Shock Headline: Exam Board Admits an Error!

Teacher trust in the examination system has perhaps never been at a lower ebb. The example outlined below is another example of the genre. On the surface the exam board query surrounded the awarding of just a single mark. But when this would make the difference between a student getting A grades on all of his/her modules and making a possible difference to an Oxbridge bid, we can see how important it is for exam boards to "sweat the small stuff" and get things right.

Here is the background

A student needs ONE more mark to secure an A in the June 2012 AS macro paper. If he/she gets this it will mean every module sat (across all subjects) will have been an A. The student feels that this B is potentially a blot as far as Oxbridge are concerned.

Stage 1 - The paper was re-marked and was unaltered.

The question was:

“Apart from trade in goods, identify TWO other components of the current a/c of the bal of payments”.

The student wrote:

1. Trade in services (1 mark given)
2. Net current transfers ( 0 mark given, hence controversy)
   

The official mark scheme is as follows:

One mark for each correct identification, i.e.

• Trade in services
• Income
• Current transfers

In the guidance section it says: “Accept transfers or net transfers. No marks for an individual item in a component – too vague”

This begs an interesting question. If “transfers” and “net transfers” are acceptable, what is the problem with “net current transfers”

The school appeals again and this time the exam board (OCR) backs down - marks now awarded to the student concerned.

The example reveals the importance of schools scrutinising with great care all of the scripts that are returned from the exam boards. And persistence pays off especially when a school has the strong support of senior management in holding exam boards to account.

I know of one school where the number of remark bids is closing in on one thousand from the GCSE, AS and A2 exams taken in the summer of 2012.