The missing summative and the medical certificate
At the February s7 review, the L2 English team at a European School opens Ines's file. The school's agreed preliminary-mark scheme weights formative assessment at 20%, two summative unit tests at 30% (15% each) and the Pre-Baccalaureate examination at 50%. Ines has a formative average of 74, Test 1 at 80, Test 2 recorded as 'absent - medical certificate on file', and a Pre-Baccalaureate mark of 55. A colleague proposes entering the Pre-Baccalaureate mark as a proxy for Test 2; another proposes reweighting the three remaining components proportionally. Ines needs 70/100 for a competitive university place. The coordinator also notices that the formative average was produced by a student teacher who used a holistic impression of participation rather than the agreed descriptors, and that Ines's 74 sits four points above the class mean while her written work is consistently mid-range.
1. Compute the preliminary mark under each proposal. Which one would you defend, and on what principle?
Read the worked answer
Arithmetic first.
- Proxy: (0.20 × 74) + (0.15 × 80) + (0.15 × 55) + (0.50 × 55) = 14.80 + 12.00 + 8.25 + 27.50 = 62.55, entered as 63.
- Reweighting: the remaining weights total 85, so each is rescaled by 100/85: 74 × (20/85) = 17.41; 80 × (15/85) = 14.12; 55 × (50/85) = 32.35 → 63.88, entered as 64.
Which to defend. Reweighting. The proxy does not fill a gap; it silently gives the Pre-Baccalaureate paper a combined weight of 65% and asserts that a 50-minute examination and a unit test measure the same construct. That double-counts a single performance, increases volatility, and makes the mark depend on one day. Reweighting preserves the relative importance of the evidence that actually exists and is the conventional treatment of a missing component covered by a medical certificate.
But do not let the arithmetic pose as the decision. The two methods differ by 1.3 points and both leave Ines at 63–64, not 70. Saying this plainly is part of the judgement: the choice of imputation is not what stands between her and the university place, and the team should not imply that a different formula would have changed the outcome. Note also the 25-point spread between Test 1 (80) and the Pre-Baccalaureate paper (55); that inconsistency is itself information about the stability of her attainment and belongs in the record.
2. What should the team do about the formative component before the mark is finalised?
Read the worked answer
A holistic 'impression of participation' mark is not defensible as 20% of a certificated mark, because it cannot be audited and it tends to reward confidence and oral presence rather than attainment. But the response must not be to re-mark Ines alone - singling out one candidate looks like adjusting evidence to fit a desired outcome and is unfair to the rest of the class.
The defensible sequence is:
- Moderate at class level. The coordinator second-marks a stratified sample of portfolios against the agreed descriptors: every candidate within three points of a grade boundary, plus a random 15–20% of the rest.
- Compare like with like. Only written, retained evidence counts; if participation is a legitimate criterion, it must be defined in the descriptors with observable indicators, not inferred from personality.
- Quantify the drift. If the student teacher's marks are systematically high by a consistent margin, adjust the whole class by the moderated standard, not by individual guesswork. If the drift is unsystematic, replace the component with moderated evidence only.
- Record and communicate. Ines must be told what changed, on what evidence, and how to appeal.
The coordinator should also ask why an unmoderated student teacher was responsible for 20% of a certificated mark in the first place, and fix that for the following year.
3. Draft the rationale to be recorded in the file (three sentences) and name one thing you would not write.
Read the worked answer
Draft rationale. 'Test 2 was missed for medical reasons supported by a certificate; rather than imputing a proxy mark, the remaining weighted components were rescaled so that formative assessment contributes 23.5%, Test 1 17.6% and the Pre-Baccalaureate examination 58.8%. Formative marks were moderated against the agreed descriptors on a stratified sample before finalisation, and the moderated values were used in the calculation. The resulting preliminary mark is 64/100, with the component marks and the moderation record attached.'
What I would not write. I would not write that the mark was set 'as high as the evidence allows' or refer to the university requirement. A rationale must be reconstructable from the evidence by someone who disagrees with the outcome; the moment it records a target rather than a calculation, it stops being a rationale and becomes a justification. It is legitimate to tell Ines the mark is below 70 and to explain the appeal route, but the reason for the mark must never be the consequence of the mark.