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