2. HN Accounting

3. Programme for the Day  Subject Update  Senior Verifier – Feedback  HN Review – Liz MacFadyen  Workshop 1  Lunch  Workshop 2  Plenary

4. Subject Update  HN Review - implementation session 2010/2011  Launch of PDAs in June 2008: PDA in Book-keeping at SCQF level 7 PDA in Financial Accounting at SCQF level 7 PDA in Management Accounting at SCQF level 7 (information leaflets available for download from HN Accounting webpage)

5. Subject Update – Resources  Graded Unit 1 – additional exemplar will be available by Christmas 2008  COLEG packs – details in COLEG’s Project News downloadable from www.coleg.org.uk

6. Subject Update – Understanding Standards Exemplification of GU marking:  Graded Unit 2 ─ B grade project  Graded Unit 3 2 questions at A, B and C  Access the website – www.understandingstandards.org.uk At the foot of the scrolling menu on the right-hand side, click ‘HN Beta’. On receiving the password prompt, type in the following: Username: hnauthor Password: usw72 (HN section of Understanding Standards website secure to restrict access to staff only)www.understandingstandards.org.uk

7. Verification Feedback Visiting Verification of Units  Confirmed that centres are delivering and assessing to the required standard  Most centres had taken account of update bulletin information issued by SQA

8. Visiting Verification Feedback Good Practice  Centres preparing booklets detailing the assessment details, assessment conditions, etc for candidates  Master folders well documented to ensure consistent delivery of units Further Development  Ensure assessment instruments and materials are updated in line with current legislation  IV process should be ongoing process - not end-loaded  Centres should encourage candidates to complete assessments in ink  Centres should mark in ink and identify where marks are awarded

9. Graded Unit 1  Centres had dealt well with the change to assessment and are commended for quality of marking  Central verification successful  Assessment resulted in wider spread of grades which better reflects the competence of candidates  A few centres not applying consequential marking to candidates’ scripts on a consistent basis  Some instances, where there was disagreement between the assessor and internal verifier on marking, the decision on final grade was not reached and left to EV to decide – centres must make decision prior to submission for central verification

10. Graded Unit 2  Reviewed on a visiting verification basis  Timing of visits caused a few problems (to ensure completion of planning and developing stages)  Face-to-face feedback valued by centres  Centres assessing Unit to required standard  Centres which set firm deadlines for submissions ensured timely completion of each stage of project

11. Graded Unit 3  Successful central verification  Centres had complied with change in unit specification – information sheet detailing relevant taxation data

12. Graded Units Good Practice  Some centres had amended exemplars to contextualise them for the local market without altering assessment in any fundamental way  Candidates encouraged to maintain a diary/record of research for Graded Unit 2 – this enables candidates and assessors to identify successes and failures in research  VLEs used to support candidates

13. Graded Units Development Points relating to GU2  Set deadlines for submission of each stage of project  Use of submission statements to ensure authenticity of candidate work  Submissions should be in report format