Notice

Pearson: Notice of monetary penalty - GCSE English incident

Published 15 December 2025

Applies to England

Notice of Monetary Penalty

Imposition of a monetary penalty on Pearson Education Limited (Pearson) in relation to English specification 2.0

Introduction

1. This notice sets out the final decision, made by The Office of Qualification and Examinations Regulation’s (“Ofqual”) Enforcement Panel on 5 December 2025, to issue Pearson with a monetary penalty under section 151A of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (“ASCLA”) in the sum of £750,000 for breaches of Ofqual’s General Conditions of Recognition.

2. In accordance with section 151A (4) of ASCLA, Ofqual served Pearson with a Notice of Intention to impose a monetary penalty on 1 December 2025. Ofqual determined it was not necessary to publish the Notice of Intention. On 1 December 2025, and in accordance with the settlement agreement, Pearson confirmed it had no representations to make and was content for Ofqual to proceed to final decision.

Executive summary

3. On 1 April 2010, Ofqual recognised Pearson as an awarding organisation to deliver and award a broad range of General Qualifications as well as Vocational and Technical regulated qualifications.

4. Ofqual has set conditions in relation to the identification and management of the risk of the occurrence of any incident which could have an Adverse Effect under Conditions A6.1 and A6.2(a) and (b) of the General Conditions of Recognition.

5. Pearson admits that it has breached those conditions by failing to take all reasonable steps to identify the possible range of risks of inconsistency in the standards it sets when awarding its alternative GCSE English language 2.0 specification (1EN2).

6. The breaches also reflect Pearson’s failure to reduce those risks, and to mitigate any adverse effects that could arise, as far as possible upon being presented with these risks by Ofqual both in 2022 and 2023.

7. Pearson aligned the standards in summer 2024. In consequence, centres and learners experienced adverse effects in that the results received in 2024 were not those that were expected. The concerns expressed in 2024 also demonstrated the adverse impact on public confidence in the qualification. Those adverse effects could have been avoided had Pearson reacted earlier both to identify and manage the risk.

Background

8. When Pearson introduced a new GCSE English language specification (1EN2), it said it was intended to be an alternative designed to appeal to, amongst others, post-16 students, who had not yet achieved a grade 4.

9. The new specification received accreditation and was first awarded in summer 2022, the first summer exams series since the cancellations in 2020 and 2021 due to the Covid 19 pandemic. The ‘midpoint’ grading approach made it particularly challenging to establish a standard for the inaugural assessment.

10. Ofqual’s concerns regarding the general risks involved in standard setting for a GCSE English specification targeted at post-16 students were highlighted at the outset of the accreditation process. Whilst the full nature and extent of those risks could not be known at that point, feedback provided by Ofqual, following both the first and second accreditation submissions, set clear expectations that the risks to awarding and standard setting should be identified and mitigated accordingly.

11. It was Pearson’s responsibility to ensure it reviewed all risks as the qualification was put into operation, to reduce those risks as far as possible, and to mitigate any adverse effects that could arise.

12. Any potential inconsistency in grading standards, and their subsequent realignment, inevitably impacts adversely on learners, standards and public confidence in qualifications.

Failure to identify the risk of inconsistency in grading standards

13. Pearson failed to identify a specific risk of the matched candidate cohort for 1EN2 having lower value added to that of the national cohort. Consequently, there was an associated risk of inconsistency in Pearson’s 1EN2 and national/inter-board English language GCSE standards.

14. Pearson has a significant proportion of the entry information for its qualifications in February of the year of examination. Consideration of the matched candidate cohort does not rely on marked scripts being available.

15. Had Pearson dedicated sufficient time, effort and resource to properly considering and analysing the risks associated with standard setting in its 1EN2 specification and of inconsistency in its 1EN2 English language GCSE standards, Pearson could have identified the specific risk that the matched candidate cohort for 1EN2 had lower value added to that of the national cohort. Instead, it failed to identify this risk until Ofqual drew the risk to its attention upon first awards in 2022 and again in 2023.

Failure to reduce the risk of inconsistency

16. In August 2022, Ofqual highlighted concerns that the value added for the 1EN2 cohort might be different to the cohort taking the existing, larger entry specification. Ofqual sought Pearson’s assurances regarding its approach to awarding.

17. This ongoing risk was further presented to Pearson in July 2023 when Ofqual shared some analysis that it had undertaken, looking at previous outcomes for centres that had moved the majority of their cohort to 1EN2 in Summer 2022 and 2023. This was analysis that Pearson should itself have undertaken as it was Pearson’s responsibility to have appropriate awarding arrangements in place, along with all relevant evidence, to have assurance in its awards.

18. Following Ofqual’s analysis being shared in July 2023, Pearson conducted a judgemental exercise to provide Ofqual with assurances on its approach to awarding. The evidence necessary to firmly establish whether or not there was an issue in 2023 and, if so, the scale of it, was not available at the time of awarding despite Ofqual’s requests to Pearson regarding its approach to awarding.

19. It transpired that the judgemental exercise that Pearson conducted was not sufficiently robust and had limitations such that Pearson could not provide Ofqual with assurances on its approach to awarding.

20. Following Ofqual highlighting these concerns to Pearson in August 2022 and again in 2023, Pearson failed to reduce the risk as far as possible in line with its regulatory obligations. It is acknowledged that there was not sufficient time, following receipt of Ofqual’s analysis, for Pearson to conduct the comparative judgement exercise in respect of the 2023 award, however Pearson could have taken the decision to conduct such an exercise of its own accord, to help inform grading decisions but did not do so.

Failure to mitigate any Adverse Effects

21. Pearson subsequently addressed the risk for 2024 when standards were realigned drawing on evidence from a comparative judgement exercise. The output of the comparative judgement exercise undertaken by Pearson, and the final boundary decisions, confirmed that the standard predictions for 1EN2 were less reliable. The final awarding decisions made by Pearson in summer 2024 indicate the likely unreliability in the predictions for the 1EN2 specification in the previous year.

22. The realisation, in 2024, that 2023 grades for 1EN2 had been generous adversely impacted public confidence in qualifications. In respect of the 2024 learners, the realignment of standards meant that they received the correct grades albeit those grades did not accord with their expectations. When expected outcomes were not realised, Ofqual received a number of complaints expressing serious concerns relating to the significant and unexpected changes that had been made to the anticipated grade boundaries thereby further demonstrating the adverse impact on public confidence. There was also media coverage which reflected the concerns raised with Ofqual.

23. Pearson failed to mitigate any Adverse Effects that could have arisen as a result of inconsistency in its 1EN2 English language GCSE standards. Pearson did not take action to reduce the risk of misaligned grading standards, specific to the Summer 2023 award. Had it done so, the Adverse Effect both to learners and public confidence could have been mitigated.

Failure to comply with the Conditions

1. 24. Pearson has admitted that it failed to comply with its Conditions of Recognition as a result of the factual matrix summarised above. Specifically:

   1. (i) prior to August 2022, Pearson failed to take all reasonable steps to identify the possible range of risks of inconsistency in its 1EN2 English language GCSE standards, including that the matched candidate cohort for 1EN2 had lower value added to that of the national cohort, contrary to Condition A6.1 of the General Conditions of Recognition.
   2. (ii) upon being presented with information that suggested a risk of inconsistency in its 1EN2  English language GCSE standards in August 2022, due to the fact that the matched candidate cohort for 1EN2 had lower value added to that of the national cohort, Pearson failed to:
      1. a. reduce this risk as far as possible contrary to Condition A6.2(a) of the General Conditions of Recognition; and
      2. b.mitigate any Adverse Effects that could have arisen, as far as possible, contrary to Condition A6.2(b) of the General Conditions of Recognition

Determination of a monetary penalty

25. On 1 December 2025, Ofqual’s Enforcement Panel considered the evidence relating to the breaches set out above, alongside the admissions made by Pearson. The Enforcement Panel determined that Pearson has breached its Conditions of Recognition as per the allegations set out at paragraph 24 above.

26. The Enforcement Panel has considered the settlement proposal presented by Pearson. In determining whether or not a Monetary Penalty is an appropriate regulatory outcome in this case and if so what amount would be proportionate to impose, the Enforcement Panel has had regard to Ofqual’s Supporting compliance and taking regulatory action policy (2025).

27. The Enforcement Panel notes the aggravating and mitigating factors set out below.

Aggravating factors

28. The following factors, as taken from Ofqual’s Supporting Compliance and taking regulatory action policy, are relevant in this case:

The seriousness of the breach, particularly in relation to its effect on standards of qualifications, public confidence and the efficiency of the qualifications system.

The effect of the breach (both in terms of the seriousness of the impact and the number of people affected) on purchasers, learners and users of qualifications.

• These breaches represent significant failings in Pearson’s identification,       management and mitigation of risks to ensure consistency in grading standards.
• There were 23,165 learner entries in 2023, the year in which standards were inconsistent.
• Ofqual received a number of complaints following the realisation that 2023 grades for 1EN2 had been generous. The breach adversely impacted on public confidence in qualifications.

Whether the breach was prolonged or repeated.

• Pearson was first presented with the risk in 2022 but did not take sufficient action until 2024.

Pearson has breached regulatory requirements in the past, and, if so, how frequently.

• Ofqual has, on 4 previous occasions, imposed a monetary penalty on Pearson.
• The first fine (£85,000) was imposed in 2016 and concerned inaccurate and delayed results arising out of complications following a change of IT system.
• The second and third fines were imposed in November 2022 in the sum of £1,200,000 and £150,000 respectively. These related to (i) Pearson’s failings in its review of marking arrangements between 2016 and 2019 and (ii) to Pearson’s issuing of incorrect short course certificates in 2017 and 2018.
• The fourth and most recent fine was imposed on 21 March 2025 in the sum of £250,000. This related to Pearson’s failures in identifying, monitoring and managing conflicts of interest, and to take all reasonable steps to secure the confidentiality of assessment materials.

The extent to which the circumstances of the breach were within the control of the Awarding Organisation.

The behaviour of the awarding organisation in relation to the breach, including whether it happened intentionally, whether there was any negligence on the part of the awarding organisation, and whether the breach gives rise to concerns about the organisation’s management or control systems.

• Pearson was obliged to identify and mitigate all risks that arose in relation to 1EN2 as it was put into operation. The specific risk, that subsequently gave rise to inconsistency of standards, was one that Pearson could reasonably have considered, but did not.
• It took for Ofqual to bring these risks to Pearson’s attention in 2022 and 2023. Pearson did not proactively respond to Ofqual’s concerns and the measures put in place for 2023 were ineffective.
• The analysis shared by Ofqual in 2023 was analysis that Pearson should itself have undertaken.
• The comparative exercise that was subsequently put in place for 2024 could have been undertaken sooner. The circumstances of these breaches were therefore within Pearson’s control and gives rise to concerns about Pearson’s management or control systems.

A fine is likely to improve compliance with regulatory conditions in the future (including by other awarding organisations)

• Ofqual considers that there is a clear need to deter Pearson and other awarding organisations from making similar failings in the future. The imposition of a monetary penalty emphasises the importance of maintaining robust systems to identify and manage risk, and any potential adverse effects. It also demonstrates that where standards are compromised, Ofqual will take proportionate and transparent regulatory action to protect the integrity of, and public confidence in, qualifications.

Mitigating factors

29. Pearson has engaged and co-operated fully with Ofqual during the enforcement process.

30. Pearson accepted the breaches expressing recognition of, and regret for, the non-compliance.

31. It was recognised that Pearson had introduced 1EN2 to provide an alternative specification that might appeal to post-16 re-sit students and that there were particular challenges in introducing a new specification in 2022 as a result of the disruption caused by the Covid 19 pandemic.

32. Pearson did not benefit in any material way from any of the activities that were not carried out in accordance with Ofqual’s Conditions of Recognition.

Other factors

1. 33. The Enforcement Panel has also considered:

   1. a. the need to deter Pearson and other awarding organisations from making similar failings in the future;

   2. b. the need to promote public confidence in qualifications through visible, appropriate and effective regulatory action.;

   3. c. the nature and circumstances of these breaches in comparison to other breaches for which fines have been imposed by Ofqual on other awarding organisations;

   4. d. the admissions made by Pearson, its engagement with the enforcement process and its proposals for the settlement of this action.

Settlement

34. Pearson co-operated with Ofqual’s investigation, promptly admitted the non-compliances and entered into a voluntary settlement in which it has acknowledged Ofqual’s decision in this Notice and agreed not to appeal. In light of this settlement, Ofqual has decided to impose a lower penalty than it would have done in a contested case.

Final decision

35. Taking all of the above into account, the Enforcement Panel has confirmed its earlier notice of intention to accept a settlement proposal and imposes a monetary penalty in the sum of £750,000.

36. The Enforcement Panel is satisfied, in accordance with section 151B of the 2009 Act, that a Monetary Penalty in the sum of £750,000 would not exceed 10% of Pearson’s total annual turnover.

Payment

37. The monetary penalty must be paid within 28 days of the date of this notice, in accordance with the payment instructions provided with this notice.

38. In the event of non-payment, interest may be charged and the outstanding amount may be recovered as a debt, in accordance with section 151D of the Act.

Appeals

1. 39. An awarding organisation may appeal to the First Tier Tribunal in respect of Ofqual’s decision to impose the monetary penalty and/or in respect of the amount of that penalty, in accordance with section 151C of the Act.

2. 40. An appeal may be made on the grounds:

   1. a. that the decision was based on an error of fact;
   2. b. that the decision was wrong in law;
   3. c. that the decision was unreasonable.

3. 41. Any appeal must be made within 28 days of the date of this notice. Further   information is available from HM Courts and Tribunals Service.

Signed:

Chris Paterson

Chair of the Enforcement Panel

Date: 5 December 2025

Enforcement Panel:

Chris Paterson

Susan Barratt

Hardip Begol CBE

Annex A: Legal provisions

Statutory powers

1. Pearson is recognised as an awarding body by The Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation (“Ofqual”) under section 132(1) of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act, 2009 (“the 2009 Act”) and is subject to the General Conditions of Recognition (“the Conditions”) which Ofqual is required to set and publish under Section 134 of the 2009 Act.

2. Under Section 151A(2) of the 2009 Act, Ofqual may impose a Monetary Penalty on an awarding body if it appears to Ofqual that the awarding body has failed to comply with its Conditions of Recognition.

3. Under Section 151B(3) of the 2009 Act, the amount of any Monetary Penalty may be whatever Ofqual decides is appropriate in all the circumstances of the case, subject to Section 151B(1), which provides that Ofqual may not impose a Monetary Penalty in an amount which exceeds 10% of the awarding body’s turnover.

4. Section 151A(4) provides that Ofqual must give notice to an awarding organisation of its intention to impose a monetary penalty. S151A(5) and (6) set further requirements in respect of such notice.

5. Ofqual’s Supporting compliance and taking regulatory action Policy (2025) sets out how it will use its powers to take regulatory action, including the factors it will take into account when deciding whether to impose a Monetary Penalty and how it will determine the amount of any Monetary Penalty to be imposed.

General Conditions of Recognition

6. Pearson has a legal obligation to comply with its Conditions of Recognition (s132(3) of the 2009 Act), which includes the General Conditions of Recognition and any other relevant Conditions set by Ofqual.

7. The General Conditions of Recognition, Qualification Level Conditions and Subject Level Conditions can be found on Ofqual’s website.