PEB Responses To Employers Q & A Webinar

PEB Qualifying Examinations

Q&A Webinar for employers on the proposed changes to the Final Diploma

The questions below were raised during the Employers’ Q & A webinar that CIPA organised for the PEB on 24 February 2025. The PEB is providing the answers to questions raised below.

1 Do you foresee any changes to the exemption from FD2 and FD3 from the European exams?

The PEB cannot give a definitive answer to this question until it has reviewed the new EQE examinations and considered how the EQEs align with what the PEB is proposing. The PEB will be discussing this issue with IPReg.

2 You mentioned that synoptic marking will create more consistent pass rates year on year; does this mean you will shift to a bell curve type approach to marking?

We cannot yet give a firm answer on this. The PEB is still working on testing and refining its approach to marking the revised FD examinations. The PEB is unlikely to move to a “bell curve type approach to marking. However, statistical data will be used to determine where the minimum standard of competency lies and set the variable pass mark. More information on this will be published in due course.

3 Why does the PEB not envisage a return to in-person examinations?Feedback from candidates has been broadly in favour of the current system of online examinations, taken either at home or in the office.

The use of online examinations has increased the cost, but candidates do not want a return to in-person examinations.

4 Can we expect more sample new-style FD4 papers before they are brought in? In addition, can we expect more guidance as to what kind of information will usually be pre-released for FD4?

This can be considered. Certainly more information about FD4 will be published in due course. The Pre-Release material will provide background information to provide the context to the examination, very much like the specimen FD4 question paper that is already on the PEB website.

5 Please can you explain the changes to FD1. I am concerned that by increasing the number of longer Part B questions, the exam is being made significantly harder.

It is not the intention to make the examination significantly harder, but the PEB’s view is that the FD1 examination is not a test of knowledge but a test of the application of knowledge. The introduction of an additional Part B (longer) question should mean that FD1 is testing at the correct level. A reduction in the pass rate is not anticipated. The move towards holistic marking, instead of mark gathering, should allow candidates to better demonstrate professional competence.

6 Surely if FD4 is too time pressured, the solution is to reduce content while leaving the time as it is. Surely reducing the time and the content leaves us in the same time pressured situation as we are now?

Criticism of FD4 has focussed on the length of the examination time as well as the amount to be done in the time.
Some time pressure can be expected in an examination. As indicated above, the PEB will be testing and refining the approach to the revised FD4 examination to ensure that it is fit for purpose. The intention is that, if necessary, the amount of content of the revised FD4 examination will be reduced to reflect the time available. The pass rate for FD4 has risen in recent sessions and it is hope this provides assurance that the examination is, and will be, fit for purpose.

7 How far in advance of the exam do you envisage the background material being released?

It is expected that the FD4 Pre-release material will be issued approximately two weeks before the examination.

8 Why did PEB pursue an evolution of the current four FD papers, typically sat all together after 3-4 years, rather than a revolution e.g. the new modular EQEs. We’re told both are for current examination best practice.

This was a difficult balancing act. There was a wide range of responses to the consultation from our stakeholders. The PEB has limited resources available to use in developing a new examination system. A revolutionary approach would have required significant investment of resources, which ultimately the PEB was not in a position to undertake. However, there was no clear message from stakeholders that this was what they wanted.

9 What factors were considered in determining the 5 year review period, Would this be the only review or perhaps could there be interim reviews to allow PEB to be more responsive to any required change?

The PEB has an annual quality review process and an annual review of syllabi, both of which make changes. We are currently at the point in the annual cycle where examiners consider syllabus changes (for example reflecting changes in law) which are then published by the PEB. The bigger changes are considered at the five-year review. Five years enables changes to be implemented and embedded and then be reviewed, Stakeholders would be unhappy if big changes were made more frequently than every five years.

10 What factors were considered in the decision not to introduce a (partially) open book approach?

Consultation responses from stakeholders on this issue were very mixed. The PEB is continuing to investigate the practicality of open-book examinations in the light of increasing concerns about examination integrity. Examiners also had concerns about setting appropriate questions. So, this will be re-visited in future development rounds.

11 With the moving to synoptic marking using ‘bands’, will all of the criteria of the lower bands need to be satisfied to allow access to the higher bands?

At the moment we cannot give a clear answer. However, the PEB is still working on testing and refining its approach to marking the revised FD examinations. Further guidance on this and other points will be issued in due course.