The A Mark: Formative Star, Summative Slump
You teach Latin in s7 at a European School. The preliminary mark (A mark) must reflect formative and summative assessment from the year. Student X has an excellent formative record: weekly translations average 85%, a research project on Roman law is graded distinction, and oral participation is outstanding. But his two timed tests are 58% and 62%, and the mock written paper is 60%. Student Y has formative work at 70%, timed tests at 75% and 78%, and a mock at 74%. The class average is 72%. The school requires the A mark to be comparable across classes and defensible if challenged. A colleague suggests giving X 80% because his project and effort are exceptional. Another suggests 62% because only timed tests predict the written exam. You must decide X's mark and explain the weighting.
1. Propose a preliminary mark for Student X, with a weighting rationale. Address the colleague who wants 80% and the one who wants 62%.
Read the worked answer
The A mark is an attainment mark, not an effort or potential mark. Formative work is valid evidence, but it is not equivalent to timed, unseen performance. I would use: timed tests and mock 50%, formative translations 30%, project and oral 20%.
For X: timed average 60% contributes 30; formative 85% contributes 25.5; project/oral at 90% contributes 18. Total 73.5, rounded to 74. But the project is a single task and should not dominate; if the department caps the project/oral contribution at 15%, X's mark is 71.5. A mark of 72 is defensible.
The 80% proposal rewards effort and a single project beyond their evidential weight; it would not be comparable with Y. The 62% proposal ignores strong formative attainment and treats two timed tests as the only valid evidence. Y's 75% is higher because Y's attainment is more consistent across timed tasks. Use the same grid for every student.
2. How should you document the decision and communicate it to Student X so that it is fair and transparent?
Read the worked answer
Use a mark grid with criteria, weights and dates shared with the class in advance. Record each assessment, its conditions, and any access arrangements or extenuating circumstances. For X, note the project's distinction, the oral contribution, the two timed tests and the mock. In the feedback meeting, show X the grid: explain that the project is valued but cannot replace timed translation evidence, and that the A mark reflects attainment across the year. Set a target: two timed translations per week with a 45-minute limit, reviewed before the oral examination. Avoid comparing X to Y by name. Keep a brief record of the meeting and mention the school's appeals procedure. This makes the judgement defensible without turning the conversation into a negotiation about effort.