A NEW system of exam appeals for Scottish schools could lead to some pupils missing out, headteachers have claimed.
The warning comes after the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) introduced charges for the first time to cut down on bogus appeals as part of a wider shake-up of the system.
The new costs will range from £10 for a check to see if the marks have been added up correctly to £39.75 for a full review of the marking. No charge will apply if a mistake has been made.
The SQA has said it is up to local authorities to decide whether the costs are paid for out of central funds or taken from school budgets, but headteachers' union School Leaders' Scotland said a postcode lottery could result.
Ken Cunningham, the organisation's general secretary, said he supported the introduction of the charges, but was against schools paying them.
"If individual schools have to pay, that could lead to inequalities in the system because some schools would be able to afford it and others would not," he said.
"That would be unfair. We have to watch carefully that youngsters are not deprived simply because of where they find themselves."
Liz Smith, young people spokeswoman for the Scottish Conservatives, called on the Scottish Government to issue guidance on who should pay the charges.
"With the introduction of the new National exams it's inevitable that there will be more requests for marking reviews this year," she said. "I'm worried that if schools get the bill that will act as a disincentive, when these decisions should be taken based on academic merit."
An SQA spokeswoman said: "We expect requests for clerical checks and marking reviews to be made only if the school or college is confident this is the case."
Bruce Robertson of the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland added: "We would not want to see any pupil disadvantaged and if there are good, well-thought-through grounds for a review then the school should go ahead, but the days of mass speculative appeals on grades are over."
The move by the SQA, announced two years ago, has been broadly welcomed, with many agreeing the old system was used too widely by schools.
Last year, the SQA received 67,000 requests - meaning about 7% of exam entries were appealed - but fewer than half were successful and the process cost the body almost £800,000.
The system was originally intended as a safety net for exceptional cases, but in recent years has become widely used for pupils who "had a bad day" in the exam.
Under the new system there will be two options: the exceptional circumstances consideration service and the post-results service. The first of these is free and is to be used by schools in cases where they believe, for example, that a candidate has suffered because of bereavement or illness. Schools will be able to submit a wider range of evidence than in the past to support these claims.
However, if a school is concerned about a candidate's result and wants to ensure that no errors were made during marking, there will be a charge if the grade remains the same once checks have been carried out.
Edinburgh and Glasgow city councils and Borders council said they had yet to reach a policy decision on who would meet the cost of the new charges.
However, it was likely Glasgow schools would use their devolved budgets to pay for unsuccessful review requests, the city's director of education Maureen McKenna said. She added: "Our schools would not allow an inequity to arise and neither would we."
A spokesman for Fife Council said the cost would be covered centrally.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article