The exams regulator is “closely scrutinising” Edexcel’s approach to awarding A-level maths this year following complaints that it replaced a paper with a version that missed swathes of content pupils had expected to cover.
About 2,000 pupils have signed a petition after sitting the pure maths “paper 2” issued by the board – part of the education giant Pearson – on June 12.
They said the paper “lacked key topics…fundamental to the course”. They also reported overlaps with paper 1, sat on June 4.
Pearson has since confirmed that the paper was a replacement for its original paper 2, but refused to say why it was forced to make the switch.
The board insisted “all candidates received and sat the correct, intended paper for each exam”.
The matter has now been referred to Ofqual, which told Schools Week it was “aware of the concerns raised about this paper and will be closely scrutinising Pearson’s approach to awarding this qualification.
“Our priority at this point in the exam season is the interests of students and ensuring students’ grades are a reliable indication of what they know, understand and can do.”
‘We will determine whether there have been rule breaches’
The organisation also said that, once results were released and summer exams monitoring was complete, “we will determine whether there have been any issues which have arisen over the course of the series which constitute breaches of our rules”.
In an update published by Pearson, the exam board confirmed it had replaced the original version of paper 2, which was taken by 99.8 per cent of candidates. The 0.2 per cent of the cohort needing modifications sat a different paper.
“We always have multiple versions of each paper available for use in every series. This allows us to replace a paper at any stage if we need to.
“Decisions to replace a paper are never made lightly and can happen for a number of reasons. When we do replace a paper, we consider carefully the student experience.”
Pearson ‘confident content assessed is reasonable’
Pearson said two different papers, “whether an original and replacement, or papers sat in different series, will not always cover the same content.
“We are confident that the content assessed in both versions of paper 2 is reasonable and appropriate for candidates to have accessed and effectively demonstrated their knowledge and understanding.”
The board has tasked senior examiners with overseeing the marking of both versions of paper 2, and “to ensure fairness for all students, we will set grade boundaries separately for the two versions of paper 2.
“This approach allows us to account for any minor differences in demand between the papers, so that students are fairly rewarded for their performance.”
A Pearson spokesperson said both the standard and modified versions “were equally valid exam papers, written to meet the specification requirements and our own standards and quality checks.
“We can reassure all students and teachers that they received and sat the correct intended paper and we have written to all schools and colleges that received modified versions to clarify and confirm this.”
‘Our efforts have gone to waste’
On the petition website change.org, pupils wrote of their dismay after sitting the paper.
“We worked hard for two years and it seems like our efforts have gone to waste,” the organisers wrote, adding the paper “lacked key topics that are fundamental to the course”.
“We were tested on the same topics multiple times. This oversight unfairly challenges our capacity to demonstrate the knowledge and skills we have painstakingly built.”
They added that the lack of coverage of the topics “means that the grades we will receive on results day won’t be a true reflection of our understanding and ability in mathematics.
“Usually, these core topics are covered extensively across examination papers, offering students a balanced opportunity to exhibit their proficiency.”
They called on Edexcel to “consider implementing lower grade boundaries or compensatory measures for this year’s exam.
“Students’ futures could be at stake, and it is only right that every effort is made to ensure an equitable assessment.”
An account on X set up in the wake of the exam, – “Pearson Edexcel 2025 Maths A-Level Scandal” – said pupil performance in the qualification “cannot be fairly or validly assessed because the exam series did not test the entire pure mathematics curriculum as required by Ofqual”.
Your thoughts