Are remarks/review of marking just for the wealthy?

[runner2023]

I have 2 friends whose children have sat exams this year.

Parent A: Her DD got 4 A stars and an A last year for A level and had a place at Oxford. Parent A put in for a remark for the A grade and her DD then was awarded 5 A stars.
Today her DS got 2 x 6s in English, she requesting remarks and also for maths and physics because DS 'only' got an 8 and she would like 9s. This must be costing her a fortune to have 4 subjects remarked. He got 9999998877766. They are well off.

Parent B: DD got AAC and needed AAB for a place at the LSE (contextual as she goes to a low achieving school). She lost her firm and is going to City University instead. She was 3 marks off a B grade, but parent B can not afford a remark and said it the same cost as a week's shopping. Her DD is fine with going to her insurance. The family has 4 children. They are not on the breadline but money is tight.

It seems the wealthy are able to request remarks at the drop of a hat. This seems very unfair.

The process is:
Request scripts back (free or admin cost only)
Ask the teacher to check, they will identify if worth a review and if so which paper
Ask for a paper to be reviewed officially, you get your money back if the grade changes.
Some schools may cover the costs of reviews they think are really worth it.

But yes it is easier for wealthy people to throw money at potentially incorrect grades.

I think that’s in one sitting. Here it’s common to sit some in year 10, either in full (usually English and Welsh lit) or some modules (sciences and maths) towards the year 11 qualification.

So they still have that many GCSE qualifications but I’m pretty sure that it’s not included in the data that you’ve found.

Wales does more but it has letter grades not Numbers.
Wales has Welsh and 2 Maths GCSEs not just 1, on top of the usual stuff iirc

In your op it seems parent A have 2 children and parent B 4?

the average cost of raising a child to 18 is £275000 (obvo will differ).

I would argue that choosing to have 4 children is what resulted in them not being able to afford the £50 remark.

Because GCSEs weren't designed to be sat in Yr 10 and in England you can't sit individual modules, you can only be awarded a GCSE once all component parts are completed.
Some 6th forns won't accept individually sat GCSEs because they were designed as 2 year courses taught in Yr 10 + 11 and then sat together at end of Yr 11. If pupils sit GCSEs individually then they will get higher grades because they only have to focus on that 1 subject, the point of sitting them all together is can you pass multiple tests on multiple subjects sat within close proximity to each other.
Otherwise why not start in Yr 8 and sit 1 each term from Yr 9 onwards?

I don’t think employers will care how you sit them.

and plenty of people do 2 year course either outside of school (our local dance school does this) or as an extra in school time such as lunch hours or after school. Don’t necessarily have to have done them in year 10 and 11. Sometimes to get the numbers they can offer them to start in year 8-10.

it wouldn't be practical nor good from a boredom point of view for a child to do one after another and in any event the exam sittings are only once a year (aside from resits)

No they won't but is it fair on other candidates for someone to spread some GCSEs out over time and potentially get better results, than those who have no other option than to do 8 or 9 and take them all at once at end of Yr 11?

Ofsted don't like the practice of sitting GCSEs early either. They will challenge and inspect the reasons behind the practice. The concern is that a school's primary motivation for early entry might be to boost its league table performance rather than for the pupil's benefit. So, whilst early entry is permitted for many students, Ofsted will question whether it truly serves the pupil's interests and learning.

But life isn’t fair. Where has this idea of fairness come from? You can’t make all things equal. Everyone is different.

One girl in my daughter’s year has got 13 grade 9s plus is a musical prodigy with a parent who is a concert pianist who has been able to nurture all her interests. Is that fair on my academic but not extraordinary child? One of the girls in my daughter’s year is a Latin teacher so her daughter for a 9 because of all the extra tuition- is that fair?

No one says GCSE’s are fair nor any qualification for that matter. they are an exam that reflects your ability at the moment you take it. That’s it.

when I was doing my professional exams I was in my early 20’s with no responsibilities so I passed all 18 exams first time with pretty high marks. My colleague had 2 small children and was doing it around them and kept failing. Was that fair? Of course not but everyone is different and has different family lives.

I'm not saying life should be fair, I am explaining why Ofsted don't like it and that it's not the way GCSEs were designed to work. Plus there's only a handful of pupils who do 13 GCSEs

I got expelled at GCSE time and the girl who got me expelled (told on me for a relatively small misdemeanour that would be suspension these days) got all of her's remarked and upgraded. I had to leave the school, wasn't allowed to take exams with my peers and had the stress of not having anywhere to live...didn't get any remarks. It's about having parents that want to use any excuse to give their kids a leg-up IMO. My parents were just mortified and labelled me as a black sheep for the rest of my life. I still got better grades than her though

Weird because I have 13 GCSEs and 5 A Levels.

Admittedly I did one GCSE in year 10 and another in year 12, and one of my A Levels is General Studies. I have an AS Level too.

I‘m studying for another GCSE now in my 30s too, but I accept that doesn’t really count for the point being made here.

so you want it to be that only children who study between the ages of 14-16 can ever do a GCSe? No one else can ever have a go?
ofsted might not like it but these are publicly available qualifications. Anyone can sit them - unless ofsted change the rules to that people have one chance to take them at the age of 16, it’s a free country for people to sit them at any time they like whether they are 5 or 100.

I’ve been challenged by my children to take one next year and so I’m thinking about giving it a go!

We don’t have Ofsted in Wales, we have Estyn.

In year 10 DS sat all of Welsh lit and English lit, and they completed all of the science practicals and 1 paper for each of the 3 sciences. He did half of the maths numeracy and maths procedural papers too. He completed the 2 maths qualifications in November of year 11.

Then they started the additional maths course which he sat the exam for in the summer of year 11, alongside his Welsh language, English Language, the rest of the 3 science papers, history, PE and music.

it works well in my opinion

In year 12 they sit AS level exams that count 40% towards their overall A level grades in year 13. Is that not fair either?!

Where have I said that? You're twisting my words. I clearly explained my rationale and you've just ignored it.

The fact remains that only a tiny % of pupils sit 12+ GCSEs. Just because your cousin's neighbour's dog sat 13+ doesn't mean that it's the norm, it isn't.

The government don't gather data on individually sat GCSEs for the reasons I've explained.

I have explained so many times now that 0.1% do 12+ GCSEs. A tiny %.

But I’m not talking about hose who do 13. I’m talking about in general. Some children do them early and you are saying it’s unfair. I don’t think it is. If someone can do 2 early and then only have 8 to do at 16, good for them!

What has this got to do with revising marks already sat to increase the grades? Or am I missing something?

Of course they do. I did 12 and I am not one of those overachievers you read about in the paper.

I'm saying Ofsted etc say it's unfair for the reasons I stated ie it is seen as giving an unfair advantage because they were designed to all be sat together in a tight time frame.

Personally I couldn't give a shiny shit but to sit in Yr 10 is, in most cases, an attempt by schools to boost their league tables pr to allow re-sits in Yr 11.

Whatever rhe reason it's still only a tiny % who have 13 GCSEs. The majority of pupils sit 8-9 with some 10s/11s and very very few 12+

Same. It suggests they don't place the same value on education. Very sad for their child.

it started because of unfairness. That it isn’t fair that some children have advantages over others in terms of getting remarked and other can’t. Then it went into unfairness of how GCSE’s work because some can take them early and have the advantage of that over others who can’t. The whole system is unfair. Some can get the exams remarked, others can’t. That is the way it works. You can’t remove that unfairness- it’s impossible.

The majority don't! Will people start reading my follow up posts because this is getting boring.
0.1% of pupils sit 12+ GCSEs. That's 390 a year out of 667,000.

Parent B very much made the wrong choice. You said they weren’t on the breadline so they just didn’t prioritise her. My dd would have worked herself to pay the £80.

GCSEs can be taken any time you like. There's no reason why a GCSE course has to take two years or why that two year period has to start at the beginning of year 10.

The unfairness is that the moderation isn’t adequate in the first place. Maybe the exam boards should try and fix that. Every year there are lots of posts from markers complaining how little they get paid and how they have to rush the marking. It’s scandalous.