Accounting and FinanceVerification Group 266
Accounting and FinanceVerification Group 266
Central Verification Demystified
2010-2011 Session2010-2011 Session
June 2011 was the first Central Verification session for the 2010 framework.
The only Unit from the 2010 framework which was under scrutiny here was Graded Unit 1.
Why June?
The purposeThe purpose
To ensure that standards are met and maintained
Standardisation cross ALL centres
How is the selection made?
– Centres offering for the first time
– ‘Hold’ from previous submissions
– Random sample
Sample selectionSample selection
Behind closed doors!Behind closed doors!
Based on the size of the selection the EV team decide how long the process will need
EV team discuss any issues arising in our own centres or those that centres have notified us of in comments forms or queries
EV team look to see which assessment instruments (AIs) have been used
Check to see that Assessment Exemplars have been used or that AI has been Prior Verified.
First stepsFirst steps
Identify the areas of expertise in the room!
Sort submissions into Units
Ensure that there is a fair spread of the workload
Initial ReviewInitial Review
Look for the following inside the packs:
– Sample sheet – VS00– Complete list of all candidates and grades– IV records– Exemplar/AI used with solutions
Sample Sheet and Class Lists – why?Sample Sheet and Class Lists – why?
To ensure centres have sent a sample which includes a range of marks
To ensure that centres have sent a representative sample of the whole cohort
To allow EV Team to identify how many candidates continue on to complete the GU.
The processThe process
EV Team select a sample from the submission and review each paper in detail to ensure that the standards have been met
EV Team look for centres to identify where they have awarded marks and what they are for if needed
EV Team check that at least a sample have been subject to IV
What happens if EVs don't agree with centre’s marking?What happens if EVs don't agree with centre’s marking?
Disagree with marks?– Continue to look at the sample chosen to see
if this is an oversight or continues– Select a further sample from the submission– If EV Team disagree with the marking on 4 out
of the 12 scripts submitted or 25% of the total submission we have to ‘not accept’
Why might EVs disagree with centres’ marking?Why might EVs disagree with centres’ marking?
Inconsistency in marking– Including inconsistency across sites
Marking not in line with the solution
IV records – why?IV records – why?
To allow EVs to see what issues each centre has identified – if any
How the centre has approached the GU delivery and assessment
Identify areas of good practice which EVs can share at events like this.
DiscussionsDiscussions
Any issues arising, during central verification session, are discussed by the whole team
Any submissions which may highlight problems
All problematic issues are reviewed by the SEV
ReportsReports
The reports are written upon completion of the review by the EV who carried out the review
The reports should give centres a clear indication of how EVs have found their submission
Any reports which have identified that centres have not met the standards contain more detail and are reviewed by the SEV
Guidance toolsGuidance tools
SEV report Understanding Standards Your EV Online resources Network Events
SEV reportSEV report
This is compiled at the end of each academic session and summarises the findings of the EV team for the whole session
Identifies areas of good practice
Identifies any areas which may need to be clarified
Top Related