It is clear that there is ahuge amount of dissatisfaction with Edexcel at the moment. I share mrlewis's frustration that all of a sudden practice which has held good for some time is now being seenas sub standard. Rigorous preparation and adherence to guidelines hasn'[t helped us. More in hope than expectation I have asked for a re-moderation of Unit 2 and for some 6 out of 16 students to be re-examined for unit 3. Whilst I have had some disquiet about aspects of Edexcel for some time, for as long as I was able to write and deliver a robust course and students were able to achieve the level to which they aspired and - in my professional opinion - had earned i was prepared to live with the disquiet. Now, of course, we have come massively unstuck and we're presiding over results that have taken value away rather than added to it - as in other years. Does anyone else find the distinction between what is 'excellent' and what is 'outstanding' in the assessment criteria vague? If something is 'outstanding', by definition it can only apply to a very small number of candidates. How on earth can we know that something - on a national level - is 'outstanding'? is it a descriptor we can only reserve for our most able candidates - whatever the everage standard of the whole group. That is one of my 'beef's. the external examiner seemed determined to find all levels of ability here and marked the work A* to G. Completely crazy!! If the marks were right this year then as sure as eggs is eggs they've been wrong up to now!! Furthermore, the quanitity of different bands means that someone's work can be jusged 'excellent' and only achieve 13 out of 20. Similarly it can also be jusged to be 'adequate' and achieve 5 out of 20. By any vestige of common sense this is ridiculous. I'd be interested to know how anyone else fares with re-moderation and remarking. I'm not hopeful but I had to ask for it if only to register my utter dissatisfaction. I'll keep you posted!!