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.

Parent B is adamant that her DD is very happy with the place at City university and it would probably suit her better than LSE. Another of her children chose Christchurch Canterbury over York university. They don't really get RG or university rankings. All the children are happy and well balanced, so maybe the non-pushy approach works.

Which is a materially different statement to the one I replied to that says no one does 13 GCSEs or 5 A Levels.

@runner2023have the DC reached their potential and happy with their lot? I realised too late the importance of money and the role it will play in my happiness and wellbeing and in my ability to support my kids.

So what’s your point, then? They’re happy with what they’ve got. If they’re not going to listen to people who know the difference between LSE and City, the cost of the re-marks is irrelevant.

The system certainly favours the affluent/educated/involved.
Firstly having the knowledge of grade boundaries, review of marking etc and understanding the risks involved is more likely with families who are actively involved in education or educated themselves.

Schools these days don’t have the budgets to pay for many or any reviews of marking. It is largely down to parental funding. £60 a pop might feel like nothing to lots but to many it’s impossible or would involve e big sacrifices.

Cukturally, it’s the norm for many to simply accept the grades and outcomes they are handed. They aren’t sharp/elbowed or determined to have what they might deserve (and marking errors are errors). So some families’ kids will have missed their grades and top uni place like Person B and just accepted it and moved on. It’s not a moral failing on their part or a consequence of having 4 kids. It’s a cultural response to what’s happened - accepting disappointment, and lacking as much control or reaction as others might expect to have.

Affluent kids in a private school might have staff scrutinising the marks and supporting families to consider review of marking which the parents pay for. Affluent families in state schools might scrutinise the marks themselves and gather the necessary info about grade boundaries etc, and pay for remarks. In some of the most deprived areas, schools might have a small budget to help pupil premium kids access a few reviews of marking and guide families on this. Most less affluent students or those from families that aren’t clued-up probably never know if their marks wee close to the boundary or anomalous or not. If they are a bit disappointed, there might be a day or 2 of disappointment…possibly a little wondering if anything can be done before moving on, or simply an acceptance that these are he grades and that’s what they’ve got. Especially if they’ve got to the next desired stage, the idea of a review when the higher grade wasn’t immediately needed, probably wouldn’t be remotely considered or seen to be worth it. Sometimes it might be thought seeking a review is greedy and that some people always want more.

The fact a cost is involved in reviews of marking and also a level of knowledge and a certain attitude means there’s not a level playing field. As kids start school at 4 with odds often stacked in favour or against them, thus final compulsory education phase of exam results just finishes that off and strengthens the disparity further. And the causes aren’t just due to money although it pays a part. And they aren’t just due to poor parent choices, as some posters on here suggest. It’s complex and a function of a society which is unequal on lots of levels but things compound to give advantage or disadvantage.

DD1 did 16, Dd2 did 14 and ds did 12.

They did do them over 3 years, but most of the dc do at least 12 GCSEs or GCSE equivalent at their comprehensive.
Personally I don't like it; I think they'd be better to do well over 8-10, then stretch over so many, but whenever they've held consultations, the parents on the whole support it.

Op, you are right, and wrong. If that makes sense.
I do feel it's unfair. It costs around about £50 per paper. That's per paper, not per subject; most subjects have 2-3 papers. If we'd had to put everyone of dd1's papers back in for a remark, we could have at a stretch risked losing around £1000. Other people would be in the position of not being able to pay the £50 up front for one paper, even with the likelihood of getting it back.

The dc's school has a fund for people whose teachers consider it worth challenging, so that anyone can apply for that fund, and some the teachers will approach the pupil and offer.
With the ability to get the papers to view this means they can target papers that they can see issues on.

But that's also why they changed the "remark" to "review". Because in some subjects that was giving two bites of the cherry - hoping that if examiner 1 didn't like the answer, examiner 2 would and give them 2 more marks.
Now examiner 2 would look at the question, think, well I'd have given 2 more marks, but that is within tolerance so they don't get more.
I have two thoughts on that; firstly I'm not sure that's fair because a different examiner would have made two marks more, should they get the marks? But then I think of the advantage of being able to pop your paper through again and hope that a different examiner thinks slightly differently then gives a huge advantage to the wealthy.

For example, dd1 had one (history I think) paper she was a bit disappointed in her mark. She was 5 marks off the next grade. She got the paper back to see with her teacher. The teacher said that they felt that the marks were harsh but within tolerance. With a different examiner, the teacher reckoned there were 8-10 points that could have gone either way; with her examiner every one was a "no".
Is that fair? On the face of it, no.
But let's get down to the reality:
Different examiners will mark differently, especially in the humanities/arts due to personal preference etc. When your papers go off you have an equal chance of getting an examiner who likes your style/dislikes your style as everyone else. Let's say it's 50/50.
So you have a 50% chance of getting an examiner who likes your style.
If you are allowed to put it back in for a second go at getting an examiner who like's your style, it's 75%.

So unless every paper is put back in for a second go it is hugely advantaging those who can afford/have the knowledge/have supportive parents to be able to put it back in.

I wouldn't want reviews of papers to be taken away entirely because there are those where mistakes are clearly made - a question isn't marked etc. But I don't think putting it back in "because it's close" is fair. If you asked teachers to make a case, then I suspect the reviews at comprehensives would drop next to private and grammar.
So I think the review is as fair as they can make it.

Good points!
Yes, for anyone who doesn’t know, a Review looks to see if marking is reasonable. Answers are marked in bands. So an esssy might have 5 bands with 5 marks in each. If the examiner is deemed to have marked within the right band that’s considered reasonable, or ‘within tolerance’ and the mark won’t change, even if the 2nd examiner might have given a higher mark within the same band.

Good points!
Yes, for anyone who doesn’t know, a Review looks to see if marking is reasonable. Answers are marked in bands. So an esssy might have 5 bands with 5 marks in each. If the examiner is deemed to have marked within the right band that’s considered reasonable, or ‘within tolerance’ and the mark won’t change, even if the 2nd examiner might have given a higher mark within the same band.

For those concerned about whether anyone takes 13 GCSEs (3 taken early), this is an email from the Head:

We also congratulate our Year 11 students on an extremely strong set of GCSE results. The year group achieved 44% of results at the very top grade 9, 71% of results at grades 8 or 9 and 87% of results at grades 7,8 or 9. On the Government “Attainment 8” measure, the Year 11 cohort achieved an average of 82.9.

Out of a cohort of 150, thirty students achieved at least ten grade 9’s, but we recognise the hard work and dedication that has gone into every exam result – and we wish all students well as they move on to the next stage of their education.

We also congratulate students in Year 9 or 10 who have taken GCSEs early. Overall, 88% of grades in early GCSEs were at grade 8 or 9 which represents an outstanding set of outcomes.

So the whole issue isn't a matter of rich/poor, but an awareness of the benefits of a university like LSE over one like City. I have no doubt that if B had the same opinion of LSE as many here do, she would have been able to get the money somehow.