequality that independent pays, and pays and pays?"
What inequality?
State schools - have to pay for exams
Private schools - have to pay for exams
Equality right there. Inequality nowhere

The fact that private schools pass the fees to the parents and state schools don't. Well that's because independent schools exist primarily to make money, whereas state schools exist primarily to educate kids....that's what you buy into when you chose to send your child to private school.

I don’t have to justify the policy; it’s not my policy. If you don’t like it then those are your choices.

27% according to the ISC's 2025 census.

So how was I being disingenuous? You chose to make a serious accusation; please justify it.

Thank you - genuinely rather interesting to know. That certainly fits with my understanding that most exist for the primary purpose of providing an education, rather than making a profit.

Respectfully, this is simply another way of restating the 'it is how it is' point. I appreciate those are my choices. Those shouldn't be my choices. But there we are...

I actually agree with almost everything you say.

It would be odd were the strength of feeling to arise only because of exam fees. I can't speak for others, but for me this is just one limited example of what I think is a flawed and really damaging wider attitude and approach.

I sought to suggest that GCSEs are practically compulsory. I was meaning to acknowledge that there are not strictly compulsory. I also readily acknowledge that there are some students for whom GCSEs will not be a practical option. But for the very significant majority, they are essential and, therefore, practically compulsory, in the sense that for that cohort, most jobs will require them, as would almost all routes for further study, etc. If you asked most year 11s whether GSCEs were optional, I should imagine that the vast majority would suggest that - as a matter of practical reality - they are not.

That does, I think, make it easier to justify state funding of exam fees for all than, say, lunches or uniform. In practice, exam fees are funded by the state for most children, and lunches and uniform are not (though there are, of course, exceptions).

I can see why it seems odd that there is strong feeling about paying for exam fees. As you say, it is a relatively small amount against the total financial commitment.

My real issue (and I can't speak for others) is that the 'system' in place is rigidly binary. You either accept whatever state options are available to you, or pay everything yourself. I'm yet to hear anyone attempt to justify why there needs to be such a binary system rather than, say, the ability to 'accept' / receive the 'standard' funding for tuition and exam fees, and then put this towards a more expensive option. The state would only be paying that which each child (or their parents) has the right to require the state to pay by choosing the state school system.

Exam fees are a drop in the ocean. But when you add this to the existing inability to receive any state funding for education because of the choice to look for an option other than that which happens to be the available state option, and then the addition of VAT on those fees, it feels like a yet further kick in the teeth and, importantly, one for which there is no principled justification.

I feel more strongly than I ought to because I fear that the current approach to private education will dismantle a number of valuable schools, some of which have been built up over decades. I appreciate many will see that as a good thing; I'm afraid I don't.

If someone has their hip or knee replaced using a private health care provider, should they ask for a refund from the state equivalent to the cost to the NHS for the same procedure?

Interesting question. I would say that the answer is 'yes', provided that the NHS would have been required to fund it if that person had chosen not to 'go private'. The patient would be entitled to call upon the NHS to fund the cost of that operation, so why should the patient not be entitled to seek the cash equivalent on the condition that it is in fact used for the same operation?

It seems to me that could put the question the other way round too: Why should the NHS be entitled to take advantage of the fact that someone might - for perfectly good reason - think that a private option was better in order to avoid paying anything towards something that, in principle, it was required to fund?

You said "having saved the state many thousands of pounds per year (and tens of thousands of pounds overall) by privately funding their own children's education, you might reasonably expect that at the very least the cost of what are - in practice - effectively compulsory exams might be covered by the state".

You seem to feel you have done the state (or tax payer) some sort of favour ("having saved the state...") and that somehow it seems to entitle you "at the very least" to a state subsidy of exam fees; You're fortunate enough to have literally purchased a range of socio-educational advantages for your children and you want the state to top you up?

As an aside, GCSEs are not compulsory, not even in practice. A significant number of independent school exam entries in Y11 (nearly half in some years) are for IGCSEs (and a proportion of independent schools also offer the international baccalaureate as an A level alternative.) For this reason, the ISC do not even bother including GCSE results (as published by the DfE) in their annual report because "an analysis based on these data would not be a true reflection" of performance.