Talk:Edexcel

message: "Currently however, Edexcel has shown remarkable growth, is clearly providing what leaners need and is growing rapidly globally."
Seems a bit biased to me.... TheOne00 08:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is biased both ways. There are a few statements on here that seem to be written by GCSE and A-Level students who are having exam stresses and want someone to blame. Some of the stuff written about Edexcel on here isn't even true. Triangle e 13:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6653533.stm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.140.197.157 (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Should this be included?

message: I've added another story about Edexcel errors, specifically that they hired a 16 year old to mark GCSEs but don't know enough about Wikipedia to add a reference. It's in the most recent edition of Private Eye so I'm not sure where I would find it online. Can someone who is good at this please help me?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.128.98 (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Help adding link

message: Should probably be something on the whole Microsoft Word thing...  -- AnonMoos (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent incident

message: As this made national news, I think this is definitely worth including  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohdear15 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: source please New hordak from 2018 (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: No mention of the June 2013 controversial maths C3 paper leakage and off-syllabus questions

message: Get id of second added paragraph.
109.154.37.142 (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a reason and establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 02:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2015 

message: The section "2015 Maths Paper" should be removed. It's not uncommon for students to mock a paper on twitter, I know because I was doing it 2 years ago. Edexcel has been involved in more substantial controversies, like the fact it is owned by Pearson, a multinational publishing company that literally sells the answers for a profit, through official textbooks, and also the 2013 C3 paper as mentioned above. Articles discussing the conflict of interest have real sources (http://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/jul/16/pearson-multinational-influence-education-poliy), and not the "click bait" articles used in the current section. The addition about Ofqual reform is relevant, but not to a "controversy", but to the history of the exam board in general, and it's position in the section is misleading, supposing that the current mocking of the exam has triggered it. 
I request the text of the Controversies section to be changed to the following (With sources amended to fit wikipedia formatting) - 
As Edexcel is the only privately owned examination board in the UK, questions have been raised on whether the examination is acting in the best interest of students, or solely as a profit making business, due to the wide range of officially edorced text books published by Pearson.Source a
In May 2007, it was reported that teachers using Edexcel Music examinations were allowing students to listen to confidential listening paper CDs several days before the examination, by abusing the trust given by the exam board to only check for technical issues. Other exam boards do not allow the practice of checking discs, with AQA specifically instructing teachers not to open the packages containing the CDs before exams.Source b
The loss of an A-level C3 Mathematics exam being delivered to a school in Amsterdam in 2013 led to a replacement paper being published for the Summer examination series, however, 60 students in the UK took the original paper due to it mistakenly being handed out in two UK and two overseas centres, while the replacement paper was taken by 34,000 students. The replacement paper was criticised for including questions that were not present on the syllabus, and that the students taking the original paper would be unfairly marked. Source c
In May 2015, Ofqual ordered three exam boards, OCR, WJEC and Edexcel, to refine Mathematics GCSE papers to allow them to be more accessible to students of all abilities, not just those of higher ability. Research by Ofqual found that because of the high perceived difficulty of some questions, students would only need to score less than half marks to be awarded an A grade. Source d
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerd-pony (talk • contribs) 07:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, it's not a particularly notable event in the history of the company, and is recent event bias. ed g2s • talk 16:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

text: We are working on a draft to include your suggestions. Edfilmsuk (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We're both in the same GCSE boat having taken the exam recently, but I entirely disagree with your point. Edexcel has been a multinational exam board for 20 years, with a long history in a multitude of different subject areas that deserve recognition in the form of an article. That is unquestionable. However, it's ridiculous to include such excessive detail on one single question with arguably passing significance in conflict with WP:NTEMP in comparison to the volume of content in the rest of the article. Also check out WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and if the controversy is notable enough to remain I'd suggest a complete article dedicated to exam controversies in the UK. Having cited policy and in the best interests of the article, I'm now going to remove the section as I feel a consensus has been established given the responses on this talk page. Thank you, and if you have any questions please get in touch. ~NottNott ( ✉ -☺) 16:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk but do not revert. The fact that this talk page only has 3 comments, with only yourself supporting fully removing the controversy section clearly indicated that a consensus has not been established. You also cannot simply propose to delete the full section  and do it  at a gap of 2 minutes where no editor previously supported this decision. There clearly wasn't sufficient time to allow objections to be raised. I agree that the coverage of the 2015 GCSE maths exam paper was over. However, I have to say the extensive coverage of the question in national news  and the fact that it caused a huge response over Twitter and the increasing popularity of #EdexcelMaths  would suggest to me that notability is indeed established. You may wish to note that another article for Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations also included a small section about the controversy of exam papers made by the exam board. I second Nerd-pony's suggestion but propose to include a small paragraph included to also about the 2015 GCSE maths exam paper. All it needs really is a rewrite, not a removal. — Andrew Y talk 18:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The following is an xpost from my talk page, as I believe this would help me further clarify my stance: [...]We must be weary of policies such as WP:NTEMP, which specifically states that "brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability". The many attempts to remove the section and the several opinions stated on the talk page appeared like enough consensus to me so if anything I like to think I was just being bold, but I admit that my revert without a true consensus was unjust and I apologise. I still believe opinion should shift toward removing the section for the above reasons. Thank you. ~NottNott ( ✉ -☺) 19:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

text: Hi Andrew Y, I have changed the page back to its ideal state, with not too much "extraneous detail" over one question, as NottNott highlighted. I have however informed him on his talk page that such unsubstantiated decisions to revert without proper consensus are not in line with Wikpedia's ethos. Edfilmsuk (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi! Again, talk but do not revert. It would be helpful, once again, if you could have discussed the changes before actually doing them because the edit concerned are controversial. I personally think it would be better to adopt to the content Nerd-pony provided than starting a new section just for that one paper. But obviously others' inputs are very much appreciated. — Andrew Y talk 18:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, apologies about this, but I can't seem to find the edit in question you're talking about. Could you provide a link? Cheers! ~NottNott ( ✉ -☺) 19:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I am more willing to endorse Nerd-pony's proposal, but people constantly editing the article in accordance with their own self-serving beliefs is becoming tiresome. Of course Wikipedians should assume good faith, but it is difficult in this situation. I suggest that this article be left alone for a while. This will allow a supposed "consensus" to develop, helping to decide the best outcome for this page. Edfilmsuk (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've been on the project for the while and so I only have the best interests of the wiki at heart. Many people have tried to remove your section suggesting to me that, in accordance with policy, that it should be removed. (note the sentence about Ofqual should most certainly remain) While I may have been wrong in jumping to conclusion, I can assert I don't have the intention of damaging the integrity of the article, so I struggle how you can't see good faith in my edits. I believe we should allow a consensus to form now as there won't be much activity to the page and thus to a consensus over time. Thanks. ~NottNott ( ✉ -☺) 20:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

text:  Thanks for your response! I believe that WP:N concerns the notability of the subject of the article, but not the content within the article itself. A brief burst of news coverage indeed does not establish notability, which is exactly why the content of the controversies need to be kept within the Edexcel article instead of being listing in a separate article as you suggested. I think the policy that is important in this issue is WP:BALASPS and WP:BALANCE. I agree the previous coverage was done at an undue weight, but if the content is fully removed, I would argue that we have failed to maintain the balance of the article. When Edexcel's practices have been criticised by Ofqual the regulator itself, this should be noted in the article. This provides a fair point of view to the readers for them to fully understand this organisation, both the good side and the bad side of it. — Andrew Y talk 19:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

text: By the way, in case it was confusing, my message at 18.57 UTC, 7th June was made in response to Edfilmsuk's edit.— Andrew Y talk 19:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  (thanks for this template by by the way, couldn't find it!) The belief it tackled the subject of the article was my belief as well, but I did not know of another policy so I thank you. Looking at [this revision] at a glance I felt it was unbalanced so I didn't notice the mention of Ofqual - of course this should be mentioned in the article. I believe that even only a single line mentioning Ofqual's response, with no mention of the sweets question, would be the best course of action because of how important that is to the topic. ~NottNott ( ✉ -☺) 20:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about something like this? I do think after such a outcry in social media, a brief mention of the incidence is worthwhile. — Andrew Y talk 20:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Full support. That's brilliant, seriously. This solves NPOV issues, balancing issues and is a wonderful addition to the article. ~NottNott ( ✉ -☺) 20:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great - I'd glad that this works out! I think Edfilmsuk should have been notified when I use the template but I will leave it here for a few hours to see if he has any objection. If not I will replace the content with what I proposed probability by the end of today. — Andrew Y talk 20:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, I'm here; I've mulled over the template made by Andrew Y and I too endorse this change. I've slightly edited the draft, but feel free to revert it if you feel it is not sufficient. It includes other controversies while not sacrificing the latest Edexcel criticism. Nice job. Edfilmsuk (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

text: I've seen your edit and I think that's okay. I'm declaring a consensus and closing the discussion. Regardless we've reach at least a rough consensus on the content that should be included in the section. If anybody is not happy with any particular wording chosen, he/she can change the individual wordings. — Andrew Y talk 20:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Not a Controversy (Semi-protected edit request, 5 June 2015)

message: I believe this is inaccurate. On the official grade boundaries in order to pass one needs to achieve 103/300 not 43/300 which was present previously Islamdefence (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edexcel 2019 Low Grade Boundaries