Examination bodies are making thousands of pounds selling tips to schools on how to beat the A-level and GCSE systems.

Senior examiners offer advice on a freelance basis and at least two boards provide courses to help teachers to improve pupils’ grades.

A government adviser condemned the practice as disgraceful, saying that it preyed on schools’ fears about their position in the league tables.

Head teachers gave warning that there would be a “major moral issue” if boards were giving unfair advantage to some pupils over others.

Many pupils spend the Easter holidays doing intensive tuition courses. Parents often hire former teachers to help them to prepare for exams.

Teachers, too, are under growing pressure to succeed. Senior examiners allegedly give seminars for up to £200 a time, offering tips on what pupils should write in coursework. Now examining bodies are also cashing in.

This year, the OCR board is offering teachers hundreds of courses at up to £120 each.

It offers a full-day course in GCSE English literature titled “Get ahead — improving candidate performance”. The board says that the course offers “guidance and practical support” for teachers preparing pupils for this summer’s exams, to “exemplify standards for the externally assessed components” and “suggest teaching and learning approaches for each component” of the GCSE.

The Assessment and Qualifications Alliance also offers courses, most of them free. A spokeswoman said that they were about raising standards and intended to “support teachers in developing qualifications”.

Senior markers also earn thousands privately by advising staff on how to “control” what pupils write for coursework and script foreign language oral exams so that pupils know in advance what will turn up.

Warwick Mansell describes two seminars in his book Education by Numbers, published next month. In one, French teachers were told to be “realistically generous” when marking coursework and that teaching less able pupils grammar was not worth the effort because it was allocated few marks.

History teachers were advised against aiming for top-quality work because pupils could gain an A* GCSE without it. Instead, they should concentrate on areas where little historical knowledge was required — such as using historical sources.

Examining bodies already brief schools on syllabus changes, give feedback on exams and make the previous year’s papers available.

Yesterday heads gave warning that expensive advice sessions risked giving some pupils an unfair advantage.

Malcolm Trobe, president of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: “There is a dividing line between giving appropriate information to teachers to prepare children adequately for exams and giving or selling tips which would directly influence their grades. If it gives some students an advantage, there would be a major moral issue there.”

Since 1997 the Government has focused increasingly on league tables and targets in education. If results are not up to scratch schools can be closed, heads can lose their jobs and, from September, teachers face losing out on pay awards.

Alan Smithers, a government adviser and director of education and employment research at the University of Buckingham, said that this approach was key in creating the “disgraceful” new market. He said: “Finding ways of helping students to do their best has always been part of teaching, but the big difference here is that the people on the inside are giving hints on coursework and areas where students are more likely to get A* grades.

“Education has become distorted by the over-emphasis on scores. But schools are playing the game to maximise the scores and, as businesses, the exam boards are jumping on the bandwagon.

“What follows is that the scores are further removed from the children’s ability and what they can achieve.”

Professor Smithers said that the boards should stop offering such sessions and that examiners should not be allowed to enter into a private enterprise.

A spokesman for the Joint Council for Qualifications, the umbrella body for the examination boards, said that it took “complaints or evidence” which raise questions about the probity of the assessment process seriously. He said that the code of practice set out the roles and responsibilities of examiners and that the regulators would pursue cases where conduct related to malpractice.

Times Recommends

• Here’s one way MPs can redeem themselves
• Analysis: introducing the word 'failure'
• BA to cut tenth of jobs after disastrous summer