Exam boards ‘abused their power’ over GCSE marks

The High Court was told there had been such a “gross manipulation” of the benchmark needed to achieve a C in English that it amounted to “conspicuous unfairness and an abuse of power”.

The claims were made by Clive Sheldon QC, acting for an alliance of pupils, schools, councils and teaching unions who are challenging the actions of exam boards AQA and Edexcel.

They have mounted the unprecedented legal action after an estimated 10,000 students missed out on expected C grades in exams this summer after boundaries were hiked.

Schools in Yorkshire have identified around 2,000 pupils they believe were “unfairly” awarded D grades as a result, including about 400 in North Yorkshire, 370 in Leeds, 250 in Doncaster and 217 in Bradford.

Edexcel and AQA toughened up their grade boundaries after exams in January, meaning pupils who sat the equivalent paper in June needed higher marks to be awarded a C. It came after Ofqual warned examiners to avoid “grade inflation” and ensure results were in line with pupils’ past achievements.

The exams regulator’s chief executive, Glenys Stacey, has previously admitted to the Commons education select committee that she would have forced them to do so had they not agreed.

Mr Sheldon told two judges the boundaries had been shifted without warning schools, which had “created inconsistencies within the same cohort” in a way that was “grossly unfair”.

“This was a manifest unfairness that amounts to an abuse of power by AQA and Edexcel, not corrected by Ofqual,” he said.

He said predictions of pupils’ ability based on their performance in Key Stage Two exams five years ago had been used as a “straitjacket” rather than a guide.

The alliance is asking the high court to declare the exam boards’ actions unlawful and to order the papers to be remarked.

A statement of claim said their decisions had “prejudiced the life chances of thousands of children” and had damaged their further education and job prospects.

“The decisions are incompatible with the most elementary principles of fairness, rationality and good administration,” the statement read. “They are unlawful and should be quashed.”

The case continues.