Serious concerns have been raised about England’s system for reviews of exam marking, with school leaders calling for government reform to tackle stark inequalities revealed in exclusive findings for Tes.

A survey suggests that state schools in the most deprived areas are six times more likely than private schools to pick up the bill for reviews of marking - and almost five times more likely than state schools in the most affluent areas.

And nearly one in five headteachers say their school uses pupil premium funding to pay for GCSE exam marks to be reviewed, which leaders warn shows the inadequacy of school funding.

The findings have been described as exposing a “fundamentally unfair” system with “clear financial inequity”, as well as revealing a “disincentive” for disadvantaged students and schools to pursue reviews of exam marks.

‘Inequity’ in exam marking review system

Some 38 per cent of teachers in schools located in the most deprived quartile of areas said their school pays for reviews of marking for GCSE or A-level papers, in a Teacher Tapp survey of more than 5,500 secondary school teachers in England commissioned by Tes.

This compares with just 6 per cent of teachers at fee-paying schools. The data has been weighted to reflect national and school demographics.

Leaders warn that financially stretched schools in the most deprived areas cannot pass the cost of exam marking reviews on to parents, creating a financial disincentive to check grading errors.

In response to the findings, the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) called on the government to fund all reviews of marking for disadvantaged pupils.

Pepe Di’Iasio, general secretary of ASCL, said: “There is clear financial inequity when it comes to reviews of marking.

“Schools and colleges serving disadvantaged communities do everything they can to help their students achieve the best possible grade but are disincentivised to request re-marks as they will have to cover the costs if the grade does not change.”

‘Hidden barriers’ for disadvantaged students

The Liberal Democrats are urging the government to reassess the exam review system in light of Tes’ findings.

“Every child deserves the best shot at achieving their potential - but all too often those in disadvantaged areas are being held back. Sometimes that’s due to underfunding or a lack of facilities, but as these figures show, sometimes there are hidden barriers that only make the attainment gap worse,” said Munira Wilson MP, the Liberal Democrats’ education spokesperson.

“The government should look closely at how exam reviews work to make sure that the system is helping to narrow, rather than widen, the attainment gap,” she added.

Parents at fee-paying schools are almost eight times more likely to pay for exam reviews than those at state schools in England’s most deprived areas, the Teacher Tapp survey shows.

Carl Cullinane, director of research and policy at the Sutton Trust social mobility charity, said the survey findings reveal a system that is “fundamentally unfair” because “state schools are already stretched to financial breaking point”.

“Your ability to have your GCSEs re-marked and potentially improve your grades should not be based on whether your parents can afford to pay or whether your school is able to divert much-needed resources from elsewhere,” he added.

The charity believes there is “a strong case for addressing financial barriers to exam appeals, particularly for pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds”.

The number of exam review requests has soared in recent years, but whether these requests are spread evenly across the sector is difficult to judge because the exam boards do not publish breakdowns of review requests by school type.

When Tes requested this information from the exams regulator Ofqual under the Freedom of Information Act, it said it did not have the data, including the proportion of requests that came from the state and private school sectors.

The NAHT school leaders’ union said that while any policy changes “need to be carefully considered”, there are “genuine questions about equity that need to be considered”.

How many marks are changed on review?

Last summer the three biggest exam boards - AQA, OCR and Pearson Edexcel - had 413,095 reviews of marking for GCSEs and a further 69,530 non-priority reviews for AS/A levels.

These numbers have increased significantly in recent years: in the past two years alone the number for GCSEs is up 33.4 per cent and the number for AS/A levels is up 50.8 per cent.

The figures available show that 36.7 per cent of reviews in 2024 led to a mark change at GCSE, and 46.6 per cent at AS/A level.

For the more expensive priority reviews of marking, which are offered at AS/A level for students with places pending at university, the figure was slightly higher, with 49 per cent of those requested resulting in a mark change.

The number of priority reviews requested has increased by 28.7 per cent over the two years to 2024.

When a review leads to a change in mark, either up or down, then the fee will be waived. But what the data above shows is that the majority of those who submit reviews of marking are ultimately charged.

Even those receiving a fee waiver after a mark was changed will have had to take a gamble on the likelihood of success - and, by implication, whether a failure would be affordable.

For schools and parents in disadvantaged areas, the hard financial arithmetic means that a request may be too much of a gamble.

Paul Whiteman, general secretary of the NAHT, said that “a student’s ability to appeal should never be linked to their family’s ability to pay, nor does it feel right that schools should have to use already stretched budgets, particularly when some budgets are under more pressure than others.”

Concern over use of pupil premium funding

Further concerns have been raised about the use of pupil premium funding to fund exam reviews of marking.

Teacher Tapp asked 1,237 state secondary school leaders and heads whether they used pupil premium funding to pay for GCSE review-of-marking requests for pupil premium students.

Some 18 per cent of heads said yes, while 82 per cent said no or they didn’t know.

Excluding heads,13 per cent of school leaders said yes.

Several groups that Tes spoke to about these figures expressed serious worry over the use of pupil premium funding for this purpose, although the funds are not ring-fenced at school level.

Ms Wilson, whose party led the introduction of the pupil premium in the Coalition government after its inclusion in the Liberal Democrats’ 2010 manifesto, said: “Pupil premium funding should be for raising standards through best-practice teaching, so it’s worrying to hear that many overstretched schools are turning to that funding to pay for exam reviews.”

Mr Cullinane said that the use of pupil premium funds to cover exam marking reviews was “alarming” and chimed with the Sutton Trust’s recent research that shows “a big spike in school leaders being forced to use this funding to plug other gaps in their budgets”.

Mr Di’Iasio said the use of pupil premium funding in this way demonstrated that “the overall level of education funding is entirely inadequate”.

The Department for Education has been approached for comment.

The Joint Council for Qualifications said that “students can trust the grades they are awarded. Where something does not seem right, the review process offers a fair and transparent check.”

An Ofqual spokesperson said: “It is important that students’ grades reflect what they know, understand and can do.”

The exam regulator added that the system “requires awarding organisations to provide schools and colleges, on request, with students’ marked exam scripts in order to help them make informed decisions about asking for reviews of marking”.

For the latest education news and analysis delivered every weekday morning, sign up for the Tes Daily newsletter