Company number: 12497951
6 Sutton Park Road, Sutton, SM1 2GD

Marking, Grading, and External Scrutiny Regulations

Policy Statement

The School is committed to upholding the highest standards of academic integrity and excellence by ensuring a fair, transparent, and consistent marking and grading process. This regulation provides clear guidelines for assessors, emphasises the importance of meaningful feedback, and includes robust accountability mechanisms. Our aim is to foster an inclusive learning environment and maintain the credibility of our academic programmes.

Principles

Fairness: Each assessment will be marked impartially, giving all students an equal opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge and skills.
Consistency: Marking standards are maintained consistently across different assessors and assessment periods to ensure equitable treatment of all students.
Transparency: Clear criteria and marking schemes are provided in advance, allowing students to understand how their work will be evaluated.
Integrity: Academic honesty is central to the assessment process, with measures in place to detect and address any form of misconduct.
Feedback: Constructive feedback is provided to students, offering insights into their performance and guidance for future improvement.
Accountability: Assessors are accountable for providing fair and accurate marks, with a system in place for reviewing and moderating grades.
Recognition: Exceptional work is acknowledged and rewarded, motivating students to strive for excellence.
Inclusivity: Assessments are designed to be inclusive, accommodating the diverse needs and backgrounds of students.
Rigour: The rigour of assessment ensures that the marking process is challenging yet achievable, reflecting the high standards of the School.
Standardisation: The policy enforces a standardisation process to align grading scales and criteria across various disciplines and modules.

Regulatory Context

This Policy has been developed in line with the applicable laws, regulations, regulatory advice, and sector best practices, including the following:

Authority	Name	Url
Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC)	Code of Practice for Higher Education Guidance for higher education providers on their obligations under equality law.
Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)	Advice - Assessment and Marking Guidance on assessment and marking for higher education providers .
Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)	Advice - External Expertise
Office for Students (OfS)	Sector-recognised standards The standards set with regards to B5 and B8 of the OfS' conditions of registration for higher education institutions.

Authority

Name

Url

Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC)

Code of Practice for Higher Education
Guidance for higher education providers on their obligations under equality law.

Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)

Advice - Assessment and Marking
Guidance on assessment and marking for higher education providers .

Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)

Advice - External Expertise

Office for Students (OfS)

Sector-recognised standards
The standards set with regards to B5 and B8 of the OfS' conditions of registration for higher education institutions.

Responsibilities for Summative Assessment Oversight

Title
Rule Module Leader A summative assessment evaluates student learning at the end of an instructional period, used to award formal credits based on performance. The module leader is responsible for drafting and finalising summative assessments, working with the Teaching and Assessment Team to mark the papers, submitting them for internal moderation, and sending them to the external examiner for comments. They get final approval from the Director of Education, before sending them to the Module Examination Board. This process ensures academic standards are upheld through transparent and consistent assessments, providing reliability and trust in the evaluation and marking system.

Title

Rule
Module Leader

A summative assessment evaluates student learning at the end of an instructional period, used to award formal credits based on performance. The module leader is responsible for drafting and finalising summative assessments, working with the Teaching and Assessment Team to mark the papers, submitting them for internal moderation, and sending them to the external examiner for comments. They get final approval from the Director of Education, before sending them to the Module Examination Board.

This process ensures academic standards are upheld through transparent and consistent assessments, providing reliability and trust in the evaluation and marking system.

Assessment Marking Procedures

Title
Rule Marking Markers generally come from the Teaching and Assessment Team. They are overseen by the module leader, who will convene a meeting prior to marking for consistency. They must grade student submissions using only the materials provided by the module leader, including the assessment paper, generic and specific criteria, model answers, and instructions. They must return the marked submissions to the module leader by the specified deadline. Markers can contact the module leader or Director of Education for guidance during marking. This ensures consistency and fairness in marking, enabling the module leader to complete necessary internal and external scrutiny before submitting marks to the Module Examination Board.
Rule Transparency Markers must use the School's generic assessment criteria for Levels 4-7, which are based on SEEC Credit Level Descriptors, Subject Matter Benchmarks, and OfS sector-recognised standards ('School Descriptors'). The criteria cover: Knowledge and Understanding Intellectual Skills Technical/Practical Skills Professional/Transferable Skills This ensures a standardised and fair assessment process that accurately reflects student outcomes and maintains sector-wide academic standards.
Rule Measuring against Learning Outcomes Markers must assess student performance using only the materials provided by the module leader. This ensures consistency and compliance with sector-recognised standards, maintaining fairness and accuracy in assessing student performance.
Rule Principles All markers must: Follow academic regulations Use academic judgement Use only materials provided by the module leader Use the full range of marks Ensure equal and fair treatment of all students Mark consistently to the same standard Report any issues to the module leader immediately These principles maintain fairness, consistency, and academic integrity in the marking process, ensuring all students are evaluated to the same high standards.
Rule Anonymity Staff must mark summative assessments blind, without knowing the student's identity, as outlined in the assessment regulations. Blind marking ensures impartiality and fairness, preventing bias and maintaining the integrity of the assessment process.
Rule More than One Answer Markers must grade the first answers in order when students answer more questions than required and it is unclear which were intended for submission. This ensures consistency and fairness in marking by applying a standard approach to all students' submissions.
Advice Academic Judgement Marks reflect the marker's judgement based on the School's generic assessment and marking criteria, and the student's competence in relation to the module's learning outcomes. All submissions must be marked consistently and fairly. This ensures that marks are an accurate reflection of student performance, maintaining fairness and consistency in the evaluation process.
Rule Full Range of Marks Markers must use the full range of marks, from 0 to 100. Using the entire mark range ensures accurate and fair assessment of student performance.
Rule Academic Integrity The marker must follow the assessment regulations and uphold academic integrity. Adhering to these standards ensures fairness, trustworthiness, and ethical conduct in the assessment process.

Title

Rule
Marking

Markers generally come from the Teaching and Assessment Team. They are overseen by the module leader, who will convene a meeting prior to marking for consistency. They must grade student submissions using only the materials provided by the module leader, including the assessment paper, generic and specific criteria, model answers, and instructions. They must return the marked submissions to the module leader by the specified deadline. Markers can contact the module leader or Director of Education for guidance during marking.

This ensures consistency and fairness in marking, enabling the module leader to complete necessary internal and external scrutiny before submitting marks to the Module Examination Board.

Rule
Transparency

Markers must use the School's generic assessment criteria for Levels 4-7, which are based on SEEC Credit Level Descriptors, Subject Matter Benchmarks, and OfS sector-recognised standards ('School Descriptors'). The criteria cover:

Knowledge and Understanding
Intellectual Skills
Technical/Practical Skills
Professional/Transferable Skills

This ensures a standardised and fair assessment process that accurately reflects student outcomes and maintains sector-wide academic standards.

Rule
Measuring against Learning Outcomes

Markers must assess student performance using only the materials provided by the module leader.

This ensures consistency and compliance with sector-recognised standards, maintaining fairness and accuracy in assessing student performance.

Rule
Principles

All markers must:

Follow academic regulations
Use academic judgement
Use only materials provided by the module leader
Use the full range of marks
Ensure equal and fair treatment of all students
Mark consistently to the same standard
Report any issues to the module leader immediately

These principles maintain fairness, consistency, and academic integrity in the marking process, ensuring all students are evaluated to the same high standards.

Rule
Anonymity

Staff must mark summative assessments blind, without knowing the student's identity, as outlined in the assessment regulations.

Blind marking ensures impartiality and fairness, preventing bias and maintaining the integrity of the assessment process.

Rule
More than One Answer

Markers must grade the first answers in order when students answer more questions than required and it is unclear which were intended for submission.

This ensures consistency and fairness in marking by applying a standard approach to all students' submissions.

Advice
Academic Judgement

Marks reflect the marker's judgement based on the School's generic assessment and marking criteria, and the student's competence in relation to the module's learning outcomes. All submissions must be marked consistently and fairly.

This ensures that marks are an accurate reflection of student performance, maintaining fairness and consistency in the evaluation process.

Rule
Full Range of Marks

Markers must use the full range of marks, from 0 to 100.

Using the entire mark range ensures accurate and fair assessment of student performance.

Rule
Academic Integrity

The marker must follow the assessment regulations and uphold academic integrity.

Adhering to these standards ensures fairness, trustworthiness, and ethical conduct in the assessment process.

Internal Scrutiny of Assessed Work

Title
Rule Double Marking After marking, the module leader must oversee internal and external scrutiny by working with the Teaching and Assessment Team. Double marking involves two independent assessors and applies to Final Project Modules and when specified by PRSB regulations. In other cases, a sample is moderated. For double marking, all assessments must be reviewed, not just a sample. This ensures thorough, fair, and consistent evaluation in line with assessment regulations, maintaining academic standards.
Rule Moderation Moderation involves another marker reviewing a sample of marking and feedback for appropriateness, consistency, and fairness. This applies to all undergraduate and postgraduate modules except Final Project Modules, which require double marking. A 25% sample of scripts, including all fails and borderline cases within 2 marks of grade boundaries, must be reviewed by an internal moderator. If the moderator approves the marks, they stand. If not, a second moderator will be chosen, and if there is still disagreement, the papers will be remarked by a different marker. The module leader must then review the final marks to decide overall consistency and conformity. Moderation ensures that marking is fair and consistent across all assessments. By involving multiple reviewers, the process helps maintain high academic standards and addresses any discrepancies in grading.

Title

Rule
Double Marking

After marking, the module leader must oversee internal and external scrutiny by working with the Teaching and Assessment Team. Double marking involves two independent assessors and applies to Final Project Modules and when specified by PRSB regulations. In other cases, a sample is moderated. For double marking, all assessments must be reviewed, not just a sample.

This ensures thorough, fair, and consistent evaluation in line with assessment regulations, maintaining academic standards.

Rule
Moderation

Moderation involves another marker reviewing a sample of marking and feedback for appropriateness, consistency, and fairness. This applies to all undergraduate and postgraduate modules except Final Project Modules, which require double marking. A 25% sample of scripts, including all fails and borderline cases within 2 marks of grade boundaries, must be reviewed by an internal moderator. If the moderator approves the marks, they stand. If not, a second moderator will be chosen, and if there is still disagreement, the papers will be remarked by a different marker. The module leader must then review the final marks to decide overall consistency and conformity.

Moderation ensures that marking is fair and consistent across all assessments. By involving multiple reviewers, the process helps maintain high academic standards and addresses any discrepancies in grading.

External Scrutiny by External Examiners

Title
Rule External Examiners External examiners must be involved in all modules that determine the final classification for undergraduate and postgraduate awards, as per the External Examiner Regulations. This ensures independent oversight and maintains the integrity and credibility of the final award classifications.
Rule Sending Summative Assessments to the External Examiner After marking and internal scrutiny, module leaders must send the external examiner: Access information for the Automated Governance System (AGS) Module specifications Module handbook Summative assessment briefs and papers Generic and specific assessment criteria Model answers Instructions provided to markers Details of internal moderation A 25% sample of scripts, including all fails and borderline cases A list of all module marks Instructions for the external examiner, module leader's comments, analysis of assessments, regulatory application, and any issues External examiners are appointed to: Provide impartial and independent advice on assessments Comment on academic standards Comment on student achievement in relation to standards External examiners will not: Adjudicate between differing marks from internal examiners Resolve differences between internal examiners Their auditing role includes: Checking marking standards Making independent judgements Ensuring standards are followed Attending examination boards Assisting with continuous improvement In the event of a disagreement between a module leader and an external examiner regarding marking or standards, the module leader should first document the differences and seek an informal discussion with the external examiner. If the issue remains unresolved, it will be escalated to the Director of Education, who will serve as the final arbiter. Throughout this process, maintaining academic standards is essential. Emphasis will be placed on continuous improvement through the use of reports, professional development for staff as needed, data analysis, and policy revisions, all aimed at fostering a culture of ongoing enhancement. They must also send their module-specific report to the module leader, who should collaborate with them. The Director of Education can offer assistance. This process ensures objective, independent assessment and feedback, maintaining academic integrity and promoting continuous improvement in line with academic standards.
Rule Working with External Examiners According to the External Examiner Regulations, external examiners must receive: Induction An examiner’s contract The School’s guidance document for examiners Items from module summative assessments An online form for report submissions External examiners will be invited to Module and Programme Examination Boards and given dates at the semester's start. Providing these resources ensures external examiners can effectively perform their duties, maintaining academic standards and integrity.
Rule Scrutinising External Examiner Reports and Reports and Plans External examiners must submit two reports: A module-specific report to the module leader, which will also be reviewed by the programme leader and Director of Education, and sent to the Academic Board via their reports. An report on standards, sent directly to the Chair of the Academic Board. These reports ensure assessment standards are upheld and provide essential feedback for maintaining academic quality and integrity.

Title

Rule
External Examiners

External examiners must be involved in all modules that determine the final classification for undergraduate and postgraduate awards, as per the External Examiner Regulations.

This ensures independent oversight and maintains the integrity and credibility of the final award classifications.

Rule
Sending Summative Assessments to the External Examiner

After marking and internal scrutiny, module leaders must send the external examiner:

Access information for the Automated Governance System (AGS)
Module specifications
Module handbook
Summative assessment briefs and papers
Generic and specific assessment criteria
Model answers
Instructions provided to markers
Details of internal moderation
A 25% sample of scripts, including all fails and borderline cases
A list of all module marks
Instructions for the external examiner, module leader's comments, analysis of assessments, regulatory application, and any issues

External examiners are appointed to:

Provide impartial and independent advice on assessments
Comment on academic standards
Comment on student achievement in relation to standards

External examiners will not:

Adjudicate between differing marks from internal examiners
Resolve differences between internal examiners

Their auditing role includes:

Checking marking standards
Making independent judgements
Ensuring standards are followed
Attending examination boards
Assisting with continuous improvement

In the event of a disagreement between a module leader and an external examiner regarding marking or standards, the module leader should first document the differences and seek an informal discussion with the external examiner. If the issue remains unresolved, it will be escalated to the Director of Education, who will serve as the final arbiter.

Throughout this process, maintaining academic standards is essential. Emphasis will be placed on continuous improvement through the use of reports, professional development for staff as needed, data analysis, and policy revisions, all aimed at fostering a culture of ongoing enhancement.

They must also send their module-specific report to the module leader, who should collaborate with them. The Director of Education can offer assistance.

This process ensures objective, independent assessment and feedback, maintaining academic integrity and promoting continuous improvement in line with academic standards.

Rule
Working with External Examiners

According to the External Examiner Regulations, external examiners must receive:

Induction
An examiner’s contract
The School’s guidance document for examiners
Items from module summative assessments
An online form for report submissions

External examiners will be invited to Module and Programme Examination Boards and given dates at the semester's start.

Providing these resources ensures external examiners can effectively perform their duties, maintaining academic standards and integrity.

Rule
Scrutinising External Examiner Reports and Reports and Plans

External examiners must submit two reports:

A module-specific report to the module leader, which will also be reviewed by the programme leader and Director of Education, and sent to the Academic Board via their reports.
An report on standards, sent directly to the Chair of the Academic Board.

These reports ensure assessment standards are upheld and provide essential feedback for maintaining academic quality and integrity.

Coordination Between Module Leaders and Module Examination Board

Title
Rule Module Leader Responsibilities After external examiner scrutiny, the module leader must: Discuss draft marks with programme leaders Prepare marks and lists for the Module Examination Board (MEB) Obtain Director of Education approval Submit final marks and lists to the MEB at least 3 working days before the meeting Attend the MEB or appoint a suitable substitute if unavailable Present final marks, relevant information, reports, and reassessment arrangements to the MEB for confirmation This ensures marks are verified, academic regulations are followed, and all pertinent information is available for informed decisions by the MEB.

Title

Rule
Module Leader Responsibilities

After external examiner scrutiny, the module leader must:

Discuss draft marks with programme leaders
Prepare marks and lists for the Module Examination Board (MEB)
Obtain Director of Education approval
Submit final marks and lists to the MEB at least 3 working days before the meeting
Attend the MEB or appoint a suitable substitute if unavailable
Present final marks, relevant information, reports, and reassessment arrangements to the MEB for confirmation

This ensures marks are verified, academic regulations are followed, and all pertinent information is available for informed decisions by the MEB.

Interim Marks and Feedback Provision

Title
Rule Provisional Marks and Ratification All module marks are provisional until ratified by the Module Examination Board and may change as per the School's Academic Regulations. Module leaders should inform anyone inquiring, including students, that marks are provisional and subject to change. This ensures transparency and avoids misunderstandings, making clear that marks are not final until officially confirmed.
Rule Feedback Provision Feedback must be provided within 20 working days of the assessment deadline, with a disclaimer that module marks are provisional until ratified by the Module Examination Board. Timely feedback supports student progression, while the disclaimer clarifies that marks are not final, maintaining transparency and preventing misunderstandings.

Title

Rule
Provisional Marks and Ratification

All module marks are provisional until ratified by the Module Examination Board and may change as per the School's Academic Regulations. Module leaders should inform anyone inquiring, including students, that marks are provisional and subject to change.

This ensures transparency and avoids misunderstandings, making clear that marks are not final until officially confirmed.

Rule
Feedback Provision

Feedback must be provided within 20 working days of the assessment deadline, with a disclaimer that module marks are provisional until ratified by the Module Examination Board.

Timely feedback supports student progression, while the disclaimer clarifies that marks are not final, maintaining transparency and preventing misunderstandings.

Module Results

Title
Rule Attempt Limits The maximum number of attempts for a summative assessment is regulated by the Module Results and Award Conferment Regulations. This maintains academic standards and ensures consistency in assessment opportunities.
Rule No Improvement Retakes Students who pass a module cannot retake it to improve their mark. This policy ensures fairness and maintains the integrity of the grading system.
Advice Final Module Grade The final module grade is the one ratified by the Module Examination Board and recorded on the AGS. This ensures that only officially confirmed grades are considered final, maintaining academic integrity and accuracy.
Advice Credits and Awards Module results are used for: Assessing progression to the next level in multi-level programmes Determining awards based on marks and credits Results ensure proper assessment of student progression and accurate determination of awards.

Title

Rule
Attempt Limits

The maximum number of attempts for a summative assessment is regulated by the Module Results and Award Conferment Regulations.

This maintains academic standards and ensures consistency in assessment opportunities.

Rule
No Improvement Retakes

Students who pass a module cannot retake it to improve their mark.

This policy ensures fairness and maintains the integrity of the grading system.

Advice
Final Module Grade

The final module grade is the one ratified by the Module Examination Board and recorded on the AGS.

This ensures that only officially confirmed grades are considered final, maintaining academic integrity and accuracy.

Advice
Credits and Awards

Module results are used for:

Assessing progression to the next level in multi-level programmes
Determining awards based on marks and credits

Results ensure proper assessment of student progression and accurate determination of awards.

Ongoing Enhancement of Assessment Practices

Title
Rule Academic Board, Director of Education, and Examination Boards The Academic Board oversees standards and quality for undergraduate and postgraduate programmes and assessments. Responsibilities are delegated to the Director of Education and Examination Boards, who report to the Academic Board. The Director ensures compliance with assessment regulations, provides necessary training, and reports on external examiner feedback. Examination Board roles are detailed in the Academic Regulations. This structure ensures consistent enforcement of assessment regulations, maintaining academic standards and quality across the School’s programmes.

Title

Rule
Academic Board, Director of Education, and Examination Boards

The Academic Board oversees standards and quality for undergraduate and postgraduate programmes and assessments. Responsibilities are delegated to the Director of Education and Examination Boards, who report to the Academic Board. The Director ensures compliance with assessment regulations, provides necessary training, and reports on external examiner feedback. Examination Board roles are detailed in the Academic Regulations.

This structure ensures consistent enforcement of assessment regulations, maintaining academic standards and quality across the School’s programmes.

Metrics and KPIs

The following metrics will be measured and regularly reviewed as key performance indicators for the School to ensure the effectiveness of this policy and associated operations.

Title
Consistency in Marking Achieve less than a 5% discrepancy rate between initial and moderated marks in all modules by the end of each academic year. Maintains the integrity and fairness of the marking process, ensuring consistency and building trust in the grading system.
Staff Training and Development All marking staff will receive training on the assessment regulations at least once per academic year, with a 90% or higher attendance rate. Ensures that all staff are well-versed in the latest assessment regulations and best practices, leading to a more efficient, consistent, and fair marking process.
Student Satisfaction with Marking and Feedback Achieve an 85% or higher satisfaction rate on student surveys regarding the marking and feedback process. Provides direct insights into student perceptions and experiences, allowing for continuous improvement and ensuring that the marking and feedback processes meet student expectations.
Timely Feedback Delivery At least 95% of student feedback will be delivered within 20 working days of the assessment submission deadline. Ensures students receive timely and actionable feedback, supporting their learning and progression, thus enhancing student satisfaction and academic performance.

Title

Consistency in Marking
Achieve less than a 5% discrepancy rate between initial and moderated marks in all modules by the end of each academic year.
Maintains the integrity and fairness of the marking process, ensuring consistency and building trust in the grading system.

Staff Training and Development
All marking staff will receive training on the assessment regulations at least once per academic year, with a 90% or higher attendance rate.
Ensures that all staff are well-versed in the latest assessment regulations and best practices, leading to a more efficient, consistent, and fair marking process.

Student Satisfaction with Marking and Feedback
Achieve an 85% or higher satisfaction rate on student surveys regarding the marking and feedback process.
Provides direct insights into student perceptions and experiences, allowing for continuous improvement and ensuring that the marking and feedback processes meet student expectations.

Timely Feedback Delivery
At least 95% of student feedback will be delivered within 20 working days of the assessment submission deadline.
Ensures students receive timely and actionable feedback, supporting their learning and progression, thus enhancing student satisfaction and academic performance.