Exams agency says appeal charges are not affecting students
- Published
- comments
Scotland's exams agency has denied that charges for failed appeals are putting state school pupils at a disadvantage.
The SQA's chief executive Fiona Robertson told MSPs she had heard no evidence that cost was "acting as a disincentive".
Independent schools have accounted for a greater proportion of appeals since charges were introduced.
Labour's Iain Gray reiterated his concern that some students could be losing out.
Mr Gray told Holyrood's education committee that in 2017 - the last year before the system changed - appeals were made for 5.7% of pupils at independent schools and 6.8% at state schools.
In 2018, however, appeals were made for 2.4% of state school pupils and 7% of independent schools pupils.
Ms Robertson replied: "I can only emphasise that I am happy to have conversations about this with a number of parties.
"But I can only repeat again that we are not getting feedback from local authority schools that cost is acting as a disincentive."
'Poorer performance'
Fundamental changes to the appeals system were made following changes to the qualifications themselves.
A mark cannot now be changed after the exam results are issued simply because a candidate's performance was poorer than anticipated.
In broad terms, appeals now take two forms:
An appeal can be made beforehand if there are special circumstances that are likely to affect a candidate's performance - for example serious illness or bereavement. If this is successful, the candidate should receive the mark they deserve on results day.
A school can ask for a paper to be remarked or for the marks to be checked if it suspects a mistake has been made. However, a charge is made if this does not lead to a change in the mark.
Data suggests that independent schools are more likely to appeal - although a greater proportion of their appeals are unsuccessful.
However, there have been worries that some state schools may be deterred from appealing because of the potential costs - with the risk that some candidates who did not get the mark they merited may have missed out.
- Published6 August 2019
- Published2 May 2019