I've had a BAD day. It was all ok until i got a letter from Edexcel basically suggesting that i cheated on my History AS re-take.... basically they're claiming that there are two different handwriting styles on my paper (which is possible- i tend to rush and start writing in italic) now i have to write an answer explaining myself aswell as sending in examples of my work...... tch. This is my response thus far, i have'nt finished yet.


Richard Andrews: Edexcel Statement

You have asked me to respond to your allegation of suspected irregularity or misconduct in the above examination. With my parents’ assistance I submit the following comments and documentation for your consideration

We are a little puzzled in the way that the possible allegation has been worded. The examiner suggests that there are ‘two distinctly different styles of handwriting’ and you have asked for my comments. We are a little surprised that you have not supplied a copy of the script, which would give me an opportunity to confirm unequivocally that it is my handwriting.

We offer the following comments to assist in your investigation:

Conduct of the examination

 The above examination was carried out on the correct day and at the correct time.
 The examination was stopped at the appointed time.
 The examination took place in the main hall. Only a small group (less than 10) took examinations at that time.
 I was the only history candidate at that session. The other students were physics students.
 There was another candidate taking this History Unit on the same day but for scheduling reasons he was forced to take the module in the afternoon and was kept in isolation all day until his exam started. I had no contact with him.
 My examination was started under the direction of the Examinations officer Miss De Vane.
 At approximately 9:00am Miss De Vane handed over invigilation responsibilities to Mrs Putt, who remained until my examination ended.
 When my examination ended Mrs Putt told me to finish in the normal manner and I was told I could leave the examination room. The physics students remained.
 My examination script was collected by Mrs Putt and that script has not been seen by me since.
 There were no irregularities or disturbances in the course of the examination that I was aware of at the time or since. Had any such irregularities occurred I understand that these would have been reported to you under a clearly defined procedure.
 Miss De Vane and Mrs Putt will be able to verify these facts, as the statement requested from them will show.

Conduct of candidate

 I confirm I conducted myself in the appropriate manner for the examination.
 My examination script was written onto the provided Edexcel booklet and no other unauthorised material was used. I assume that you are satisfied on this point as you have not raised a concern over it.
 I confirm that I did not have prior sight of the examination paper.
 The only communication between the invigilator and myself were the general start and finish comments. These were addressed to the group as a whole.
 The single occasion the invigilator spoke to me was when I was told my examination had ceased and I could leave the hall. This was because I was the only history candidate.
 I confirm that I did not introduce any material or take any action to undermine the integrity of the examination.
 I confirm that the examination paper I completed was all my own work.
 I confirm that all my work was completed within the specified time available and was contained inside the Edexcel answer booklet.
 I confirm that I have not seen the examination script since being told by the invigilator that I was to finish and leave the examination hall.


As I have already stated we find the allegation most peculiar. The concern would appear to be that another person has entered work on my examination script, given the fact that I was the only history candidate to sit this exam at that time would suggest that if from another candidate this would involve the assistance of a physics student. To do so would suggest gross negligence on behalf of the invigilators who, given the extremely small numbers of students sitting the examinations, could not fail to witness such collusion.