To Pearson Edexcel,

We, the undersigned International A Level students, parents, teachers, tutors, and supporters, are calling on Pearson Edexcel to conduct an urgent, transparent, and fair review of the June 2026 International A Level Pure Mathematics 3 paper.

This is not a petition asking for easy marks.

This is not a petition asking for standards to be lowered.

This is a petition asking for fairness, consistency, and accountability.

Across the world, many IAL Mathematics candidates left the June 2026 P3 examination feeling devastated, shocked, and unable to understand how a paper of this nature could fairly represent their ability, preparation, or understanding of the specification. Students who had worked consistently, completed years of past papers, achieved strong marks in mocks, and prepared seriously for this examination reported that the paper was unusually inaccessible, excessively time-pressured, and significantly different in overall demand from what candidates had reasonably been led to expect.

The issue is not that the paper was simply “hard”.

Students understand that examinations are meant to challenge them. We accept that Pure Mathematics 3 is a demanding paper. We accept that high grades must be earned. We accept that some questions should separate the strongest candidates from the rest of the cohort.

However, there is a serious difference between a challenging examination and an examination that many candidates experienced as poorly balanced, disproportionately time-consuming, and inaccessible across too much of the paper.

A fair examination should test mathematical understanding. It should allow prepared candidates to demonstrate what they know. It should contain appropriate challenge, but it should also have a reasonable balance of accessible, standard, and more demanding questions. It should not become a race against time in which students are prevented from showing their true ability because the paper is overloaded with unusually lengthy, sophisticated, or unfamiliar demands for the marks available.

Many candidates felt that the June 2026 IAL P3 paper failed in this balance.

A major concern was the time pressure. Many questions appeared to require several layers of reasoning, extended algebraic manipulation, and unusually careful method selection, while offering relatively few marks. Candidates reported that the time required to complete several parts was not proportionate to the marks awarded. In some cases, students felt that questions demanded far more work than comparable questions in previous papers for the same or similar mark allocation. Many students who could usually finish, or nearly finish, recent IAL P3 papers within 1 hour 30 minutes found that the same working speed did not allow them to access even around 70% of the June 2026 paper.

This matters because marks do not only measure difficulty. They also signal how much time and work a candidate can reasonably afford to spend. When a question is worth only a small number of marks but requires a long and sophisticated method, it damages time management across the entire paper. Students then lose time not because they lack understanding, but because the paper’s design creates an unrealistic workload.

Another major concern was accessibility. Many candidates felt that large sections of the paper were difficult to access unless earlier parts had been completed correctly. This meant that one mistake, one missed method, or one time-consuming starting point could block access to later marks. In a paper that was already heavily time-pressured, this structure made it even harder for students to recover, regain confidence, or demonstrate their knowledge in later parts.

This is especially damaging in an examination setting. A candidate sitting the paper does not know what the grade boundaries will be months later. They only know what is in front of them. If page after page feels unusually inaccessible, panic sets in. Confidence collapses. Time management breaks down. Students begin to rush, freeze, or abandon questions they may have been able to solve under fairer conditions.

Grade boundaries may adjust for overall difficulty after the exam, but they cannot fully undo the psychological and practical impact of an unusually inaccessible paper during the exam itself.

That is why this issue cannot be dismissed with the simple argument that “grade boundaries will be lower”.

Grade boundaries are important, but they are not a complete solution if the paper itself had a serious issue with design, timing, accessibility, or proportionality. If a paper prevents well-prepared candidates from demonstrating their ability under reasonable exam conditions, then the issue is deeper than ordinary difficulty. It becomes an issue of assessment fairness.

This concern is made even more serious by the recent controversy surrounding Pearson Edexcel’s UK A Level Mathematics paper. In that case, many UK students, teachers, and parents raised concerns about unusual difficulty, time pressure, and fairness. The issue received significant public attention, including petitions, media coverage, and regulatory scrutiny.

International A Level candidates deserve the same seriousness.

IAL students should not be ignored simply because they are outside the UK system. International candidates also spend years preparing. International candidates also pay significant examination fees. International candidates also rely on these results for university admissions, scholarships, predicted futures, and life-changing opportunities. Our grades matter just as much. Our concerns deserve to be heard just as clearly.

It is also important to recognise that International A Levels are not regulated by Ofqual in the same way as UK A Levels. This makes it even more important that Pearson Edexcel listens directly to international candidates and provides clear reassurance that the awarding process will protect them from unfair disadvantage.

We are therefore asking Pearson Edexcel to take the following actions:

• Conduct a full review of the June 2026 IAL Pure Mathematics 3 paper, including its difficulty, timing, accessibility, structure, and consistency with previous examination series.
• Investigate whether the workload required by the paper was proportionate to the time allowed and the marks available.
• Review whether the paper allowed prepared candidates across the ability range to demonstrate their mathematical understanding fairly.
• Ensure that grade boundaries and awarding decisions fully account not only for raw performance data, but also for any evidence that the paper was unusually time-pressured, inaccessible, or inconsistent with recent papers.
• Provide clear public communication to students, teachers, and examination centres explaining how these concerns have been considered.
• Treat the concerns of international candidates with the same seriousness as those raised by UK candidates affected by similar issues.
• Take steps to ensure that future IAL Mathematics papers are appropriately balanced, accessible, and consistent with the specification and previous examination standards.

We are not asking Pearson Edexcel to give students grades they did not earn. We are asking Pearson Edexcel to ensure that students are not denied grades they were capable of earning because of an examination that many believe was not fairly designed.

A student’s grade should reflect their mathematical ability, their preparation, their understanding, and their performance under fair conditions. It should not be determined by whether they happened to sit an unusually inaccessible and excessively time-pressured paper in one examination series.

For many candidates, this paper was not just disappointing. It was deeply discouraging. Students who had spent months, and in many cases years, preparing for this qualification left the exam hall feeling that their hard work had not been given a fair opportunity to show.

That should concern Pearson Edexcel.

It should concern teachers.

It should concern parents.

It should concern every student who believes examinations should be demanding, but fair.

Our request is simple: review the paper properly, acknowledge the concerns of international candidates, and ensure that the final outcomes are fair.

Pearson Edexcel must act with transparency, responsibility, and urgency.

The June 2026 IAL Pure Mathematics 3 candidates deserve fairness.

The international student community deserves to be heard.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Yours faithfully,

The Undersigned Students, Teachers, Parents, and Supporters