Accounting and Finance Verification Group 266 Central Verification Demystified

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 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 selection

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 steps  Identify the areas of expertise in the room!  Sort submissions into Units  Ensure that there is a fair spread of the workload

Initial 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?  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 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?  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?  Inconsistency in marking –Including inconsistency across sites  Marking not in line with the solution

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.

Discussions  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

Reports  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 tools  SEV report  Understanding Standards  Your EV  Online resources  Network Events

SEV 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