To Pearson Edexcel,

We, the students, respectfully request that Pearson Edexcel conduct a thorough review of A Level Mathematics Paper 1 (2026) and carefully consider the impact that the paper's difficulty may have had on student outcomes across the country.

First and foremost, we recognise the immense responsibility involved in designing and assessing national examinations. We understand that examination papers are intended to challenge students, differentiate between varying levels of attainment, and maintain standards from year to year. We also appreciate the effort that goes into producing them.

However, following the sitting of A Level Mathematics Paper 1 in 2026, immediately there is widespread concern among students, teachers, tutors, and schools that the paper represented a significant increase in difficulty compared with previous years and, in some respects, exceeded what many candidates reasonably anticipated based on the specification and past examination series. This was significantly more challenging that any past paper previously set by the board, even though Pearson Edexcel openly stated post 2019 they would make the papers more 'accessible'.

This petition is not an attempt to avoid accountability for performance, nor is it an assertion that examinations should be made easier. Rather, it is a request that Pearson Edexcel examine whether the level of challenge presented by this paper was proportionate and whether grade boundaries should be adjusted accordingly to ensure fairness for all candidates.

Across schools and colleges, students who consistently achieved high grades in mock examinations, past papers, and classroom assessments reported leaving the examination hall feeling uncertain and overwhelmed. Many candidates who had demonstrated strong mathematical ability throughout their studies found themselves unable to complete substantial sections of the paper within the allotted time.

While it is normal for students to find examinations challenging, the scale and consistency of these concerns appears significant. Reports from candidates suggest that difficulty was not confined to a handful of demanding questions at the end of the paper, but was instead present throughout large portions of the assessment. This created an experience in which many students struggled to gain confidence and momentum as the paper progressed. For example, popular YouTube teacher/helper for maths students Mr Bicen put a poll up about how the paper went

54% voted it was quote on quote "worse than expected, bad/awful".

The key issue is one of incredible inconsistency. Students prepare using past papers and recent exam series to understand the expected standard. While recent A Level Mathematics papers have generally been accessible while still providing appropriate challenge, many candidates felt that the 2026 Paper 1 represented a significant increase in difficulty. We therefore ask Pearson Edexcel to consider whether this paper was consistent with recent examination standards and to ensure that any difference in difficulty is fairly reflected in the grade boundaries.

Many students felt that questions required multiple layers of reasoning, extended algebraic manipulation, and unfamiliar approaches beyond what had typically been expected in previous examination series. While such questions undoubtedly have a place in assessing the highest-performing candidates, there is concern that the overall balance of the paper may have disproportionately affected students across the entire ability range.

We therefore ask Pearson Edexcel to consider the following:

Review whether the balance of question styles, accessibility, and time demands were consistent with previous examination series.
Ensure that grade boundaries are set in a manner that fully reflects the paper's level of challenge and protects students from being unfairly disadvantaged.
Provide transparency regarding the process through which grade boundaries are determined so that students can have confidence in the fairness of the outcome.
It is important to emphasise that we are not requesting grade inflation or special treatment. We simply ask that outcomes accurately reflect the exceptional difficulty many candidates experienced. If a paper is significantly more demanding than previous years, then grade boundaries should be adjusted appropriately so that students are assessed fairly relative to their peers in other examination series.

The principle of comparable outcomes exists to ensure that students are neither advantaged nor disadvantaged by the particular examination paper they happen to sit. We believe this principle is especially relevant in relation to the 2026 Mathematics Paper 1.

Many students have dedicated countless hours over two years to preparing for these examinations. They have attended lessons, completed extensive independent study, worked through past papers, attended revision sessions, and made considerable personal sacrifices in pursuit of their academic goals. These students deserve confidence that their grades will reflect their mathematical ability rather than the unusual difficulty of a single examination paper.

We respectfully urge Pearson Edexcel to recognise the scale of concern surrounding this paper and to ensure that grade boundaries and awarding decisions fully account for the challenges candidates faced.

Our request is simple: fairness, consistency, and a careful reassessment of the impact of A Level Mathematics Paper 1 (2026).

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Yours faithfully,

The Undersigned Students, Teachers, Parents, and Supporters