Students in A-level fiasco 'not told why they failed'
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Hundreds of A-level candidates have been left with an inadequate explanation as to why they were given low grades for their work last summer, an academic claims today.
Dr Sheila Lawlor, of the right-wing think-tank Politeia, says in a pamphlet that the inquiry into the A-level fiasco "ignored one of the most serious allegations made".
Nearly 1,000 candidates sitting last summer's exams were astounded that they had been given U (unclassified) grades for coursework despite getting A grades for the other five units of their exam work and being given top marks by their own teachers for the work in question.
In his report on the A-level crisis, Mike Tomlinson, the former chief schools inspector appointed to carry out the inquiry, said that the so-called "rogue" grades were either a result of sloppy marking or students performing unexpectedly badly on the day. As a result, they did not fall within the remit of his inquiry.
However, Dr Lawlor says in the think-tank's pamphlet entitled A-levels: Fiasco and Future: "On the whole, schools are no wiser about the circumstances of the re-marking of a candidate's work inexplicably from A to U."
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments