Rickmansworth School
AQA: GCE Art & Design (Photography)The appeal, which was heard on 15 June 2004, was allowed.
The school had entered 31 candidates for AQA’s AS Art and Design (Photography) examination in May 2003. The moderator considered that the school had marked work inconsistently and following a second visit, at which he was accompanied by the team leader, re-marked all the candidates’ work. The school was unhappy about the marks awarded and the change to the candidates’ rank order and requested a re-moderation. The re-moderation, which also involved a re-mark of all the candidates’ work, resulted in some further changes to marks. The school appealed to AQA. The stage one and the stage two appeals were not upheld and the School then appealed to the EAB.
The school considered that the uniqueness of photography as a discipline demanded an appropriate, photography-oriented competence on the part of moderators. The school did not consider that the moderators had this competence because they were expected to moderate over a number of disciplines and their judgements on photography were informed by the practices of these other disciplines. The school further considered that subject specialist support for the moderators would have been informed by generalist Art and Design support rather than the specific photography support that the uniqueness of the discipline demanded. Likewise, the school believed that the training of moderators would be general rather than specific to the demands of photography.
The school also contended that the application of practices particular to the Art and Design disciplines other than photography or of practices particular to one interpretation of photography disadvantaged its own candidates.
The school noted that paragraph 95 of the Code of Practice allowed a change to the school’s rank order of candidates only where the moderation showed that the school’s marking had been ‘demonstrably inconsistent’. The school disputed that this had been the case.
AQA pointed out that part of the regulatory authorities’ revisions to GCE provision had included a reduction in the number of subject titles. The removal of photography as a discrete title was part of the drive to encourage breadth in post-16 education. Subject criteria for Art and Design had been introduced as a framework for awarding bodies’ specifications. The assessment objectives were, therefore, not negotiable and had been incorporated into AQA’s provision.
AQA pointed out that its subject committee for Art and Design, included specialists in photography together with others that gave a breadth of experience across the specification’s disciplines. AQA considered that the specialist support required by the Code was present. With reference to the training of examiners, AQA did not consider it sufficient to have examiners who were trained solely in their subject specialisms but were without the breadth of knowledge and experience demanded by the whole specification.
AQA indicated that where different disciplines are brought together under a single subject title, there has, nevertheless, to be a standard that will be used to assess all the different elements of a specification. This requirement necessitated breadth of experience as well as depth among the examining personnel.
AQA agreed that the Code allowed changes to the rank order only where the moderation showed that the school’s marking had been ‘demonstrably inconsistent’. AQA considered this had been the case for this centre. In fairness to candidates, the use of regression analysis and the scaling of marks could not be used where inconsistency in marking had been identified, as some candidates would be disadvantaged. In such cases, AQA indicated that the Code required a complete re-marking of candidates’ work and that the moderator’s mark rather than the centre’s mark would be the final mark. AQA noted that the rank order of candidates would, in such cases, sometimes change.
AQA explained that it had arranged teacher standardisation meetings and placed great importance on these meetings. Samples used at standardisation reflected a range of work across the specification and from a range of centres. AQA considered that the specification allowed for a wide range of approaches, both traditional and innovative. AQA pointed out that teacher standardisation meetings were arranged across the country and gave an opportunity to explain the diverse nature of the work that candidates produced. Teachers then marked sample work and compared marks awarded. The sample work was also used for exemplification purposes.
AQA considered that the difficulty lay with the application of the mark scheme by the school and noted that many of the candidates had been given the highest mark of 60. AQA considered that work awarded high marks needed to show coherence across research and development of ideas and making links with the work of other artists. AQA suggested that the moderator had found difficulty in finding those links within the candidates’ work. AQA acknowledged that the school demonstrated technical accomplishment in its candidates’ work and maintained that this had been rewarded in the marks. There were nevertheless inconsistencies in the quality of the work.
The Panel decided unanimously to uphold the appeal. Although not persuaded by the school’s argument that AQA had failed to implement procedures in line with the Code in the ways that it had claimed, the Panel was not wholly convinced that those procedures had been carried out in a manner that was demonstrably fair to all the candidates. The Panel was concerned the adjusted marks had themselves been re-adjusted in such a way that no consistent pattern could be perceived among the awarding body's judgements. AQA was asked to re-moderate the candidates’ work. The Panel also asked, to enable the school to have increased confidence in the process, that an examiner whose area of expertise was photography rather than any of the other subject endorsements should conduct the re-moderation.
AQA complied with the EAB’s direction, having the work re-moderated. The Chairman of the EAB panel was satisfied that AQA carried out the EAB’s directions and closed the case.