EDEXCEL Watch

This discussion is closed.
Ok
Badges:
#1
Report 17 years ago
#1
Exam failings cost pupils grades A Sunday Times undercover investigation at the examination
board Edexcel has revealed shocking lapses in the checking of marks, report Will Iredale and
Jonathan Calvert

it is living on borrowed time - correct.

This year Edexcel says it will deal with a record 5m papers.

5 million papers. Looks like there being a major delay in publication of results. What happens if
there were people from last year who got much higher grasdes then they were given in 2001.

Edexcel could be responsible for causing so much harm. Some students might have even considered
killing themselves. But then with this mess edexcel have got into. They will recieve their correct
grades and then what and how is the candidate to react? Are they to accept the grades just like
that? Or is there something more that can be done.....

there had been many mistakes by examiners this year.

MANY MAJOR MISTAKES.

Despite this, the reporter was required to start work on GNVQ exam papers after only a 20-minute
induction.

After 20 minutes. Edexcel must be getting REALLY REALLY REALLY DESPERATE.

After 20 minutes!!!!!

The pressure was great: supervisors wanted each assistant to complete 700 papers a day, allowing
only 40 seconds to leaf through several pages of an exam paper, adding up the figures on each page.
In practice it can take much longer.

This just proves it. 700 papers a day. 40 seconds spent on each paper. Thsi just shows
something.....

40 seconds? 4 minutes seems more of a realistic time.

The reporter saw fellow workers simply ticking off pages of the papers without even looking at the
figures. Some openly acknowledged that they let papers through without checking them.

THIS IS IT.

THEY ADDMITTED THAT THEY DID NOT CHECK IT AT ALL. MAYBE MY SCRIPTS WERE NOT CHECKED. MY SCRIPTS WERE
NTO CHECKED. I DID RECIEVE THE GRADES I GOT LAST YEAR.

I KNOWSOMETHING MAJOR WENT WRONG.

Surely if the candidate prepares for the exam really well. Then they will pass and get a
decent grade.

But due to Edecel being the examing board they shall nto recieve their correct grade until after
everyoen has applied to university. Then Edexcel is responsible for wasting a year of that
candidates time.

Did this not happen with a candidate who did Music A-Level and when she retook the A-Level she was
told she had attained a B grade previously.

Well looks like being many cases like that this year.

One assistant marking GCSE papers admitted that she had probably let mistakes through, adding: "I
hate B-checks and I am terrible at it as I can' t count over 40."

FURTHER EVIDENCE. They took under qualified staff. Basic numeracy skills which would be a vital
requirement for the job.

Edexcel have ruined many candidates propescts. I believe there msut be some people who have not made
an application to univeristy this year, even if they have they have applied to somewhere , where
they do not belong, as their true grades were better then they expected, and should arrive soon.....

Hardly any assistants were using calculators because these slow down the checks.

THEY WERE NOT USING CALCULATORS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!

What more proof do I require.

MY AS GRADES WERE INCORRECT. ALL MY RESULTS WERE INCORRECT WITH EDEXCEL BOARD.

One assistant admitted that for half a day she had failed to check the marks of any coursework
attached to the papers. This can account for 25% of total marks.

LOOK EVEN MORE EVIDENCE. DID NOT CHECK COURSEWORK. 25% MARKS.

25% IS ALOT. MAKES A MAJOR DIFFERENCE.

A supervisor said that although he wanted checkers to be accurate, the target of 700 papers a day
made it difficult. "You tell them you need 700, they just tick it; they don't look at all," he said.

THEY TICK IT. DON'T LOOK AT ALL?

There was no attempt to check all the exam papers, despite the code of conduct regulated by the
government's Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) which states: "All scripts must be
checked for incomplete marking and errors in totalling."

BUT MY PAPERS WERE NTO CHECKED. I KNWO THEY WERE NOT.

I worked very hard. But then I come out with poor grades? Hmmm.

SUCCESS IS DIRECTIONALLY PROPORTIONAL TO EFFORT? THAT I BELIEVE TO BE TRUE.

Which means Edexcel have made a mistake in my results.

Staff were required to check only a random sample. If they found no mistakes they could pass the
remaining papers without even looking at them.

RANDOM SAMPLE. RANDOM SAMPLE. THIS IS THE CAUSE FOR MY POOR GRADES. I KNWO I GOT MUCH BETTER GRADES.

The reporter went on to check a batch which should have been approved because he found no errors
in the initial sample. He found an error in one of the papers which otherwise might not have
been detected.

An Edexcel supervisor last week estimated that two out of 10 batches of scripts contained errors. In
one batch of papers, seven of the 25 scripts were found to have errors.

By contrast, all the other main examining boards said last week that they checked every paper. "It
takes a lot of manpower and a lot of time but we think it is best we check every one," said a
spokesman for WJEC, the Welsh examining board.

Edexcel, which has been striving to make improvements under John Kerr, its new chief executive, said
it had previously checked every paper but had introduced a new quality control system. It claims
that this is not designed to cut cost or time, but improves accuracy by finding the problem areas.
The system identifies examiners making mistakes and allows Edexcel to target and re-examine all of
their work.

THIS SYSTEM INCREASES ERRORS. INCREASES CHANCES OF INCCORECT GRADES BEING GIVEN TO CANDIDATES.

Experts questioned the claim that it produced more accurate results than the process of checking
every paper. Lord May, head of the Royal Society and a specialist in statistics, said: "Any
suggestion that it is better to look at a carefully designed sub-sample rather than all the papers
strikes me as arrant nonsense."

LORD MAY KNOWS THE TRUTH. PEOPLE HAVE GOT INCORRECT GRADES. I STRONGLY BELIEVE MY GRADES WERE MUCH
HIGHER THAN I WAS GIVEN LAST YEAR.

A leaked government report last week singled out problems with the exam system such as the late
delivery of exam papers, unsolvable questions and frequent marking errors.

All the exam boards have been put under pressure by the increased number of papers taken by
students. Last year the introduction of the AS-level doubled entries for academic subjects taken by
sixth-formers. The total number of exams taken in England and Wales - including GCSEs and coursework
- is now 24m compared with 2.6m in the 1970s.

EDEXCEL IS GUILITY. Last year when staff from schools rang to enquire about results.

EDXECEL STAFF HUNG UP ON THEM. What can one assume from this? EDEXCEL KNOWS THAT IT HAS MESSED
UP BIG TIME.

EDXECEL ARE UNRELIABLE. WHAT TRUST CAN ONE PLACE IN THE RESULTS?

THEY NEVER EVEN LOOKED AT PEOPLE'S QUALIFICATIONS WHEN HIRING THEM AS STAFF?

NOT USING CALCULATORS TO CHECK.

PERFORMING RANDOM CHECKS.

STAFF NOT BEING ABLE TO COUNT TO 40.

TOO MUCH WORK TAKEN ON BY UNDER QUALIFIED STAFF

Edexcel have messed up majorly. Estelle Morris really should be doing somethign about this. There
are probably HUNDREDS of students around the country with incorrect or inaccuarate grades.

I also believe some other practices may be taking place in the exam boards. Cash for grades.

What about other possibilities. Some of the staff could be altering grades, changing
people's grades.

Does Edexcel make them sign any formal contract to make sure they do no tamper with results?

Hmmmmm. Edexcel examboard

MAJOR DELAY IN EXAM RESULTS this summer
0
Ok
Badges:
#2
Report 17 years ago
#2
Edexcel - The Not So Reliable Examboard.

"ok" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
[q1]> Exam failings cost pupils grades A Sunday Times undercover investigation at the examination[/q1]
[q1]> board Edexcel[/q1]
has
[q1]> revealed shocking lapses in the checking of marks, report Will Iredale and Jonathan Calvert[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> it is living on borrowed time - correct.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> This year Edexcel says it will deal with a record 5m papers.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> 5 million papers. Looks like there being a major delay in publication of results. What happens if[/q1]
[q1]> there were people from last year who got much higher grasdes then they were given in 2001.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Edexcel could be responsible for causing so much harm. Some students might have even considered[/q1]
[q1]> killing themselves. But then with this mess edexcel have got into. They will recieve their correct[/q1]
[q1]> grades and then what and[/q1]
how
[q1]> is the candidate to react? Are they to accept the grades just like that?[/q1]
Or
[q1]> is there something more that can be done.....[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> there had been many mistakes by examiners this year.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> MANY MAJOR MISTAKES.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Despite this, the reporter was required to start work on GNVQ exam papers after only a 20-minute[/q1]
[q1]> induction.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> After 20 minutes. Edexcel must be getting REALLY REALLY REALLY DESPERATE.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> After 20 minutes!!!!![/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> The pressure was great: supervisors wanted each assistant to complete 700 papers a day, allowing[/q1]
[q1]> only 40 seconds to leaf through several pages of an exam paper, adding up the figures on each[/q1]
[q1]> page. In practice it can take[/q1]
much
[q1]> longer.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> This just proves it. 700 papers a day. 40 seconds spent on each paper. Thsi just shows[/q1]
[q1]> something.....[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> 40 seconds? 4 minutes seems more of a realistic time.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> The reporter saw fellow workers simply ticking off pages of the papers without even looking at the[/q1]
[q1]> figures. Some openly acknowledged that they[/q1]
let
[q1]> papers through without checking them.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> THIS IS IT.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> THEY ADDMITTED THAT THEY DID NOT CHECK IT AT ALL. MAYBE MY SCRIPTS WERE[/q1]
NOT
[q1]> CHECKED. MY SCRIPTS WERE NTO CHECKED. I DID RECIEVE THE GRADES I GOT LAST YEAR.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> I KNOWSOMETHING MAJOR WENT WRONG.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Surely if the candidate prepares for the exam really well. Then they will pass and get a[/q1]
[q1]> decent grade.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> But due to Edecel being the examing board they shall nto recieve their correct grade until after[/q1]
[q1]> everyoen has applied to university. Then Edexcel is responsible for wasting a year of that[/q1]
[q1]> candidates time.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Did this not happen with a candidate who did Music A-Level and when she retook the A-Level she was[/q1]
[q1]> told she had attained a B grade previously.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Well looks like being many cases like that this year.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> One assistant marking GCSE papers admitted that she had probably let mistakes through, adding: "I[/q1]
[q1]> hate B-checks and I am terrible at it as I[/q1]
can'
[q1]> t count over 40."[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> FURTHER EVIDENCE. They took under qualified staff. Basic numeracy skills which would be a vital[/q1]
[q1]> requirement for the job.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Edexcel have ruined many candidates propescts. I believe there msut be[/q1]
some
[q1]> people who have not made an application to univeristy this year, even if they have they have[/q1]
[q1]> applied to somewhere , where they do not belong, as their true grades were better then they[/q1]
[q1]> expected, and should arrive soon.....[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Hardly any assistants were using calculators because these slow down the checks.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> THEY WERE NOT USING CALCULATORS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!![/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> What more proof do I require.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> MY AS GRADES WERE INCORRECT. ALL MY RESULTS WERE INCORRECT WITH EDEXCEL BOARD.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> One assistant admitted that for half a day she had failed to check the[/q1]
marks
[q1]> of any coursework attached to the papers. This can account for 25% of[/q1]
total
[q1]> marks.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> LOOK EVEN MORE EVIDENCE. DID NOT CHECK COURSEWORK. 25% MARKS.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> 25% IS ALOT. MAKES A MAJOR DIFFERENCE.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> A supervisor said that although he wanted checkers to be accurate, the target of 700 papers a[/q1]
[q1]> day made it difficult. "You tell them you need 700, they just tick it; they don't look at all,"[/q1]
[q1]> he said.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> THEY TICK IT. DON'T LOOK AT ALL?[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> There was no attempt to check all the exam papers, despite the code of conduct regulated by the[/q1]
[q1]> government's Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) which states: "All scripts must be[/q1]
[q1]> checked for incomplete marking and errors in totalling."[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> BUT MY PAPERS WERE NTO CHECKED. I KNWO THEY WERE NOT.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> I worked very hard. But then I come out with poor grades? Hmmm.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> SUCCESS IS DIRECTIONALLY PROPORTIONAL TO EFFORT? THAT I BELIEVE TO BE[/q1]
TRUE.
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Which means Edexcel have made a mistake in my results.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Staff were required to check only a random sample. If they found no[/q1]
[q1]> mistakes they could pass the remaining papers without even looking at[/q1]
them.
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> RANDOM SAMPLE. RANDOM SAMPLE. THIS IS THE CAUSE FOR MY POOR GRADES. I[/q1]
KNWO
[q1]> I GOT MUCH BETTER GRADES.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> The reporter went on to check a batch which should have been approved because he found no errors[/q1]
[q1]> in the initial sample. He found an error in one of the papers which otherwise might not have been[/q1]
[q1]> detected.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> An Edexcel supervisor last week estimated that two out of 10 batches of scripts contained errors.[/q1]
[q1]> In one batch of papers, seven of the 25 scripts were found to have errors.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> By contrast, all the other main examining boards said last week that they checked every paper. "It[/q1]
[q1]> takes a lot of manpower and a lot of time but we think it is best we check every one," said a[/q1]
[q1]> spokesman for WJEC, the Welsh examining board.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Edexcel, which has been striving to make improvements under John Kerr, its new chief executive,[/q1]
[q1]> said it had previously checked every paper but had introduced a new quality control system. It[/q1]
[q1]> claims that this is not[/q1]
designed
[q1]> to cut cost or time, but improves accuracy by finding the problem areas.[/q1]
The
[q1]> system identifies examiners making mistakes and allows Edexcel to target[/q1]
and
[q1]> re-examine all of their work.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> THIS SYSTEM INCREASES ERRORS. INCREASES CHANCES OF INCCORECT GRADES BEING GIVEN TO CANDIDATES.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Experts questioned the claim that it produced more accurate results than[/q1]
the
[q1]> process of checking every paper. Lord May, head of the Royal Society and a specialist in[/q1]
[q1]> statistics, said: "Any suggestion that it is better to look[/q1]
at
[q1]> a carefully designed sub-sample rather than all the papers strikes me as arrant nonsense."[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> LORD MAY KNOWS THE TRUTH. PEOPLE HAVE GOT INCORRECT GRADES. I STRONGLY BELIEVE MY GRADES WERE MUCH[/q1]
[q1]> HIGHER THAN I WAS GIVEN LAST YEAR.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> A leaked government report last week singled out problems with the exam system such as the late[/q1]
[q1]> delivery of exam papers, unsolvable questions and frequent marking errors.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> All the exam boards have been put under pressure by the increased number[/q1]
of
[q1]> papers taken by students. Last year the introduction of the AS-level[/q1]
doubled
[q1]> entries for academic subjects taken by sixth-formers. The total number of exams taken in England[/q1]
[q1]> and Wales - including GCSEs and coursework - is now 24m compared with 2.6m in the 1970s.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> EDEXCEL IS GUILITY. Last year when staff from schools rang to enquire about results.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> EDXECEL STAFF HUNG UP ON THEM. What can one assume from this? EDEXCEL KNOWS THAT IT HAS MESSED UP[/q1]
[q1]> BIG TIME.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> EDXECEL ARE UNRELIABLE. WHAT TRUST CAN ONE PLACE IN THE RESULTS?[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> THEY NEVER EVEN LOOKED AT PEOPLE'S QUALIFICATIONS WHEN HIRING THEM AS STAFF?[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> NOT USING CALCULATORS TO CHECK.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> PERFORMING RANDOM CHECKS.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> STAFF NOT BEING ABLE TO COUNT TO 40.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> TOO MUCH WORK TAKEN ON BY UNDER QUALIFIED STAFF[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Edexcel have messed up majorly. Estelle Morris really should be doing somethign about this. There[/q1]
[q1]> are probably HUNDREDS of students around the country with incorrect or inaccuarate grades.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> I also believe some other practices may be taking place in the exam[/q1]
boards.
[q1]> Cash for grades.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> What about other possibilities. Some of the staff could be altering[/q1]
grades,
[q1]> changing people's grades.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Does Edexcel make them sign any formal contract to make sure they do no tamper with results?[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Hmmmmm. Edexcel examboard[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> MAJOR DELAY IN EXAM RESULTS this summer[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
0
Ok
Badges:
#3
Report 17 years ago
#3
Edexcel could be responsible for some candidiates last year feeling suicidial and doing other
things. What happens if these students have recieved the incorrect grades?

Would they accept their grades just like that? Edexcel.....

"ok" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
[q1]> Exam failings cost pupils grades A Sunday Times undercover investigation at the examination[/q1]
[q1]> board Edexcel[/q1]
has
[q1]> revealed shocking lapses in the checking of marks, report Will Iredale and Jonathan Calvert[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> it is living on borrowed time - correct.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> This year Edexcel says it will deal with a record 5m papers.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> 5 million papers. Looks like there being a major delay in publication of results. What happens if[/q1]
[q1]> there were people from last year who got much higher grasdes then they were given in 2001.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Edexcel could be responsible for causing so much harm. Some students might have even considered[/q1]
[q1]> killing themselves. But then with this mess edexcel have got into. They will recieve their correct[/q1]
[q1]> grades and then what and[/q1]
how
[q1]> is the candidate to react? Are they to accept the grades just like that?[/q1]
Or
[q1]> is there something more that can be done.....[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> there had been many mistakes by examiners this year.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> MANY MAJOR MISTAKES.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Despite this, the reporter was required to start work on GNVQ exam papers after only a 20-minute[/q1]
[q1]> induction.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> After 20 minutes. Edexcel must be getting REALLY REALLY REALLY DESPERATE.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> After 20 minutes!!!!![/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> The pressure was great: supervisors wanted each assistant to complete 700 papers a day, allowing[/q1]
[q1]> only 40 seconds to leaf through several pages of an exam paper, adding up the figures on each[/q1]
[q1]> page. In practice it can take[/q1]
much
[q1]> longer.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> This just proves it. 700 papers a day. 40 seconds spent on each paper. Thsi just shows[/q1]
[q1]> something.....[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> 40 seconds? 4 minutes seems more of a realistic time.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> The reporter saw fellow workers simply ticking off pages of the papers without even looking at the[/q1]
[q1]> figures. Some openly acknowledged that they[/q1]
let
[q1]> papers through without checking them.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> THIS IS IT.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> THEY ADDMITTED THAT THEY DID NOT CHECK IT AT ALL. MAYBE MY SCRIPTS WERE[/q1]
NOT
[q1]> CHECKED. MY SCRIPTS WERE NTO CHECKED. I DID RECIEVE THE GRADES I GOT LAST YEAR.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> I KNOWSOMETHING MAJOR WENT WRONG.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Surely if the candidate prepares for the exam really well. Then they will pass and get a[/q1]
[q1]> decent grade.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> But due to Edecel being the examing board they shall nto recieve their correct grade until after[/q1]
[q1]> everyoen has applied to university. Then Edexcel is responsible for wasting a year of that[/q1]
[q1]> candidates time.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Did this not happen with a candidate who did Music A-Level and when she retook the A-Level she was[/q1]
[q1]> told she had attained a B grade previously.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Well looks like being many cases like that this year.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> One assistant marking GCSE papers admitted that she had probably let mistakes through, adding: "I[/q1]
[q1]> hate B-checks and I am terrible at it as I[/q1]
can'
[q1]> t count over 40."[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> FURTHER EVIDENCE. They took under qualified staff. Basic numeracy skills which would be a vital[/q1]
[q1]> requirement for the job.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Edexcel have ruined many candidates propescts. I believe there msut be[/q1]
some
[q1]> people who have not made an application to univeristy this year, even if they have they have[/q1]
[q1]> applied to somewhere , where they do not belong, as their true grades were better then they[/q1]
[q1]> expected, and should arrive soon.....[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Hardly any assistants were using calculators because these slow down the checks.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> THEY WERE NOT USING CALCULATORS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!![/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> What more proof do I require.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> MY AS GRADES WERE INCORRECT. ALL MY RESULTS WERE INCORRECT WITH EDEXCEL BOARD.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> One assistant admitted that for half a day she had failed to check the[/q1]
marks
[q1]> of any coursework attached to the papers. This can account for 25% of[/q1]
total
[q1]> marks.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> LOOK EVEN MORE EVIDENCE. DID NOT CHECK COURSEWORK. 25% MARKS.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> 25% IS ALOT. MAKES A MAJOR DIFFERENCE.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> A supervisor said that although he wanted checkers to be accurate, the target of 700 papers a[/q1]
[q1]> day made it difficult. "You tell them you need 700, they just tick it; they don't look at all,"[/q1]
[q1]> he said.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> THEY TICK IT. DON'T LOOK AT ALL?[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> There was no attempt to check all the exam papers, despite the code of conduct regulated by the[/q1]
[q1]> government's Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) which states: "All scripts must be[/q1]
[q1]> checked for incomplete marking and errors in totalling."[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> BUT MY PAPERS WERE NTO CHECKED. I KNWO THEY WERE NOT.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> I worked very hard. But then I come out with poor grades? Hmmm.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> SUCCESS IS DIRECTIONALLY PROPORTIONAL TO EFFORT? THAT I BELIEVE TO BE[/q1]
TRUE.
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Which means Edexcel have made a mistake in my results.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Staff were required to check only a random sample. If they found no[/q1]
[q1]> mistakes they could pass the remaining papers without even looking at[/q1]
them.
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> RANDOM SAMPLE. RANDOM SAMPLE. THIS IS THE CAUSE FOR MY POOR GRADES. I[/q1]
KNWO
[q1]> I GOT MUCH BETTER GRADES.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> The reporter went on to check a batch which should have been approved because he found no errors[/q1]
[q1]> in the initial sample. He found an error in one of the papers which otherwise might not have been[/q1]
[q1]> detected.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> An Edexcel supervisor last week estimated that two out of 10 batches of scripts contained errors.[/q1]
[q1]> In one batch of papers, seven of the 25 scripts were found to have errors.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> By contrast, all the other main examining boards said last week that they checked every paper. "It[/q1]
[q1]> takes a lot of manpower and a lot of time but we think it is best we check every one," said a[/q1]
[q1]> spokesman for WJEC, the Welsh examining board.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Edexcel, which has been striving to make improvements under John Kerr, its new chief executive,[/q1]
[q1]> said it had previously checked every paper but had introduced a new quality control system. It[/q1]
[q1]> claims that this is not[/q1]
designed
[q1]> to cut cost or time, but improves accuracy by finding the problem areas.[/q1]
The
[q1]> system identifies examiners making mistakes and allows Edexcel to target[/q1]
and
[q1]> re-examine all of their work.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> THIS SYSTEM INCREASES ERRORS. INCREASES CHANCES OF INCCORECT GRADES BEING GIVEN TO CANDIDATES.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Experts questioned the claim that it produced more accurate results than[/q1]
the
[q1]> process of checking every paper. Lord May, head of the Royal Society and a specialist in[/q1]
[q1]> statistics, said: "Any suggestion that it is better to look[/q1]
at
[q1]> a carefully designed sub-sample rather than all the papers strikes me as arrant nonsense."[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> LORD MAY KNOWS THE TRUTH. PEOPLE HAVE GOT INCORRECT GRADES. I STRONGLY BELIEVE MY GRADES WERE MUCH[/q1]
[q1]> HIGHER THAN I WAS GIVEN LAST YEAR.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> A leaked government report last week singled out problems with the exam system such as the late[/q1]
[q1]> delivery of exam papers, unsolvable questions and frequent marking errors.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> All the exam boards have been put under pressure by the increased number[/q1]
of
[q1]> papers taken by students. Last year the introduction of the AS-level[/q1]
doubled
[q1]> entries for academic subjects taken by sixth-formers. The total number of exams taken in England[/q1]
[q1]> and Wales - including GCSEs and coursework - is now 24m compared with 2.6m in the 1970s.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> EDEXCEL IS GUILITY. Last year when staff from schools rang to enquire about results.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> EDXECEL STAFF HUNG UP ON THEM. What can one assume from this? EDEXCEL KNOWS THAT IT HAS MESSED UP[/q1]
[q1]> BIG TIME.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> EDXECEL ARE UNRELIABLE. WHAT TRUST CAN ONE PLACE IN THE RESULTS?[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> THEY NEVER EVEN LOOKED AT PEOPLE'S QUALIFICATIONS WHEN HIRING THEM AS STAFF?[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> NOT USING CALCULATORS TO CHECK.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> PERFORMING RANDOM CHECKS.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> STAFF NOT BEING ABLE TO COUNT TO 40.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> TOO MUCH WORK TAKEN ON BY UNDER QUALIFIED STAFF[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Edexcel have messed up majorly. Estelle Morris really should be doing somethign about this. There[/q1]
[q1]> are probably HUNDREDS of students around the country with incorrect or inaccuarate grades.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> I also believe some other practices may be taking place in the exam[/q1]
boards.
[q1]> Cash for grades.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> What about other possibilities. Some of the staff could be altering[/q1]
grades,
[q1]> changing people's grades.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Does Edexcel make them sign any formal contract to make sure they do no tamper with results?[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Hmmmmm. Edexcel examboard[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> MAJOR DELAY IN EXAM RESULTS this summer[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
0
Ok
Badges:
#4
Report 17 years ago
#4
The latest survey by leading private schools singles out Edexcel as the worst of the three exam
boards last summer. It said: "Schools have stated that Edexcel was unhelpful, uncommunicative,
unprofessional and discourteous (to the point of phones being hung up on staff)."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...328336,00.html

They put the phone down. Now there must be something wrong.

"ok" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
[q1]> Exam failings cost pupils grades A Sunday Times undercover investigation at the examination[/q1]
[q1]> board Edexcel[/q1]
has
[q1]> revealed shocking lapses in the checking of marks, report Will Iredale and Jonathan Calvert[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> it is living on borrowed time - correct.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> This year Edexcel says it will deal with a record 5m papers.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> 5 million papers. Looks like there being a major delay in publication of results. What happens if[/q1]
[q1]> there were people from last year who got much higher grasdes then they were given in 2001.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Edexcel could be responsible for causing so much harm. Some students might have even considered[/q1]
[q1]> killing themselves. But then with this mess edexcel have got into. They will recieve their correct[/q1]
[q1]> grades and then what and[/q1]
how
[q1]> is the candidate to react? Are they to accept the grades just like that?[/q1]
Or
[q1]> is there something more that can be done.....[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> there had been many mistakes by examiners this year.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> MANY MAJOR MISTAKES.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Despite this, the reporter was required to start work on GNVQ exam papers after only a 20-minute[/q1]
[q1]> induction.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> After 20 minutes. Edexcel must be getting REALLY REALLY REALLY DESPERATE.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> After 20 minutes!!!!![/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> The pressure was great: supervisors wanted each assistant to complete 700 papers a day, allowing[/q1]
[q1]> only 40 seconds to leaf through several pages of an exam paper, adding up the figures on each[/q1]
[q1]> page. In practice it can take[/q1]
much
[q1]> longer.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> This just proves it. 700 papers a day. 40 seconds spent on each paper. Thsi just shows[/q1]
[q1]> something.....[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> 40 seconds? 4 minutes seems more of a realistic time.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> The reporter saw fellow workers simply ticking off pages of the papers without even looking at the[/q1]
[q1]> figures. Some openly acknowledged that they[/q1]
let
[q1]> papers through without checking them.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> THIS IS IT.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> THEY ADDMITTED THAT THEY DID NOT CHECK IT AT ALL. MAYBE MY SCRIPTS WERE[/q1]
NOT
[q1]> CHECKED. MY SCRIPTS WERE NTO CHECKED. I DID RECIEVE THE GRADES I GOT LAST YEAR.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> I KNOWSOMETHING MAJOR WENT WRONG.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Surely if the candidate prepares for the exam really well. Then they will pass and get a[/q1]
[q1]> decent grade.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> But due to Edecel being the examing board they shall nto recieve their correct grade until after[/q1]
[q1]> everyoen has applied to university. Then Edexcel is responsible for wasting a year of that[/q1]
[q1]> candidates time.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Did this not happen with a candidate who did Music A-Level and when she retook the A-Level she was[/q1]
[q1]> told she had attained a B grade previously.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Well looks like being many cases like that this year.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> One assistant marking GCSE papers admitted that she had probably let mistakes through, adding: "I[/q1]
[q1]> hate B-checks and I am terrible at it as I[/q1]
can'
[q1]> t count over 40."[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> FURTHER EVIDENCE. They took under qualified staff. Basic numeracy skills which would be a vital[/q1]
[q1]> requirement for the job.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Edexcel have ruined many candidates propescts. I believe there msut be[/q1]
some
[q1]> people who have not made an application to univeristy this year, even if they have they have[/q1]
[q1]> applied to somewhere , where they do not belong, as their true grades were better then they[/q1]
[q1]> expected, and should arrive soon.....[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Hardly any assistants were using calculators because these slow down the checks.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> THEY WERE NOT USING CALCULATORS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!![/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> What more proof do I require.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> MY AS GRADES WERE INCORRECT. ALL MY RESULTS WERE INCORRECT WITH EDEXCEL BOARD.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> One assistant admitted that for half a day she had failed to check the[/q1]
marks
[q1]> of any coursework attached to the papers. This can account for 25% of[/q1]
total
[q1]> marks.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> LOOK EVEN MORE EVIDENCE. DID NOT CHECK COURSEWORK. 25% MARKS.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> 25% IS ALOT. MAKES A MAJOR DIFFERENCE.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> A supervisor said that although he wanted checkers to be accurate, the target of 700 papers a[/q1]
[q1]> day made it difficult. "You tell them you need 700, they just tick it; they don't look at all,"[/q1]
[q1]> he said.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> THEY TICK IT. DON'T LOOK AT ALL?[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> There was no attempt to check all the exam papers, despite the code of conduct regulated by the[/q1]
[q1]> government's Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) which states: "All scripts must be[/q1]
[q1]> checked for incomplete marking and errors in totalling."[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> BUT MY PAPERS WERE NTO CHECKED. I KNWO THEY WERE NOT.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> I worked very hard. But then I come out with poor grades? Hmmm.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> SUCCESS IS DIRECTIONALLY PROPORTIONAL TO EFFORT? THAT I BELIEVE TO BE[/q1]
TRUE.
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Which means Edexcel have made a mistake in my results.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Staff were required to check only a random sample. If they found no[/q1]
[q1]> mistakes they could pass the remaining papers without even looking at[/q1]
them.
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> RANDOM SAMPLE. RANDOM SAMPLE. THIS IS THE CAUSE FOR MY POOR GRADES. I[/q1]
KNWO
[q1]> I GOT MUCH BETTER GRADES.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> The reporter went on to check a batch which should have been approved because he found no errors[/q1]
[q1]> in the initial sample. He found an error in one of the papers which otherwise might not have been[/q1]
[q1]> detected.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> An Edexcel supervisor last week estimated that two out of 10 batches of scripts contained errors.[/q1]
[q1]> In one batch of papers, seven of the 25 scripts were found to have errors.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> By contrast, all the other main examining boards said last week that they checked every paper. "It[/q1]
[q1]> takes a lot of manpower and a lot of time but we think it is best we check every one," said a[/q1]
[q1]> spokesman for WJEC, the Welsh examining board.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Edexcel, which has been striving to make improvements under John Kerr, its new chief executive,[/q1]
[q1]> said it had previously checked every paper but had introduced a new quality control system. It[/q1]
[q1]> claims that this is not[/q1]
designed
[q1]> to cut cost or time, but improves accuracy by finding the problem areas.[/q1]
The
[q1]> system identifies examiners making mistakes and allows Edexcel to target[/q1]
and
[q1]> re-examine all of their work.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> THIS SYSTEM INCREASES ERRORS. INCREASES CHANCES OF INCCORECT GRADES BEING GIVEN TO CANDIDATES.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Experts questioned the claim that it produced more accurate results than[/q1]
the
[q1]> process of checking every paper. Lord May, head of the Royal Society and a specialist in[/q1]
[q1]> statistics, said: "Any suggestion that it is better to look[/q1]
at
[q1]> a carefully designed sub-sample rather than all the papers strikes me as arrant nonsense."[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> LORD MAY KNOWS THE TRUTH. PEOPLE HAVE GOT INCORRECT GRADES. I STRONGLY BELIEVE MY GRADES WERE MUCH[/q1]
[q1]> HIGHER THAN I WAS GIVEN LAST YEAR.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> A leaked government report last week singled out problems with the exam system such as the late[/q1]
[q1]> delivery of exam papers, unsolvable questions and frequent marking errors.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> All the exam boards have been put under pressure by the increased number[/q1]
of
[q1]> papers taken by students. Last year the introduction of the AS-level[/q1]
doubled
[q1]> entries for academic subjects taken by sixth-formers. The total number of exams taken in England[/q1]
[q1]> and Wales - including GCSEs and coursework - is now 24m compared with 2.6m in the 1970s.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> EDEXCEL IS GUILITY. Last year when staff from schools rang to enquire about results.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> EDXECEL STAFF HUNG UP ON THEM. What can one assume from this? EDEXCEL KNOWS THAT IT HAS MESSED UP[/q1]
[q1]> BIG TIME.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> EDXECEL ARE UNRELIABLE. WHAT TRUST CAN ONE PLACE IN THE RESULTS?[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> THEY NEVER EVEN LOOKED AT PEOPLE'S QUALIFICATIONS WHEN HIRING THEM AS STAFF?[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> NOT USING CALCULATORS TO CHECK.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> PERFORMING RANDOM CHECKS.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> STAFF NOT BEING ABLE TO COUNT TO 40.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> TOO MUCH WORK TAKEN ON BY UNDER QUALIFIED STAFF[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Edexcel have messed up majorly. Estelle Morris really should be doing somethign about this. There[/q1]
[q1]> are probably HUNDREDS of students around the country with incorrect or inaccuarate grades.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> I also believe some other practices may be taking place in the exam[/q1]
boards.
[q1]> Cash for grades.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> What about other possibilities. Some of the staff could be altering[/q1]
grades,
[q1]> changing people's grades.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Does Edexcel make them sign any formal contract to make sure they do no tamper with results?[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Hmmmmm. Edexcel examboard[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> MAJOR DELAY IN EXAM RESULTS this summer[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
0
Tom Salls
Badges:
#5
Report 17 years ago
#5
In article <[email protected] 1-gui.server.ntli.net>, ok2002 @earthling.net says...
[q1]> LORD MAY KNOWS THE TRUTH. PEOPLE HAVE GOT INCORRECT GRADES. I STRONGLY BELIEVE MY GRADES WERE MUCH[/q1]
[q1]> HIGHER THAN I WAS GIVEN LAST YEAR.[/q1]

Can you not get those papers remarked?

Not defending Edexcel -- they have a deservedly poor reputation.
0
Ok
Badges:
#6
Report 17 years ago
#6
The reporter also witnessed part-time staff cutting corners by passing exam scripts whose total
marks they were supposed to have checked.

"ok" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[q1]> Edexcel could be responsible for some candidiates last year feeling suicidial and doing other[/q1]
[q1]> things. What happens if these students have recieved the incorrect grades?[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Would they accept their grades just like that? Edexcel.....[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> "ok" <[email protected]> wrote in message[/q1]
[q1]> news[email protected]...[/q1]
[q2]> > Exam failings cost pupils grades A Sunday Times undercover investigation at the examination[/q2]
[q2]> > board Edexcel[/q2]
[q1]> has[/q1]
[q2]> > revealed shocking lapses in the checking of marks, report Will Iredale[/q2]
and
[q2]> > Jonathan Calvert[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > it is living on borrowed time - correct.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > This year Edexcel says it will deal with a record 5m papers.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > 5 million papers. Looks like there being a major delay in publication of results. What happens[/q2]
[q2]> > if there were people from last year who got much higher grasdes then they were given in 2001.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > Edexcel could be responsible for causing so much harm. Some students[/q2]
might
[q2]> > have even considered killing themselves. But then with this mess edexcel have got into. They[/q2]
[q2]> > will recieve their correct grades and then what and[/q2]
[q1]> how[/q1]
[q2]> > is the candidate to react? Are they to accept the grades just like that?[/q2]
[q1]> Or[/q1]
[q2]> > is there something more that can be done.....[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > there had been many mistakes by examiners this year.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > MANY MAJOR MISTAKES.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > Despite this, the reporter was required to start work on GNVQ exam[/q2]
papers
[q2]> > after only a 20-minute induction.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > After 20 minutes. Edexcel must be getting REALLY REALLY REALLY[/q2]
DESPERATE.
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > After 20 minutes!!!!![/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > The pressure was great: supervisors wanted each assistant to complete[/q2]
700
[q2]> > papers a day, allowing only 40 seconds to leaf through several pages of[/q2]
an
[q2]> > exam paper, adding up the figures on each page. In practice it can take[/q2]
[q1]> much[/q1]
[q2]> > longer.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > This just proves it. 700 papers a day. 40 seconds spent on each paper. Thsi just shows[/q2]
[q2]> > something.....[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > 40 seconds? 4 minutes seems more of a realistic time.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > The reporter saw fellow workers simply ticking off pages of the papers without even looking at[/q2]
[q2]> > the figures. Some openly acknowledged that they[/q2]
[q1]> let[/q1]
[q2]> > papers through without checking them.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > THIS IS IT.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > THEY ADDMITTED THAT THEY DID NOT CHECK IT AT ALL. MAYBE MY SCRIPTS WERE[/q2]
[q1]> NOT[/q1]
[q2]> > CHECKED. MY SCRIPTS WERE NTO CHECKED. I DID RECIEVE THE GRADES I GOT[/q2]
LAST
[q2]> > YEAR.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > I KNOWSOMETHING MAJOR WENT WRONG.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > Surely if the candidate prepares for the exam really well. Then they[/q2]
will
[q2]> > pass and get a decent grade.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > But due to Edecel being the examing board they shall nto recieve their correct grade until after[/q2]
[q2]> > everyoen has applied to university. Then[/q2]
Edexcel
[q2]> > is responsible for wasting a year of that candidates time.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > Did this not happen with a candidate who did Music A-Level and when she retook the A-Level she[/q2]
[q2]> > was told she had attained a B grade previously.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > Well looks like being many cases like that this year.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > One assistant marking GCSE papers admitted that she had probably let mistakes through, adding:[/q2]
[q2]> > "I hate B-checks and I am terrible at it as I[/q2]
[q1]> can'[/q1]
[q2]> > t count over 40."[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > FURTHER EVIDENCE. They took under qualified staff. Basic numeracy[/q2]
skills
[q2]> > which would be a vital requirement for the job.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > Edexcel have ruined many candidates propescts. I believe there msut be[/q2]
[q1]> some[/q1]
[q2]> > people who have not made an application to univeristy this year, even[/q2]
if
[q2]> > they have they have applied to somewhere , where they do not belong, as their true grades were[/q2]
[q2]> > better then they expected, and should arrive soon.....[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > Hardly any assistants were using calculators because these slow down the checks.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > THEY WERE NOT USING CALCULATORS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!![/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > What more proof do I require.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > MY AS GRADES WERE INCORRECT. ALL MY RESULTS WERE INCORRECT WITH EDEXCEL BOARD.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > One assistant admitted that for half a day she had failed to check the[/q2]
[q1]> marks[/q1]
[q2]> > of any coursework attached to the papers. This can account for 25% of[/q2]
[q1]> total[/q1]
[q2]> > marks.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > LOOK EVEN MORE EVIDENCE. DID NOT CHECK COURSEWORK. 25% MARKS.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > 25% IS ALOT. MAKES A MAJOR DIFFERENCE.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > A supervisor said that although he wanted checkers to be accurate, the target of 700 papers a[/q2]
[q2]> > day made it difficult. "You tell them you need[/q2]
700,
[q2]> > they just tick it; they don't look at all," he said.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > THEY TICK IT. DON'T LOOK AT ALL?[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > There was no attempt to check all the exam papers, despite the code of conduct regulated by the[/q2]
[q2]> > government's Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) which states: "All scripts must be[/q2]
[q2]> > checked for[/q2]
incomplete
[q2]> > marking and errors in totalling."[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > BUT MY PAPERS WERE NTO CHECKED. I KNWO THEY WERE NOT.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > I worked very hard. But then I come out with poor grades? Hmmm.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > SUCCESS IS DIRECTIONALLY PROPORTIONAL TO EFFORT? THAT I BELIEVE TO BE[/q2]
[q1]> TRUE.[/q1]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > Which means Edexcel have made a mistake in my results.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > Staff were required to check only a random sample. If they found no[/q2]
[q2]> > mistakes they could pass the remaining papers without even looking at[/q2]
[q1]> them.[/q1]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > RANDOM SAMPLE. RANDOM SAMPLE. THIS IS THE CAUSE FOR MY POOR GRADES. I[/q2]
[q1]> KNWO[/q1]
[q2]> > I GOT MUCH BETTER GRADES.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > The reporter went on to check a batch which should have been approved because he found no errors[/q2]
[q2]> > in the initial sample. He found an error in[/q2]
one
[q2]> > of the papers which otherwise might not have been detected.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > An Edexcel supervisor last week estimated that two out of 10 batches of scripts contained[/q2]
[q2]> > errors. In one batch of papers, seven of the 25[/q2]
scripts
[q2]> > were found to have errors.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > By contrast, all the other main examining boards said last week that[/q2]
they
[q2]> > checked every paper. "It takes a lot of manpower and a lot of time but[/q2]
we
[q2]> > think it is best we check every one," said a spokesman for WJEC, the[/q2]
Welsh
[q2]> > examining board.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > Edexcel, which has been striving to make improvements under John Kerr,[/q2]
its
[q2]> > new chief executive, said it had previously checked every paper but had introduced a new quality[/q2]
[q2]> > control system. It claims that this is not[/q2]
[q1]> designed[/q1]
[q2]> > to cut cost or time, but improves accuracy by finding the problem areas.[/q2]
[q1]> The[/q1]
[q2]> > system identifies examiners making mistakes and allows Edexcel to target[/q2]
[q1]> and[/q1]
[q2]> > re-examine all of their work.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > THIS SYSTEM INCREASES ERRORS. INCREASES CHANCES OF INCCORECT GRADES[/q2]
BEING
[q2]> > GIVEN TO CANDIDATES.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > Experts questioned the claim that it produced more accurate results than[/q2]
[q1]> the[/q1]
[q2]> > process of checking every paper. Lord May, head of the Royal Society and[/q2]
a
[q2]> > specialist in statistics, said: "Any suggestion that it is better to[/q2]
look
[q1]> at[/q1]
[q2]> > a carefully designed sub-sample rather than all the papers strikes me as arrant nonsense."[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > LORD MAY KNOWS THE TRUTH. PEOPLE HAVE GOT INCORRECT GRADES. I STRONGLY BELIEVE MY GRADES WERE[/q2]
[q2]> > MUCH HIGHER THAN I WAS GIVEN LAST YEAR.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > A leaked government report last week singled out problems with the exam system such as the late[/q2]
[q2]> > delivery of exam papers, unsolvable questions[/q2]
and
[q2]> > frequent marking errors.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > All the exam boards have been put under pressure by the increased number[/q2]
[q1]> of[/q1]
[q2]> > papers taken by students. Last year the introduction of the AS-level[/q2]
[q1]> doubled[/q1]
[q2]> > entries for academic subjects taken by sixth-formers. The total number[/q2]
of
[q2]> > exams taken in England and Wales - including GCSEs and coursework - is[/q2]
now
[q2]> > 24m compared with 2.6m in the 1970s.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > EDEXCEL IS GUILITY. Last year when staff from schools rang to enquire about results.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > EDXECEL STAFF HUNG UP ON THEM. What can one assume from this? EDEXCEL KNOWS THAT IT HAS MESSED[/q2]
[q2]> > UP BIG TIME.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > EDXECEL ARE UNRELIABLE. WHAT TRUST CAN ONE PLACE IN THE RESULTS?[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > THEY NEVER EVEN LOOKED AT PEOPLE'S QUALIFICATIONS WHEN HIRING THEM AS STAFF?[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > NOT USING CALCULATORS TO CHECK.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > PERFORMING RANDOM CHECKS.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > STAFF NOT BEING ABLE TO COUNT TO 40.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > TOO MUCH WORK TAKEN ON BY UNDER QUALIFIED STAFF[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > Edexcel have messed up majorly. Estelle Morris really should be doing somethign about this.[/q2]
[q2]> > There are probably HUNDREDS of students around the country with incorrect or inaccuarate grades.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > I also believe some other practices may be taking place in the exam[/q2]
[q1]> boards.[/q1]
[q2]> > Cash for grades.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > What about other possibilities. Some of the staff could be altering[/q2]
[q1]> grades,[/q1]
[q2]> > changing people's grades.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > Does Edexcel make them sign any formal contract to make sure they do no tamper with results?[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > Hmmmmm. Edexcel examboard[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> > MAJOR DELAY IN EXAM RESULTS this summer[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
0
X
new posts

All the exam results help you need

799

people online now

225,530

students helped last year
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you have grade requirements for your sixth form/college?

At least 5 GCSEs at grade 4 (38)
14.67%
At least 5 GCSEs at grade 5 (37)
14.29%
At least 5 GCSEs at grade 6 (54)
20.85%
Higher than 5 GCSEs at grade 6 (98)
37.84%
Pass in English and Maths GCSE (14)
5.41%
No particular grades needed (18)
6.95%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed