Exams watchdog denies A-levels were fixed
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.Pressure was mounting last night for an independent inquiry into allegations that this year's A-level results were deliberately fixed to make the exam appear harder.
However, the Government's exams watchdog – the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority – rejected the schools' claims that A-level results were deliberately lowered as "inherently implausible".
Ken Boston, the authority's new chief executive, is to lead an investigation into the marking of coursework by one of the three main exam boards.
He has asked the Oxford and Cambridge and RSA (OCR) board to hand over the results of coursework and written exams in English, physics, chemistry, history, geography, design and technology, French, German and psychology A-levels for scrutiny. "We need to get to the bottom of this as quickly as possible," he said. "We are looking at the results to see if there is any pattern of deflation in coursework results."
Dr Boston will report his findings on Friday.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments