Two Teachers, One Portfolio: Moderating the A Mark
In L1 Advanced, a candidate’s s7 portfolio has been assessed by two teachers. Teacher A awards 84/100; Teacher B awards 62/100. The portfolio comprises four essays and a 15-minute individual oral. The school’s assessment policy states that a discrepancy of more than 15 points triggers a third assessment; however, the only other L1 teacher is on maternity leave, and the head of department must decide. The candidate’s B marks (Pre-Baccalaureate examinations) average 76/100. The preliminary mark is calculated as 40% A marks and 60% B marks, and it counts for 50% of the final mark. The candidate needs a final mark of 80% for a scholarship. The head of department must submit the preliminary mark by Friday. The two teachers agree on three of the four essays but disagree sharply on the oral and the fourth essay, which is an argumentative piece on language policy.
1. Recommend a defensible process for resolving the discrepancy and determining the A mark. Your answer should address the evidence, the criteria, and the candidate’s right to fairness.
Read the worked answer
The head of department should not simply average the two marks. The process should be: (1) compare the teachers’ annotations on the three essays where they agree, to see whether they apply the descriptors consistently; (2) for the disputed essay and oral, use a recording or a second reading by a neutral colleague (e.g., the pedagogical adviser or an L1 teacher from another section); (3) apply the published criteria for ‘structural coherence’ and ‘lexical range’ to the evidence; (4) record the rationale. If the evidence shows that Teacher B’s lower mark is justified by weaknesses in lexical range, the A mark should be closer to 62. If Teacher A’s higher mark is justified by the oral’s fluency and the essay’s argument, it should be closer to 84. The candidate must be informed of the process and given feedback; she has a right to appeal the procedure, not the mark itself. The final A mark must be a single, defensible professional judgement, not a compromise.
2. Calculate the preliminary mark under two scenarios: A mark = 62 and A mark = 84. Then determine the Bac examination mark the candidate would need in each scenario to reach an 80% final mark. What does this imply for the moderation decision?
Read the worked answer
Using preliminary = 0.4A + 0.6(76). If A=62: 0.4×62 = 24.8; 0.6×76 = 45.6; preliminary = 70.4. Final = 0.5×70.4 + 0.5×exam = 35.2 + 0.5×exam. To reach 80: 0.5×exam = 44.8; exam = 89.6. If A=84: 0.4×84 = 33.6; +45.6 = 79.2; final = 39.6 + 0.5×exam; 0.5×exam = 40.4; exam = 80.8. The 22-point difference in the A mark changes the required exam mark by 8.8 points. This is material: an 89.6% exam is exceptional, while 80.8% is demanding but achievable. The head of department must therefore resolve the discrepancy on the evidence, not on the candidate’s scholarship need. Choosing the average (73) would produce a preliminary of 73.6 and require an 86.4% exam-still high. The calculation shows why moderation cannot be taken lightly.