By Gwen Frangs
8 November 2025, Tipperary Town, Ireland
As a Biblical writer, I am fully aware of what it says in Philippians 2:4:
Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.
I am writing this particular article because I believe that it is in the interest of the public to be aware of what happened regarding my Pearson Edexcel preliminary appeal last month; this is so that you can think very carefully about whether you want to engage in this process yourself.
I decided to appeal three of the one mark questions from my son’s second Pearson Edexcel International GCSE business exam. Each Pearson International GCSE business exam contains a case study about a business and a number of questions are based on this case study. These questions have to be answered based on the context of the case study in order for the marks to be awarded. In the business exam that I was appealing, the case study was about the coffee shop franchise Starbucks. A piece of information which was provided in the case study about Starbucks was that they sell coffee and food products, including cakes, biscuits and sandwiches.
Question 1(d) of the exam asked the candidate to state one reason why Starbucks wants to retain its employees. My son answered that Starbucks wants to retain their employees in order to keep up production without spending money on recruitment and training. He was given zero and I appealed this, firstly arguing that production occurs at Starbucks and secondly, arguing that my son’s answer was correct in the context of the case study because the word ‘products’ was used in the case study.
The appeal case officer upheld the original marking, quoting the chief examiner, who said that in the response provided by the candidate, ‘production’ would not be sufficient application to context because although production is a process of the business, it is not specific to Starbucks and could apply to any business.
Although my first argument: that production occurs at Starbucks was addressed in this response from the chief examiner, my second argument: that my son’s answer met the context criteria of the case study because the word ‘products’ was used in the case study itself, was ignored by the chief examiner.
I replied to the appeal outcome letter stating the following:
The use of the word ‘products’ in the case study made ‘production’ specific to Starbucks. Please could you explain to me why the case study specifically mentions ‘products’ if it is not specifically introducing production into the context? It could just have said that Starbucks makes biscuits and sandwiches.
The case study stated that ‘products’ are made at Starbucks and L said that Starbucks would want to retain its staff so that production wouldn’t be interrupted. His answer is a direct response to the fact that the case study raises the topic of ‘products’ being produced at Starbucks.
I would like to point out that the second point in the General Marking Guidance is: ‘Mark schemes should be applied positively. Candidates must be rewarded for what they have shown they can do rather than penalised for omissions’. I believe that this point has been completely ignored when it comes to L’s answer.
The second exam question that I appealed was also a one mark question. Question 2(a) asked that the candidate state one reason why Starbucks should have good communication with its customers. My son answered that good communication with their customers will give Starbucks a good reputation for appreciating and understanding customer feedback.
I know that his answer is correct because he got the information from two Pearson textbooks. On page 131 in the textbook ‘Pearson Edexcel International GCSE (9-1) Business Student Book’ the author, Rob Jones, states the following at the bottom of the page:
Poor communication with outsiders could also damage the image of the company (pg 131)
Ian Marcousé, a former Pearson examiner, states in his textbook Pearson Edexcel GCSE (9-1) Business Third Edition:
Responses to customer feedback
Years ago, customer feedback meant two things: feedback to the business (‘I thought the steak was a bit tough’) and word-of-mouth, that is, telling friends and family. Even though bad news can spread pretty quickly, the power of word-of-mouth was a relatively slow burner. By comparison, a post on Tripadvisor is much more powerful – and worrying. Well run restaurants or hotels post replies to customers who have left comments. This is especially worthwhile if the comment was critical. (pg 247)
My son and I used these two Pearson textbooks extensively while preparing for the exam; however, it seems that the current Pearson Business examiners have not read these textbooks.
In the preliminary appeal, I cited these two authors and argued that my son’s answer fitted the context of the case study because Starbucks falls into the restaurant category and its growth could only be benefited through gaining a reputation that they actually take the time to communicate with customers who leave feedback, particularly customers who leave negative feedback.
In the appeal outcome letter, the chief examiner responded that for this question the candidate is required to state one reason why Starbucks should have good communication with its customers, and the response must be aligned to the context of Starbucks. The chief examiner went on to say that for context, the candidate is required to fully link the response to the business in question and provide clarity of context. The chief examiner then said that in my son’s answer there is no evidence of sufficient application to context because, although there is a reason provided, there is no clear link to Starbucks.
I replied to the appeal outcome letter stating the following:
L took information that he had learned about the importance of providing feedback to the customers of restaurants and specifically applied that to Starbucks. There is a clear link to Starbucks in the answer. In fact, he specifically refers to Starbucks in the middle of his answer.
I received an email from the Regulation Manager in response to the comments that I had made regarding the first two questions, telling me that should I remain dissatisfied, the next stage is to request an appeal hearing because there is no process for further discussing appeal outcomes outside of the formal appeals process, and saying that they cannot respond to my statements about the preliminary appeal outcome.
Although, I think that I had clearly demonstrated that the preliminary appeal had not been conducted properly, he was only interested in pushing me on to the next step in the process, a panel hearing which costs £200, rather than addressing the problems with the preliminary appeal. It seems unreasonable to me to put a parent through the stress of presenting arguments at a panel hearing, in order to rectify the fact that the preliminary appeal was not conducted properly.
My son was not awarded the third mark that I appealed either, but the fact that he did not get it does not bother me, because the chief examiner addressed my argument in the appeal outcome letter, even going so far as to provide an explanation of what a model answer would have looked like. I have been left questioning why my arguments for the first two questions were not fully addressed and why no model answers were given. As the question paper and mark schema are locked in the past exam papers section of the Pearson website at the moment, so that Pearson can sell them to colleges and schools – another revenue stream for Pearson- I cannot see what the model answers for these two questions would be.
In the appeal outcome letter that I received, I was told by the appeal case officer, that in making her decision, she had placed significant weight on the expert response provided by the examiner because they had demonstrated that the marks awarded met the requirements of the mark scheme and that it was reasonable for the marks to be awarded in this way.
Therefore, after attempting to use the Pearson Edexcel preliminary appeal process, I have discovered that there is very little chance of winning a preliminary appeal. The appeal case officers don’t use their own judgment, but merely refer back to the examiners. This means that you are not getting a new perspective, you are merely being informed of the reasoning behind the examiners’ perspective.
I decided to drop out of the appeals process after the preliminary hearing, because I anticipated that the panel hearing, which I was told by the Regulation Manager does not consist of a panel of experts in the subject, would also rely on the expert opinion of the examiner when making their determination.
What emerged during the back and forth emails with the Regulation Manager is that the international exams are not overseen by Ofqual. The Regulation Manager told me twice that I could not make a complaint to Ofqual about the preliminary hearing, because Ofqual doesn’t oversee the international GCSEs. Therefore, it seems that Pearson Edexcel is entirely a law unto itself and that there is nowhere for a parent or learner to turn to if Pearson gets it wrong.
I can’t help but wonder whether the Pearson Edexcel appeals team purposely held back on fully addressing my arguments to ensure that I would proceed onto the second step in the appeals process. It is also worth noting that if my son had been awarded two of the three marks that I appealed, he would have moved up a grade and Pearson would have had to have refunded us the money we paid for the remark (£100 per paper) and the preliminary appeal (£150); quite a considerable amount of money. Clearly, it is not in their financial interests to refund the money.
Although my preliminary appeal submission was 15 pages in length and clearly outlined my arguments for why my son should be awarded the marks, it didn’t get me anywhere. I am not even sure that the appeal case officer read it properly. Therefore, I would advise you to think very carefully before you spend your money on the Pearson Edexcel appeals process. I can think of many better uses for the £150 that I spent on the preliminary appeal.