Review of marking (centre assessed marks) suggested template for centres

Suggested template for centres

[Centre Name] is committed to ensuring that whenever its staff mark candidates’ work this is done fairly, consistently and in accordance with the awarding body’s specification and subject-specific associated documents.

Candidates’ work will be marked by staff who have appropriate knowledge, understanding and skill, who have been trained in this activity and do not have any potential conflicts of interest. If AI tools have been used to assist in the marking of candidates’ work, they will not be the sole marker. 

[Centre Name] is committed to ensuring that work produced by candidates is authenticated in line with the requirements of the awarding body. Where more than one subject teacher/tutor is involved in marking candidates’ work, internal moderation and standardisation will ensure consistency of marking.

1. [Centre Name] will ensure that candidates are informed of their centre-assessed marks so that they may request a review of the centre’s marking before final marks are submitted to the awarding body.
2. [Centre Name] will inform candidates that they may request copies of materials to assist them in considering whether to request a review of the centre’s marking of the assessment.
3. [Centre Name] will, having received a request for materials, promptly make them available to the candidate. This will either be the originals, viewed under supervised conditions, or copies.
4. [Centre Name] will provide candidates with sufficient time, normally at least five working days, to allow them to review copies of materials and reach a decision.
5. [Centre Name] will provide a clear deadline for candidates to submit a request for a review of the centre’s marking. Requests will not be accepted after this deadline. Requests must be made in writing and candidates must explain on what grounds they wish to request a review.
6. [Centre Name] will allow sufficient time for the review to be carried out, to make any necessary changes to marks and to inform the candidate of the outcome, all before the awarding body’s deadline for the submission of marks.
7. [Centre Name] will ensure that the review of marking is conducted by an assessor who has appropriate competence, has had no previous involvement in the assessment of that candidate for the component in question and has no personal interest in the outcome of the review. 
8. [Centre Name] will instruct the reviewer to ensure that the candidate’s mark is consistent with the standard set by the centre.
9. [Centre Name] will inform the candidate in writing of the outcome of the review of the centre’s marking.
10. The outcome of the review of marking will be made known to the head of centre. A written record of the review will be kept and made available to the awarding body upon request. The centre will inform the awarding body if it does not accept the outcome of a review.

The moderation process carried out by the awarding body may result in a mark change, either upwards or downwards, even after an internal review. The internal review process is in place to ensure consistency of marking within the centre, whereas moderation by the awarding body ensures that the centre’s marking is in line with national standards. The mark submitted to the awarding body is subject to change and should, therefore, be considered provisional.