Assessment Design & Marking

Proof required

Submit: (1) the assessment instrument (question paper, task brief, or performance task), (2) mark scheme, (3) design rationale (minimum 300 words). All learner-identifying information must be anonymised — use year group, subject, and session code only.

What gets checked

• Assessment is aligned to a specific named curriculum objective
• Mark scheme is sufficiently explicit that a different marker could apply it consistently
• Design rationale explains why this format suits this objective — not just describes the assessment

Common mistakes

• Assessment is not aligned to a specific curriculum objective — it tests general knowledge
• Mark scheme is too vague for consistent application by a different marker
• Design rationale describes the assessment format rather than justifying the choice

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Confirm current enhanced DBS/background check clearance is documented as a prerequisite — arranged through placement institution, not Powstik
• Confirm completion of a recognised safeguarding training module is documented with module name and completion date
• Verify qualified supervisor attestation is present — named mentor teacher or university placement tutor — peer verification is NEVER acceptable for this outcome
• Check all learner-identifying information is anonymised — no names, class identifiers, or combinations that could identify individuals
• Verify assessment is aligned to a specific named curriculum objective — ask student to state it
• Check mark scheme is specific enough for consistent application

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit: (1) minimum five anonymised marked scripts or task assessments, (2) marking commentary (minimum 300 words). No identifying information may appear in submitted materials.

What gets checked

• Minimum five anonymised scripts marked with your mark scheme
• Marking commentary addresses specific points of mark scheme clarity and borderline handling
• Anonymisation is complete — no names, dates, or identifying details on any script

Common mistakes

• Scripts are not anonymised — identifying information visible
• Marking commentary is general rather than addressing specific mark scheme decisions
• Fewer than five scripts — insufficient for reflecting on marking consistency

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Confirm current enhanced DBS/background check clearance is documented
• Verify qualified supervisor (named mentor teacher or placement tutor) supervised the assessment administration
• Check all scripts are fully anonymised — no names, class groups, or identifying details
• Ask student: which script was hardest to mark, and how did you resolve it against the mark scheme?

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit your assessment outcome analysis (score range, error patterns, anonymised frequency table if applicable) and feedback plan (minimum 400 words).

What gets checked

• Analysis identifies specific error patterns, not just score distribution
• Feedback plan addresses both whole-class feedback and individual differentiation
• Feedback plan includes one specific assessment revision with rationale

Common mistakes

• Analysis is a score summary without error pattern analysis
• Feedback plan is generic — not shaped by the specific results
• Assessment revision is cosmetic rather than substantive

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Confirm anonymisation is maintained throughout all submitted materials
• Verify qualified supervisor reviewed the assessment outcomes and feedback plan
• Check analysis identifies specific error patterns rather than only score distribution
• Ask student: what would you teach differently before giving this assessment again?

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.