The future is digital – but not exclusively so

Technology will help us improve assessment for certain courses and groups of pupils, writes Jo Saxton, but we won’t be drinking the digital Kool-Aid

I’m always telling my teenage children to get off their phones. Yet, however determined I might be that they actually talk in person to one another and their friends, I also know I couldn’t be a working mum without my mobile constantly by my side.

I too am torn. However necessary and handy technology is, you’ll find me dashing to the post box with handwritten Christmas cards to catch the final posting date. Sometimes, it’s just better to do things the traditional way.

So I’m not a technology evangelist, but I am evangelical about anything that can demonstrably improve the life chances of students and apprentices. They are and always will be my compass.

In my first year in post, my priority has been the reintroduction of exams. In August, we achieved that. Teachers, parents, exam boards, Ofqual and most of all students working together saw the safe return to students getting grades for work produced in an exam hall. It’s a familiar sight, and may not appear modern, but it is the tried and tested way that we ensure all students are assessed by the same rules.

Now it’s time to look to the future. It’s what we committed to do in our three-year plan. Greater use of technology in GCSEs, A levels and other high-stakes exams is coming down the track.

But we must be led by the evidence and do only what is right for students.

It would not be right for an evidence-based regulator to determine the future of children’s assessment based on a gulp of the technology Kool-Aid, and the latest bright and shiny, but ultimately untried-at-scale technology.,  

That’s why we have committed to careful, considered and thorough work to look at the opportunities, challenges, risks and benefits of technology in assessment.

Our regulatory role is unique – affording us both the powers and the expertise to put in place the protections students need as exam boards start to trial new approaches to assessment.  

It will not be Ofqual that develops onscreen assessment platforms, nor will it be Ofqual that secures the reliable broadband connection that each school will need.

I do not envisage a world where students sit exams solely onscreen

But we will use all our capabilities to make sure that awarding organisations adopt technology cautiously and always with students’ interests and valid assessment at the forefront of our decision-making.

I do not envisage a world where students sit exams solely onscreen. Handwriting is an essential part of our education and is best assessed with pen and paper. Many maths capabilities are assessed better when students can show their workings.

Computer programming, however, is both an essential skill for the future economy and one we can all agree is better assessed on a computer. There will be others too where onscreen assessment enables more valid, lifelike and engaging assessment.

I am determined too that we explore fully the opportunities for technology to improve assessment for those with disabilities. The opportunities are there for the taking to provide easy adjustments for screen reading, font size changes and many others.

In my view, technology could play an important role in bringing an end to the necessary evil of tiering we are forced to accept in exams today. That won’t happen overnight, but the potential gains are substantial and worth time and careful consideration.

I am pleased that exam boards have announced a range of pilots and tests to begin to develop and refine their approach.

Ofqual will be working with the Department for Education to play our part in assessing the options for safe adoption of onscreen assessment over the coming years. It’s two years since

Ofqual published a report looking at the barriers and opportunities to high stakes assessment. Now it’s time to look seriously and carefully at how we overcome those barriers.

The move to digital assessment can only come about through joint endeavour. It will take schools, teachers, parents, exam boards, Department for Education, Ofqual and others to work together.

And as the successful return of pen-and-paper exams this summer has shown, that’s well within our grasp.

A one-size-fits-all approach to assessment undermines equity and diversity

We need assessment settings and systems that give students what they need based on a careful and methodical attention to their circumstances, writes Jeff Greenidge

When students come from various origins, experiences, and perspectives, it is impossible for them to all have the same needs.

Equality has not worked. On the surface it appears to be the right thing to do, but offering everyone the same things results in a standardised and homogenous set of circumstances and resources.

A level playing field has never been and may not be achievable – but we can still have fair play.

I call this equity, rather than equality. Perhaps instead of trying to “even the playing field” or “catch up,” we should try to move to a new playing field, one based on equity and fairness.

So how can we develop assessment systems to achieve this?

How can we improve our assessment practices to better support student growth and make the most of their diverse talents?

We can start by focussing on equity.

This will require us to think differently, and work differently. It requires more thought and effort.

It calls for us to create settings and systems that give students what they need based on careful and methodical attention to the specifics of their circumstance.

Let’s look at the mode of assessment first. If an awarding body was looking to have a complete picture of a student’s achievements at the end of a programme, why wouldn’t they use multiple different ways of assessing that student?

First, we could use continuous assessment measures, done by the teacher face-to-face with the student.

Then we could assess examples of coursework that the student had done on their own. Thirdly we could use evidence from an end-of-year examination. And finally, we could assess the student on a piece of oral work like a viva at university.

With those assessment approaches, you’ve got four ways of really understanding to what extent the student has acquired knowledge and applied that knowledge using various key skills.

Why do we stick to only one mode of assessment for GCSEs – the written exam – when it does not provide a full picture?

Such a varied approach makes even more sense now that students are learning and working in a hybrid fashion. It should not be limited to technical and vocational qualifications like BTECs, Cambridge Technicals and T Levels.

Why do we stick to one mode of assessment – the written exam?

Now let’s look at the content of what’s assessed.

Sometimes we can see representations of different ethnic minorities in exam papers.

But if most of the questions are about content relating to white male scientists and authors and so on, then these pictures of black faces in the exam paper just come across as tokenistic.

Instead, the STEM curriculum itself should include underrepresented and important scientific figures – the African-American female mathematicians, for example, who worked at NASA during the space race (if you’ve never heard of them, watch the 2016 film Hidden Figures).

Or the history curriculum, for instance, which might reveal to students that some Roman emperors were black.

So the exam system should mirror the equitable content being taught – not include tokenistic references to diversity only in the exam paper.

The main message is that we will need to really understand our students and not just be aware of their marks.

If we are to achieve lasting results for all, regardless of their socio-economic, racial, and ethnic backgrounds, we will need to empower students by creating the best possible learning and assessment environment for them.

We need to know: Are our students anxious about assessment? Or do they see it as an opportunity to get a snapshot of where they are and what they need to do next to grow?

Our challenge is to do better in using our assessments to support equity, as opposed to equality or standardisation.

In a crowded curriculum our aim should not be for our students to complete tasks so we can enter grades for them.

We should be looking to develop and maintain a growth mindset in our students.

Consider discussing these questions at your next curriculum and quality meeting.

Try to come to a common understanding around assessment in your organisations – or at least answer them individually, to understand your own beliefs.

You can read more about the future of assessment in our special supplement.

Small business chiefs make fresh calls for apprenticeship and T Level cash incentives return

Financial incentives for small firms to employ apprentices and provide T Level placements should return under the new education secretary, a business group has said, as it will help one in five small employers to fill skills gaps.

And calls have been made for other measures to boost skills prospects such as free bus passes for apprentices, introducing skills bootcamps for people aged 50 and above to retrain, and a Kickstart-style scheme to help disabled people into work.

The Federation of Small Businesses has today published its Scaling up Skills report, and has called upon the new education secretary, to be appointed under a new prime minister next week, to help small businesses with their recruitment struggles by bolstering support and incentives for skills training.

The research said that 78 per cent of small firms were struggling to fill vacancies, with a lack of relevant qualifications and a lack of applicants among the problems.

It also found just 17 per cent of small business owners engaged with further education colleges or schools – half the 33 per cent the FSB found in similar research in 2019.

It has called for the current £1,000 financial incentive for employers hiring an apprentice under 19-years-old to increase to £3,000 for apprentices under 25 – an incentive that was in place during the pandemic – and make it exclusively for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

In addition, it says the £1,000 incentive for employers to host T Level placements – which were offered between May 2021 and July 2022 – should also return.

The FSB’s research found that one in five (21 per cent) would hire additional apprentices over the next 12 months if the £3,000 incentive returned.

Financial support to host T Level placements would encourage 22 per cent to provide more.

Paul Wilson, FSB policy director, said one in five small firms taking on an extra apprentice would equate to thousands of new apprentices.

“That incentive is the thing that would take them over the line,” he said.

“Because there is such a large number [of employers] that employ very small numbers [of employees], we are talking about a large potential impact. I think the Treasury would take that as a good take-up.”

Wilson said the FSB did not think a larger incentive would help, as the £3,000 balances “a good return of additional employees and value for money for the Treasury”.

FSB figures suggest that as of the start of 2021 there were 1.4 million small firms with employees, and 4.2 million with no employees.

The Department for Education originally said T Level incentives would not be extended beyond the July 31, 2022, close date, but in June then-higher and further education minister Michelle Donelan hinted that more support could be on the horizon. No further news has been heard on that incentive.

The £3,000 apprenticeship incentive meanwhile was available between August 2020 and the end of January this year.

DfE data published in July found that more than three quarters of the near 200,000 incentive payment claims were for apprentices aged 16 to 24, and prompted the Association of Employment and Learning Providers to renew its calls for the measure to be brought back.

Elsewhere in the FSB’s research, the organisation says a Kickstart-style scheme would help more disabled people into work for the first time, while free bus passes for apprentices aged 16 to 25 would address difficulties for those to get to their courses.

Proposals for cutting apprentices’ travel costs had been worked on by the DfE and the Department for Transport pre-Covid.

Another ask from the FSB has been for skills bootcamps for those aged 50-plus, which would help re-skill or encourage people who became economically inactive during the Covid-19 pandemic back into work in areas employers need them most.

The federation wants the education secretary to ensure that by 2035 no young person leaves education without at least level 2 qualifications, and increase corporation tax relief for employers training low or medium-skilled employees.

FSB policy chair Tina McKenzie said: “We also want more to be done to upskill groups further away from the workplace, such as ex-offenders, older workers, and disabled people, who could help fill skills shortages and find meaningful employment if given a helping hand.”

McKenzie added: “The challenges involved are huge, but the potential rewards are even greater. If the Government is serious about levelling up every region of England, and rebuilding the economy, our recommendations definitely need to be on the new education secretary’s slate.”

A DfE spokesperson said the department is reviewing further support measures to help employers offer T Level placements, and plans an extra £1.6 billion investment in 16-19 education and training by 2024/25 from last year’s funding levels.

They added: “We are also making sure everyone can access the training they need at every stage of their life, including supporting more adults to upskill or retrain for free, and plug skills shortages in key sectors such as digital, green transport and healthcare.”

Revealed: 37 business groups chosen to lead local skills plans

Local chambers of commerce dominate the field of newly appointed employer representative bodies, despite concerns from MPs that they may not be suitable to write skills plans.

The Department for Education has today confirmed the names of 37 business organisations that will become officially designated ‘employer representative bodies (ERBs)’ on Monday, September 5. They will each be responsible for producing and reporting on a local skills improvement plan (LSIP) for their area which sets out the changes needed to skills provision in their area.

There should be 38 ERBs, however no suitable organisation was found for the Cheshire and Warrington area, which has gone back out for bids today. 

When the skills and post-16 education act was going through parliament last year, MPs raised the potential for conflicts of interest in handing responsibilities on skills planning to local employer groups and the potential for LSIPs to undermine the devolved skills plans of mayoral combined authorities. Calls for mayors to take control of LSIPs for their areas were defeated.

In total, 31 of the 37 ERBs chosen are local chambers of commerce. Others include an “auto-motive cluster” representing the north east and the Federation of Small Businesses leading LSIPs in the east midlands and Cornwall. 

See below for the list in full.

However every ERB will have to “publish and maintain” a conflict of interest policy. 

A brief set of terms and conditions was published today alongside the national list of ERBs which mandates each ERB to come up with processes to exclude any employees and members “from any discussion or decision making” related to a conflict. ERBs must also immediately notify DfE if any conflict of interest is perceived or has occurred. 

ERB’s will have their performance monitored through “regular reports” as a condition of their grant funding, though the funding agreements themselves will not been published.

Funding worth £20.9 million over three years was made available to ERBs, £550,000 each, to develop, implement and review LSIPs including a £50,000 start-up payment per ERB.

The employer groups have until May 31, 2023 to submit their local skills improvement plans for approval by the secretary of state.

£96 million for providers to ‘reshape skills provision’

The DfE has also announced today how much each area in England will receive from the second round of the strategic development fund. 

The fund is split between capital and revenue with the aim of helping providers upgrade their training facilities and build capacity to meet the needs of their local skills improvement plans. 

The total shared across 41 areas of England is £95.9 million, with the south west receiving the largest share worth just over £14 million. The region which will receive the least is the north east, which will see £7.6 million.

In full – All confirmed designated employer representative bodies:

LSIP AreaDesignated Employer Representative Body
North EastNorth East Automotive Alliance (NEAA) Limited
North of TyneNorth East England Chamber of Commerce
Tees ValleyNorth East England Chamber of Commerce
Cheshire and WarringtonNo ERB chosen – expression of interest exercise underway
CumbriaCumbria Chamber of Commerce
Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester Chamber of Commerce
LancashireNorth & Western Lancashire Chamber of Commerce
Liverpool City RegionSt Helens Chamber
Hull and East YorkshireHull & Humber Chamber of Commerce
South YorkshireDoncaster Chamber of Commerce
West YorkshireWest & North Yorkshire Chamber of Commerce
York and North YorkshireWest & North Yorkshire Chamber of Commerce
Derbyshire and NottinghamshireFederation of Small Businesses
Greater LincolnshireFederation of Small Businesses
Leicester and LeicestershireEast Midlands Chamber of Commerce
South-East MidlandsNorthamptonshire Chamber of Commerce (incorporating Milton Keynes Chamber)
Stoke-on-Trent and StaffordshireStaffordshire Chamber of Commerce & Industry
The MarchesShropshire Chamber of Commerce
West Midlands & WarwickshireCoventry and Warwickshire Chamber
WorcestershireHerefordshire & Worcestershire Chamber of Commerce
Cambridgeshire and PeterboroughCambridgeshire Chamber of Commerce
Essex, Southend-on-Sea and ThurrockEssex Chamber of Commerce
HertfordshireHertfordshire Chamber of Commerce
Norfolk & SuffolkNorfolk Chambers of Commerce
Greater LondonBusiness LDN (Formally London First)
Brighton and Hove, East Sussex, West SussexSussex Chamber of Commerce
BuckinghamshireBuckinghamshire Business First
Enterprise M3 (including all of Surrey)Surrey Chambers of Commerce
Kent and MedwayKent Invicta Chamber of Commerce
OxfordshireThames Valley Chamber of Commerce Group
SolentHampshire Chamber of Commerce
Thames Valley BerkshireThames Valley Chamber of Commerce Group
Cornwall and the Isles of ScillyFederation of Small Businesses
DorsetDorset Chambers of Commerce
GloucestershireBusiness West Chambers of Commerce
Heart of the South WestDevon & Plymouth Chamber of Commerce
Swindon and WiltshireBusiness West Chamber of Commerce
West of England and North SomersetBusiness West Chamber of Commerce
Source: Department for Education

The Future of Assessment

Download supplement

Welcome to FE Week and Schools Week’s special supplement on the future of assessment!

With the first T Level results out this year, and debates ongoing about reforming GCSEs and A-levels, it’s one of the hottest topics in education around…

Post-Covid

A plethora of organisations led the charge for change to assessment following the Ofqual algorithm debacle in 2020 – and the calls have continued into 2022.

But with staff exhausted and ministers not currently in listening mode, will the various groups and projects result in change?

Find out who the movers and shakers are, what they think a post-pandemic world of assessment might look like – and all about the digital transformation already happening.

Inclusion and equity

A critical part of the future of assessment is how to best assess students with special educational needs and disabilities, and students with varying and different strengths, identities and backgrounds.

Read through top opinion pieces on this topic to find out what some of our leading educators have to say on issues of inclusion and fair play for all in the realm of assessment.

Results all round

The beauty of this supplement is that it straddles the divide between schools and FE, bringing thinkers and activities in both sectors into one space.

For instance, find out how ‘end point assessment’ is going for apprentices, with a special in-depth report on the topic.

Also read a detailed round-up with everything you need to know on GCSE, A-level and T Level results in 2022 from our news teams – including lessons learned.

Ofsted ditches Covid disruption deferral policy

Ofsted has ditched a temporary policy allowing schools and FE providers to request inspection deferrals because of Covid disruption, a move dubbed “premature” by a sector leader.

The inspectorate has today updated multiple parts of its guidance for the new academic year.

Other updates include strengthening its inspection code of conduct and new checks that governors are “doing all they can” to limit children to online harm.

Here is a round-up of the changes…

1. Ofsted ditches Covid deferral guidance

A temporary policy brought in to help schools, colleges and training providers badly hit by Covid disruption defer their inspection has been ditched by Ofsted.

The inspectorate has removed a section of guidance about Covid-19, which had explicitly made clear providers concerned about the timing of visits “can request a deferral”.

It previously acknowledged Covid posed a “unique set of challenges”, and said every request would be judged “on its own merits, in line with this policy”.

Education providers were encouraged by ministers to request deferrals when “significantly impacted” by Covid staff absences.

But now Ofsted’s pre-Covid deferral policy has been restored, stating there are only “limited” circumstances for acceptable deferrals. An accompanying list make no references at all to Covid – though is “not exhaustive”.

While it was expecting the policy would be ended, Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said it was “premature given that it is likely that there will be further waves of infections during the autumn and winter which will cause disruption to schools and colleges”.

He said inspections should not go ahead where there are large staff and student absences as schools “will clearly not be operating as normal” and risk worse judgements.

“Ofsted must continue to take requests for deferral seriously in these circumstances,” he added.

2. Inspection code of conduct strengthened

Ofsted says it has “strengthened” its code of conduct. Now, during an inspection or visit, inspectors will explain conduct expectations and ask schools, colleges and training providers to read them.

Education providers will be told “any concerns that the inspection team has not acted in accordance with the code” should be raised “as soon as possible”.

“This is in order to resolve issues before the inspection or visit is completed, where possible. At appropriate points, inspectors will confirm with providers that they have provided or given access to all relevant evidence.” 

At the end of the inspection, the lead inspector will remind providers they must have also met conduct expectations, including being “transparent and honest and providing all relevant guidance to allow for a fair and accurate outcome.” 

To do this, education providers should not be “withholding or concealing evidence or providing false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information.”

Education providers should also make inspectors aware of any CCTV cameras and ensure there is a “private room” without cameras available for inspectors to talk about inspection evidence and hold confidential discussions. 

3. Governors should ‘limit risks’ of online harm

Previous inspector guidance said that schools and colleges should have appropriate filters and monitoring systems in place to protect children from online harms and cyber security risks. 

But the update today goes a bit further, and says inspectors should consider whether governing bodies and proprietors “do all that they reasonably can to limit children’s exposure to any risks from the school or college’s IT system”. 

It adds: “As part of this process, governing bodies and proprietors ensure that their school or college has appropriate filters and monitoring systems in place to protect children from potentially harmful content, and regularly review their effectiveness.” 

In other updates on safeguarding, Ofsted said staff should recognise that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender children may be targeted by other children.

So, staff should take steps to reduce “additional barriers” these students may face in speaking out by providing a safe space or member of staff who they can share their concerns with.

SEND college judged ‘inadequate’ over safety concerns

Safety fears have been raised at a SEND college after Ofsted found staff didn’t have enough medical training and students were exposed to potential harm from a shared building entrance with the public.

The education watchdog said that “learners do not work in a safe enough environment” at Elfrida Rathbone Camden (Leighton College), following a visit in June. It gave the college an ‘inadequate’ rating in a report published today.

The college caters for 16- to 25-year-olds with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) such as epilepsy and autism spectrum disorders, with most students on two year programmes for entry level life, employability, English, maths and independent living skills. It had 17 learners at the time of the inspection.

The college is located in the same building as a nursery with a shared public entrance, which Ofsted said exposed “the risk of possible harm that could occur to learners when members of the public access the shared building where learners attend college”.

Ofsted inspectors said that while learners said they felt safe at the college, “leaders and managers do not ensure that all staff who work with learners are suitable for their roles because they do not complete the necessary safe recruitment pre-employment checks on volunteers”.

In addition, the report said: “Leaders do not ensure that staff are suitably trained to administer emergency medication to learners with medical conditions, such as epilepsy.”

Ofsted said there were “significant” staffing issues with gaps in SEND expertise among employees, with some taking on new roles without enough training and guidance. It added that leaders did not ensure staff were experienced or qualified to teach SEND students.

The report said learners with therapeutic needs like speech and language therapy do not make good progress because they do not have access to “the full range of specialist therapy staff”.

On the curriculum, inspectors found it was “inadequately planned to meet individual learners’ needs” – including those specified in their education health and care plans – and they subsequently didn’t make enough progress to develop skills and knowledge needed to live independently.

A spokesperson from the college said it was “very disappointed” to be graded ‘inadequate’ but added: “We have an action plan in place and we have already acted on many of the recommendations.”

The college said it was pleased to be recognised by Ofsted for the respect its staff showed learners and the life skills students learned.

But it said new chief executive Nicole Francis, who started the week after the inspection was carried out, has outlined a series of measures for improvement.

Those include more effective measures to demonstrate how learners are assessed and their progress monitored, an overall review of the offer for students to ensure it meets their needs, and more training and support for staff in SEND.

More trustees with further education SEND expertise are set to be recruited, an external advisory group with SEND expertise formed and all staff will have completed training in administering medication by September 7.

The college says the landlord for its building will also have the communal front door secured by the beginning of term to prevent public access.

The college achieved a ‘good’ rating at its last inspection in March 2016, and said it is looking forward to demonstrating the progress made at its first monitoring visit in six months’ time.

Revealed: First solely apprenticeship provider granted degree awarding powers

Multiverse has become the first solely apprenticeship provider in England to be granted degree awarding powers.

The company – the brainchild of its chief executive Euan Blair, son of the former UK prime minister Tony Blair – announced the feat today following sign-off from the government’s higher education regulator the Office for Students.

It means that Multiverse can now run and award its own degree level apprenticeships. Other independent training providers can deliver degree apprenticeships but only in partnership with an established university or college that has degree awarding powers.

Multiverse was previously delivering degree apprenticeships in partnership with NCH London but can now award its own certificates up to, and including, level 6 bachelors’ degrees.

The edtech company said it will award degrees in areas such as data science and technology, and all programmes will be taught through apprenticeships with high-profile employers such as Rolls-Royce and Mastercard.

Elisabeth Barrett, Multiverse’s vice president for learning, said: “We have a vision for applied degrees that allow people to obtain a quality education – but where a salary replaces debt. A high-quality job from the start replaces the risk of being unprepared for the modern workplace by the time they graduate. And applied learning and personalised coaching replaces theoretical lectures and outdated exams.”

Jean Arnold, director of quality at the Office for Students, said applicants for degree awarding powers are tested against criteria which consider a range of factors such as academic governance, quality of the academic experience, and academic standards.

Providers who are awarded these powers can then operate them on a “probationary basis and are monitored on their progress towards meeting the degree awarding powers criteria in full by the end of their probationary award”.

The first apprentices will enrol onto Multiverse degrees in September, with applications for all 16- to 24-year-olds opening later this year. 

An initial cohort of 170 apprentices will be enrolled this autumn.

The company currently works with over 8,000 apprentices, including more than 450 in degree-level qualifications.

Arnold added: “We support innovation in the sector to enhance the options and quality of courses for students. We’re pleased to grant degree awarding powers to Multiverse as a provider that delivers opportunities and choice to students.”

Multiverse was rated ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted in September 2021.

Pearson faces record £1.3m fine for letting examiners remark own work

Exam board Pearson could be fined a record-breaking £1.35 million for allowing examiners to remark their own work and issuing incorrect certificates – with schools and colleges to be paid £320,000 in compensation. 

Regulator Ofqual has published two notices saying it intends to fine the global company based on failures in awarding GCSE and A-levels between 2016 and 2019.

This appears to be Ofqual’s largest ever fine – following a similar breach by AQA pre-pandemic. 

It comes as Pearson faces further pressure after delays to thousands of BTEC results this summer.

The first notice relates to Pearson not having enough examiners to carry out complaint marking reviews – impacting nearly 47,000 reviews over the four year period. 

These reviews can be requested by schools and colleges – but a fee is attached, unless an error is found. 

The failures therefore have the potential to seriously undermine public confidence in the review of marking system, and the qualifications system more generally

Ofqual says Pearson “knowingly” allocated reviews of marking to examiners with previous involvement in the original marking. 

It says opportunities to remedy the problem were missed in 2018, when it was raised with Ofqual, meaning another 11,000 reviews were checked by people who had originally marked these papers. 

Pearson did not retain a workforce of “appropriate size” to carry out the reviews, Ofqual added.

‘Serious breaches’ of the rules

But the regulator said there is no evidence to show students received the wrong outcomes as 99 per cent of reviews were carried out by Pearson’s most senior examiners who had received training. 

However, Pearson’s actions were “serious breaches” of the conditions Ofqual sets out for exam boards. 

The regulator said they “are integral to the effectiveness and purpose of the system of reviewing marking. 

“The failures therefore have the potential to seriously undermine public confidence in the review of marking system, and the qualifications system more generally.”

Pearson accepted its failings and said it will compensate all schools and colleges with credit notes where reviews of marking were not undertaken by a fresh examiner. This totals £320,510 across 36,807 reviews where a fee was charged. 

AQA was caught up in a similar situation in 2020 when it had to pay Ofqual £350,000 and schools and colleges compensation of £737,750 – totalling over £1 million.

But Ofqual said Pearson’s case is “more serious” as it spanned over four years and Pearson missed chances to rectify the situation, resulting in the larger £1.2 million fine.

However this would not exceed 10 per cent of Pearson’s total annual turnover. 

Incorrect short course certificates

Ofqual also plans to fine Pearson £150,000 for issuing inaccurate certificates for short course GCSE results in 2017 and 2018. 

In total, 8,361 certificates omitted the words ‘short course’ and instead appeared as a full GCSE. 

Ofqual said there was a “substantial” delay of nearly two months before Pearson wrote to schools and colleges to recall certificates. 

Pearson can now make representations to Ofqual’s enforcement committee before a final amount is decided. 

It’s not the first time Pearson has been fined after another certification problem in 2016 – leaving them with a financial penalty of £85,000. 

A spokesperson for the board said it accepts the notices, but said both issues were “fixed” by 2020 and Ofqual has confirmed “that no student grades were affected”. 

“We will be refunding schools and colleges where re-marking was not fully compliant.  We will be making representations on this notice as due process allows.”

Pearson has updated its internal systems so the issue does not happen again and recruited additional examiners to ensure they have enough to allow for fresh marking. 

Chief regulator Dr Jo Saxton said she “won’t hesitate to take action that protects the interests of students and the qualifications that open doors for them.

“Ofqual has rules in place to prevent and manage errors and an enforcement system to deal with breaches of those rules. We will use our full powers to hold awarding organisations to account for serious breaches of our rules.”

She added millions of qualifications “have been awarded safely and on time over the last two weeks and students can have full confidence in their grades”.