1. School-Based Assessment:
Implementation Issues and Practices
Grace Grima
Principal Research and Development Officer
MATSEC Examinations Board
University of Malta
Paper presented at the21st Annual AEAA Conference:
Assessment and Certification in a Changing Educational, Economic & Social Context
Cape Town, South Africa
25th -30th August 2003

2. School-Based Assessment: Implementation Issues and Practices
Abstract
The traditional system of assessment no longer satisfies the educational and social
needs of the third millennium. In the past few decades, many countries have made
profound reforms in their assessment systems. Several educational systems have in
turn introduced school-based assessment as part of or instead of external assessment
in their certification. While examination bodies acknowledge the immense potential
of school-based assessment in terms of validity and flexibility, yet at the same time
they have to guard against or deal with difficulties related to reliability, quality control
and quality assurance.
In the debate on school-based assessment, the issue of ‘why’ has been widely written
about and there is general agreement on the principles of validity of this form of
assessment. In this paper, I focus on the ‘how’ by first focusing on critical issues
related to reliability, quality control and quality assurance in school-based assessment
that ensure that standards are maintained. And then by giving an overview of five case
studies from regions around the world that have successfully implemented school-
based assessment. Their experiences confirm that, when carefully implemented,
school-based assessment need not compromise the standards of certification.
2

3. School-Based Assessment: Implementation Issues and Practices
Introduction
Traditionally, examination systems have given much importance to the issue of
reliability and the comparability of results. Broadfoot (1995) explains that:
In a high stakes environment in which to a very significant extent, test
results determined life chances, it was inevitable that there should be an
overwhelming emphasis on reliability so that the assessment might seem
to operate fairly and consistently.
Wood (1991) justifies this emphasis in the following way:
The examination bodies are running an examination and therefore have
to care about reliability. Tedious it may be to have to observe this dictum,
but it is simply no use having the most wonderful examination in the
world if it cannot be marked and graded reliably.
At the same time, however, as Broadfoot (1995) explains, less importance has been
given to the issue of validity:
The question of validity – whether the test does measure what it is
intended to measure – has arguably been subordinated to the
overwhelming need for comparability of results.
However, the situation has started to change over the last two decades mainly because
as Gipps (1999) explains:
the focus has shifted towards a broader assessment of learning,
enhancement of learning for the individual, engagement with the student
during assessment, and involvement of teachers in the assessment
process.
The rise of school-based assessment (aka internal assessment, coursework and
continuous assessment) is the result of this change. Izard (2001) as well as Raivoce
and Pongi (2001) explain that school-based assessment (SBA) is often perceived as
the process put in place to collect evidence of what students have achieved, especially
in important learning outcomes that do not easily lend themselves to the pen and
paper tests. Daugherty (1994) clarifies that this type of assessment has been
recommended:
…because of the gains in the validity which can be expected when
students’ performance on assessed tasks can be judged in a greater range
of contexts and more frequently than is possible within the constraints of
time- limited, written examinations.
However, as Raivoce and Pongi (2001) suggest the validity of SBA depends to
a large extent on the various assessment tasks students are required to perform.
3

4. It is important to point out that although conceptually distinct, both external
and school-based assessments have their strengths. External assessment is
reliable and is perceived as rigorous because candidates take the same
assessment administered under the same conditions. SBA, if carefully
planned and implemented may be stronger in terms of validity and flexibility.
The major difference between the two is described by Haynes (2001) in the
following way: while, in external assessment, the awarding body is in direct
control of the mark or grade awarded to each candidate through the
individuals it appoints to make the assessment decisions, potentially, it has
less control over school-based assessment. Several scholars (e.g.: Harlen,
1994; Brookhart, 2001) in the field of educational assessment advocate the
need of a combination of both forms on assessment and in fact several
sensible educational models make effective use of both. Haynes (2001)
confirms that it has become a widely held opinion that the mix of external and
internal assessments provides a comprehensive approach to the assessment of
educational achievement.
In the debate on school-based assessment, the issue of ‘why’ has been widely written
about and there is general agreement on the principles of validity of this form of
assessment. In this paper, I focus on the ‘how’ by first focusing on critical issues
related to reliability, quality control and quality assurance in school-based
assessment that ensure that standards are maintained. And then by giving an
overview of five case studies from regions around the world that have successfully
implemented school-based assessment. Their experiences confirm that, when
carefully implemented, school-based assessment need not compromise the standards
of certification.
Critical Issues in School-Based Assessment
In this section, I give an overview of several critical issues that form part of effective
SBA systems. In his writing on judging the quality of assessment, Burton (1992)
provides the following five rules of the thumb for evaluating different approaches:
• The assessment should be appropriate to what is being assessed.
• The assessment should enable the learner to demonstrate positive achievement
and reflect the learner’s strengths.
• The criteria for successful performance should be clear to all concerned
• The assessment should be appropriate to all persons being assessed
• The style of assessment should blend with the learning pattern so it contributes
to it.
These rules may be applied in the planning stage of school-based assessment. Portal
(2003) gives some sage advice on the importance of this phase. He cautions that
rushed implementation may lead to great problems. He goes on to explain:
Unless an assessment practice commands public confidence, it is
probably not worthwhile to use on a national scale. The system needs to
be able to deliver a clear picture of the attainment levels of individuals
and of the performance of individual institutions, so that comparisons can
4

5. be made on a respectable basis, using data produced on the same or
comparable scales.
Similarly, Wood (1991) provides another cautious note:
…the easiest way to bring coursework assessment into disrepute would
be to take a stand-off, laissez-faire attitude to it, so that people will
think that anyt hing goes.
According to Raffan (2001) the keys to improving reliability and meeting the other
challenges in a summative school-based assessment are probably:
1. Providing teachers with sufficient, appropriate advice in booklets, videos and
training meetings and assessor networks
2. Giving sufficient time and attention to moderation procedures.
The responsibility of providing teachers with sufficient information lies with the
awarding body. In the UK, for example, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority
(QCA) publishes a Code of Ethics for the main examinations held at ages 16 and 18.
This states that the Awarding Bodies must:
• Set down explicit parameters and instructions for the setting of coursework tasks
and must publish detailed marking criteria.
• They must also normally provide a portfolio of exemplar tasks and marks schemes
that meet the defined parameters and criteria.
The setting of the parameters and writing the instructions for the required coursework
tasks are relatively straightforward. The critical issue is the detailed criteria, which
need to be developed in advance and be specific enough for comparable assessments
to be given to comparable work in different schools (Izard, 2001). Teachers need to
be trained to become effective in using them, both in terms of understanding and
interpreting the wording and the levels as well as in terms of managing the necessary
record keeping systems.
It is recommended to involve subject specialist teachers in the writing of the criteria.
One approach suggested by Izard (2001) includes the development of rating scales
and checklists with descriptors that teachers can interpret in a consistent way. The
descriptors can be developed by asking teachers to describe how they would
recognize quality work when it is presented by students. The teachers provide a range
of indicators of competence that could be used by those making assessments. These
descriptors are then arranged as a descriptive rating scale.
The issue of how detailed the criteria need to be is a complex one. On the one hand,
there is the need for such criteria to be as detailed as possible, as concluded by Eglen
and Kempa (1986) in their study on coursework with 100 chemistry teachers, cited in
Raffan (2001):
1. The more detailed and operationalised the criteria the more objective the
assessment….the use of only generalized performance criteria tended to lead to
highly discordant assessments, chiefly because of the adoption, by teachers of
widely differing performance features.
5

6. 2. …in the absence of criteria that require both positive and negative performance
features to be considered, teachers tend to base their assessments chiefly on
negative performance characteristics.
On the other hand, very detailed criteria may be viewed as cumbersome by the users.
According to Raffan (2001), the performance assessment procedures in the vocational
sector in the UK, which involve many tightly specified criteria seem to be particularly
burdensome. Furthermore, Wolf (1995) reports that teachers feel that they are:
Increasingly unable to do any real teaching beyond the narrowest
interpretation of the assessment specifications. …because of the high
assessment load and the delegation of assessment to the immediate
trainer or teacher, formative assessment tends to disappear.
The issue of efficient record keeping systems is also critical, in that it may help to
make or break the system. Recording and reporting on student’s progress and
achievement takes time and needs particular skills. Moreover, teachers and students
need to be organized in order to keep meaningful and complete records and for the
process of learning to be apparent in these records. Furthermore, the evidence on
which decisions are taken needs to be selected very carefully. Portal (2003) expla ins
that:
the experience of profiling in the UK was frequently that teachers ended
up keeping large collections of pupils’ work without having the
opportunity or in some cases the expertise to make any clear use of it… It
may help matters to focus on what is used to be known as significant
steps in the pupil’s progress and concentrate on keeping only the
documentation that exemplifies these.
These issues need to be dealt with in training where criteria are discussed and where
teachers are given hands-on opportunities during workshops to interpret and apply
these criteria in particular contexts (Ventura, 1995; Ventura & Murphy, 1998). It is
beneficial for teachers to have a portfolio of exemplar tasks and marks schemes to
work with during the training that can in turn be used as reference points during the
scholastic year. Portal (2001) suggests that although staff time for development may
seem high, individual professional development is also achieved, raising levels of
skill and developing important professional competencies among the staff concerned.
Furthermore, there is a need for networking among the teachers in different schools.
This becomes more pertinent the smaller the number of subject teachers in individual
schools. Wolf (1995) emphasizes the importance of inter-assessor networks for
helping reliability of assessments by teachers. This system may be put into place by
twining of schools or the organization of regional professional development meetings
where teachers of the same subject have the opportunity to work together, sort out
difficulties, and help each other become efficient in this form of assessment. A
network on the Internet may be a possible additional support system. It may also be
the main support system in places where distance creates problems for teachers to
meet regularly. This system is in use in Scotland where teachers who are voluntarily
participating in a project on formative assessment communicate mainly via the Net
although they then have annual group meetings as well. Wolf (1995) explains that this
6

7. valuable process of collaboration between assessors in schools which provides them
with mutual support may break down or become impossible if the system introduces
competition between institutions.
Moderation is another essential feature of school-based assessment. As Maxwell
(2003) explicates, it is necessary to develop consistency in teacher judgment of
student achievement and to ensure public confidence in those judgments. Raffan
(2001) explains that this process can be controversial as it raises issues of the
confidence in teachers and hence of control and power relationships between the
teachers and the moderators employed by the external examinations body. Radnor and
Shaw (1995) discuss good moderation practice which takes account of the multiple
perspectives that exist within the moderation activity. They call them the insider
(teacher) and outsider (moderator) perspectives. It is important for the outsider to
respect and accept the insider knowledge, that the teacher as assessor is valued. The
insider would in turn need to be aware that relating individual work to a notion of
generalisable standards is an acceptable part of the process.
In Malta, there is currently the need for a redefinition of the role of the moderators
and their interactions with teachers. Ventura and Murphy (1998) recommended that
the moderation process should not remain a one-off, end of year judgment but it
should develop into a dialogue between moderators and teachers. There is a need to
move away from the external model of moderation currently in use and to move
towards a reconciliation model. While the external model envisages the moderator as
the decisive powerful accredited appointee whose task creates an atmosphere of
distrust, fear and uncertainty among teachers even when it is carried out with
discretion, the reconciliation model tries to resolve the tension between the insider
perspective of the teacher and the outsider perspective of the moderator. According to
Radnow and Shaw (1995) the reconciliation model recognizes that moderation
depends on the achievement, by discussion and negotiation within a group, of a
socially constructed consensus about how work is to be evaluated and criteria applied.
Thus, the teachers can articulate and exchange their subjective interpretations of the
criteria and the moderator is able to relate and compare the value that the group
assigns to the attainments under discussion with the attainments of other candidates in
other schools. According to Harlen (1994) whe n the moderation process does not
remain a one-off judgment but develops into a dialogue between moderators and
teachers, it becomes a process of teacher development with a backwash effect on
teaching.
This dialogue need not be restricted to moderation only but may also be a feature of
the monitoring process. In Malta, the MATSEC subcommittee that carried out the
evaluation on the school-based assessment component recommended that monitoring
should take place to ensure that: this form of assessment is carried out in a satisfactory
manner, is of the standard expected and is assessed consistently within schools and
between schools. In particular, as Grima and Ventura (2001) explain, the task of the
monitoring panel would be to visit schools during the year in order to:
• evaluate the physical and human resources available to carry out the coursework as
specified in the syllabus
• evaluate the type of standard of work that is being carried out
• observe and evaluate the assessment methods and procedures.
7

8. In describing the tasks to be included in the monitoring process, Singh (2001)
mentions two support systems that this process may provide to schools:
• administrative and technical support when and where it is needed
• distribution and sharing of exemplar materials and other related literature.
Portal (2001) also recommends that data on monitoring visits and their outcomes need
to be collected and maintained centrally, so that the management of the scheme can be
effective and to able to respond to anomalies as and when they arise.
In summary, the key issues that need to be taken in consideration prior to the
implementation of school-based assessment are the following:
(This list is adapted from Izard, 2001; Raivoce and Pongi, 2001; and Singh, 2001).
• The weighting to be given to school-based assessment
• The tasks to be included in the different subjects
• The handling of comparability issues across schools
• Verification and authentication procedures to be put in place
• The monitoring process
• The moderation of the results
• The reporting of the school-based assessment results
• Sufficient professional training for teachers and moderators.
There are degrees of sophistication in the various school-based assessment models
that can be adopted by different countries. In deciding on the appropriateness of
potential models, it is important to realize that ultimately the schools need to be able
to adequately support and implement the programme in terms of available resources
and expertise and that the country or region needs to have in place an appropriate
system for monitoring the programme and for moderating the results to ensure
adequate standards. It is important to point out that such a system is only possible
with the appropriate infrastructure in place. The extent of public confidence that
ensues is also dependent on the measures taken to prevent individual teachers and/or
students from succeeding in beating the system. Williams (2001) suggests that while
potential dishonesty among students has always been a problem at all educational
levels, the use of school-based assessment for externally examined syllabuses and the
widespread development of information technology have introduced two new
elements into the situation. The problem of authenticity in school-based assessment
may cripple the entire system yet as Raffan (2001) concludes, that there are plenty of
opinions but little research on this topic.
Williams (2001) suggests that procedures such as CORD need to take place:
Culture - developing a culture of honesty emphasizing with students self- respect and
taking pride in their work, also that checks would be carried out and that cheating
would be treated very seriously.
Observation - knowing pupils well and carrying out observations of the pupils’
overall level of work.
Review - constantly reviewing students’ work using multiple drafts or work which is
marked and returned.
Discussion - teachers discuss with pupils how the work had reached a particular stage
and what the next step would be in a form of viva.
8

9. She concludes that in addition, examination bodies have a crucial role in explaining
the openness and effectiveness of moderation, in providing exemplars and other
helpful advice in readable form, and by hosting meetings for in-service training.
In Malta, the syllabuses of all subjects with an SBA component state that candidates
may be called for an interview in relation to their coursework. Moreover, teachers are
expected to act professionally in authenticating the candidates’ work. When in doubt
they are advised not to sign the candidates’ authenticity form so that the Markers’
Panel of that subject can interview the candidates about their work. Other suggestions
made by Grima and Ventura (2001) include the use of databases for recording the
candidates’ coursework that is presented annually when the work includes projects,
models and other original pieces of work. Retaining the coursework for a period of
time and changing the coursework requirements are other options under consideration
to reduce the extent of copying and recycling that takes place.
Five Case Studies from Around the World
In this section, I give a synopsis of five success stories from around the world. This is
done with the intention to share and learn from positive experiences that relate to the
implement ation of SBA. This section is based on papers and presentations made at the
First and Second International Conferences of the Association of Commonwealth
Examinations and Accreditation Bodies (ACEAB) which were held in the Mauritius
and in Malta in 2000 and 2002 respectively. Publications of the proceedings of both
conferences are available from the Association.
New Zealand
In New Zealand, schools are primarily responsible for the quality of their assessment
decisions. However as Lennox (2001) explains, the New Zealand Qualifications
Authority (NZQA) is responsible for checking a sample of assessment decisions and
assisting schools to improve internal systems. National standards are established and
demonstrated through published examples of suitable assessment activities and
exemplars of student work. A national professional development programme is in
place to enhance teachers’ assessment capabilities.
In this setting, schools are self- managing with quite broad national curriculum and
administration guidelines. All schools are expected to have documented internal
policies and procedures on assessment and therefore each school has an assessment
policy. Lennox (2001) explains that the need for local flexibility and innovation have
driven the reform which commenced in 2002. Therefore, while the country remains
adamant about the need for national systems and national standards, it is equally in
need of local differences, because of the wide variation in local school populations
and the need to allow for variety and integration in school programmes.
Lennox (2001) explains that every year, NZQA collects samples of assessed student
work in each subject from every school, along with assessment activities and
schedules. These are checked by a national network of moderators, most of whom are
practicing teachers so they are in touch with national standards. In general, samples
are around the credit level (just below, just above and clearly above) and also at merit
or excellence level. Following this, subject reports from moderators are sent to school
9

10. principals. These reports indicate how well the school is striking national standards in
each subject. There are also recommendations for adjustments as necessary, to both
teacher assessment standards and student results. Results can be changed or students
can be reassessed within the year.
The Authority’s reports also provide information for principals on how effectively
assessment is managed in each subject area. NZQA also advises schools on steps that
need to be taken for improvement purposes. In turn, the schools report back on the
measures taken to improve internal systems. In subsequent years, NZQA is able to
take heavier or lighter samples from schools, or subjects within a school, on the basis
of their proven record. Sanctions are in place for schools which show non-
improvement. Such sanctions include the removal of accreditation in some or all of
their subjects. Because of New Zealand’s official information legislation, final
moderation reports, including actions planned by schools to rectify any problems, are
likely to be made public.
The South Pacific
The South Pacific Board for Educational Assessment (SPBEA) which is located in
Fiji, has adopted three approaches in developing tasks for the inclusion of the school-
based assessment programme of the Pacific Senior Secondary Certificate. Raivoce
and Pongi (2001) explain these tasks as follows:
• Centrally developed tasks (CATs) where both the frame and the activities and the
marking schedules are developed by SPBEA with teachers’ involvement restricted
to the administration of the tasks and marking the product of students’ work.
These tasks are used to assess outcomes that cannot be assessed by pen and paper
but are general and not school specific.
• Teacher designed tasks (TDTs) where teachers in the school develop the task
frame, the tasks and the marking schedules for such tasks. This process is suitable
for assessing outcomes that are sensitive to differing school conditions such as
available resources and different geographic environment. In this case, SPBEA’s
involvement is restricted to the approval of the tasks and ensuring comparability in
the marks awarded by teachers.
• Tasks with a common assessment frame (CAF) have their broad frame, guidelines
and the marking scheme determined by SPBEA but individual teachers decide the
specific areas for the tasks. Such tasks are used to assess outcomes that are general
but are sensitive to broad differences (e.g. geographic, resources). Examples are
research skills, which cannot easily be assessed by pen and paper.
This system has been developed to meet the needs of the countries in the region.
SPBEA has however put in place quality assurance procedures aimed at enhancing
not only the validity and reliability of SBA results but also their authenticity. This
process is explained in Raivoce and Pongi (2001) as follows:
Each year each participating school is required to submit an assessment programme
for each subject that has a SBA component. The programme has to clearly indicate
what the school intends to do in its SBA as well as the various assessments tasks that
10

11. make up the programme. Before any programme is approved for implementation
SPBEA has to check for compliance with prescribed requirements, appropriate
standards and timeframe.
In this region, monitoring the implementation of the SBA has become an important
part of the process. Officers make frequent visits, twice yearly, to member countries
initially to assist schools with the planning and developing their SBA programmes
and later to verify the status of the SBA programme. The main purpose of the
verification visit is to ascertain that each school’s SBA programme for each subject is
being implemented as approved. This involves checking to see that the appropriate
criteria are being used in the assessment, that the work is of appropriate standard and
that the work is on schedule.
SPBEA has also put in place procedures aimed at minimizing variation in the standard
of SBA between schools and between countries. This is achieved by the introduction
of a two level procedure for moderating the SBA results from schools. In the first
instance, samples of students’ work from every participating school in a country are
nationally moderated to take account of any differences in the assessment between
schools. Once this is achieved, samples of students’ work from each country are again
moderated for any differences that may occur between countries.
In some subjects, a panel of moderators carries out the country moderation while in
other subjects a single person is responsible for the process of moderation. Inter-
country moderation is always carried out by a single external moderator. Once the
SBA results are moderated, they are ready for interpretation before being reported to
stakeholders. The SBA and external assessments are combined and students’ overall
performance is reported on a nine point scale.
Scotland
Wright (2001) explains that SBA plays a significant role in the Scottish assessment
system and it has been in use for many years. While in the past, internal assessment
was employed in subject areas with a practical focus to maximize validity and
flexibility, the structure of the new courses integrates internal and external
assessments in determining Course Awards.
The system of SBA in Scotland supports a combination of internal and external
moderation. Wright (2001) explains that the aim of internal moderation which is
carried out by school staff is to ensure that school staff are making consistent
assessment decisions in accordance with the assessment criteria defined by the
Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) that provides guidelines on the best practice
for internal moderation as it applies to different types of qualifications. External
moderation which is carried out by moderators appointed by SQA is the means by
which SQA ensures that internal assessment is in line with the national standard set
out in the qualifications. SQA issues a range of documents to both schools and
moderators that set out how moderation operates.
In Scotland, moderation is generally carried out by direct inspection of a sample of
students’ completed work. The sample size for moderation within one school usually
comprises 12 candidates. In schools with less than 12 candidates, the entire group is
11

12. scrutinized. In schools with more than 12 candidates, SQA chooses the 12 and notifies
the school. From the schools’ point of view, the procedures are administratively
simpler.
A selection of schools are moderated each year. Wright (2001) explains that a school
is chosen for moderation if:
• it is offering the qualification for the first time
• it did not offer the qualification in the previous two years
• its assessments were not accepted on the last occasion the school was moderated
• it had not been selected for a specified period of time
• it showed poor agreement in the previous year between internal and external
assessments in national courses
• it was subject to concerns expressed by moderators
• it requested moderation and this was agreed by SQA
• it is selected randomly.
Two main approaches are used: central moderation and visiting moderation. It is the
nature of the evidence generated that determines the type of moderation to be used.
Central moderation is used when the work is easy to transport and where process
skills, if important, are clearly evident from the product. The advantages of this
approach are cost-effectiveness and ease of monitoring the work of moderators to
maintain a national standard. However, visiting moderation is used for those subjects
with bulky or ephemeral products or performances. The main advantage of this
approach is the potential for interchange between moderators, teachers and principals.
Its drawbacks are that it is a costly method and it is more difficult to monitor the work
of moderators. In addition, postal moderation is employed to increase flexibility and
maximize cost effectiveness. This approach has relatively low costs, however it is
difficult to monitor the decisions of moderators, which in turn is done by scrutinizing
the written reports they submit. When moderators who are subject experts find
assessments that are invalid, unreliable or not aligned to the national standard, they
give advice on how to bring the assessments into line and then monitor that the
advice has been followed.
The Caribbean
Haynes (2001) explains that the Caribbean Examinations Council (CXC) has
combined external assessment with the internal assessment of candidates in order to
enhance the validity and reliability of the entire assessment system. Today internal
assessment is a significant element in the assessment of many subjects in. He
continues to explain that although the format and skills are different for each subject,
there are a number of common requirements. These are:
• Candidates undertake specific assignments over a given period of time fulfilling
specific skills as outlined in the syllabus
• Class teachers assess the work and submit the grades to CXC
• CXC moderates the teachers’ assessment
• Candidates’ final grade includes the marks amended as a result of this process.
On its part, CXC ensures adherence to a common standard and consistency by:
• The use of detailed SBA guidelines
12

13. • The use of moderating procedures
• Continuous teacher orientation
• Moderation feedback reports sent to parents.
CXC has taken the decision that SBA tasks do not contribute to more that 40% and
not less than 20% of the total mark. Haynes (2001) suggests that this decision was
taken to control volume of SBA, to establish uniformity and parity across subjects as
well as to curb some of the expected criticism by those who would question the
reliability of an examination which depended substantially on the judgment of
teachers. Furthermore, CXC has introduced an alternative paper which can be taken
by non-school candidates in lieu of the school-based assessment. This is a written
paper and is based on the same area of the syllabus as the SBA component and
weighted in the same way as the SBA.
In the Caribbean, each teacher is required to submit a sample of SBA to CXC.
Moderation by remarking is the main technique employed by CXC. The replacement
of the teacher’s marks with those of the moderator’s takes place only if the teacher’s
class size is less than five and if the marks fall outside the tolerance band. In this
region, the moderation process has another critical purpose. It is to provide feedback
reports to the school and subject teachers on the strengths and weaknesses of their
candidates and to improve their professional expertise in assessment.
The moderation procedure outlined to far mainly focuses on quality control. However,
Haynes (2001) explains that a shift is taking place to include quality assurance
procedures. As a result of feedback from teachers, candidates and parents, some of the
following conditions have been implemented:
• In all syllabuses, the SBA assignments carry rubrics outlining clearly the main
features required in the SBA responses
• Assignments in all cognate subjects are similar in size and number and the
demands they make on the student time and effort and resources
• For many subjects, resources such as exemplar assignments with careful details of
grading and relevant comments on the grading process, assessment criteria for
projects and notes on selecting, conducting and assessing assignments have been
constructed and are available to all schools.
In the Caribbean, candidates are given a two year period to complete SBA
assignments which are then assessed by teachers. Thereafter, CXC performs a quality
control check of those assignments. At present, CXC carries out this check by moving
a significant number of trained moderators from different territories to a single
location to remark the SBA samples. This is an annual event which is very costly.
In this region, the need is felt for additional quality assurance procedural help from
the stakeholders such as Ministries of Education, Principals and Heads of Department.
Such monitoring could be effected through school visits, meetings within schools,
workshops for teachers and email facilities for example. Haynes (2001) suggests that
the stakeholders’ task would be to assist at all points during the SBA to provide
professional support and advice to teachers, on the methods which should be used to
achieve consistency in managing critical aspects of the SBA over an extended period
of time. He concludes that the achievement of this consistency by schools would
13

14. remove the need for yearly moderation of SBA from these schools and would
therefore result in a reduction of annual costs for CXC.
Queensland, Australia
In the state of Queensland, external examinations were abolished 30 years ago.
Instead assessment became entirely school-based. Since 2002, Queensland now has
one Authority: the Queensland Studies Authority (QSA) which was established to
develop subject syllabus frameworks, to supervise a system of moderation to assure
the application of common standards and to issue state-authorized certificates.
Maxwell (2003) explains that in this state, in Years 11 and 12, the assessment
programme is entirely designed within schools. Each school is encouraged to develop
its own coherent assessment policy for the conduct of assessment within the school,
the responsibility of which resides with the school principal. A common framework of
assessment is developed for each subject and within-school moderation is carried out
to ensure comparability of assessment judgments across the teachers in a subject.
However, the Authority controls the certification processes for the award of the
Senior Certificate. The key features of this process are:
• The development of a framework or guideline syllabuses for the different subjects
• The incorporation in these syllabuses of assessment criteria and standards for exit
grades.
• A moderation system to assure comparability of grades across the state
• The issuing of individual certificates to students who complete Year 12
• Reporting the results in terms of five levels of achievement.
The actual moderation process involves the following procedure:
• Each school submits a teaching and assessment plan for each subject offered.
• This plan is accredited by a subject review panel.
• Later on, schools submit designated samples of student folios to the review panels.
At the end of Year 11 this is done for monitoring purposes and to give feedback to
teachers. At the end of Year 12 then, moderation is done for verification purposes,
to verify the teachers’ judgments of the final grades.
• Finally there is a follow- up random sampling procedure in place to monitor the
success of the moderation processes.
Maxwell (2003) emphasizes the point that in this case, moderation relates to
comparability of teacher judgments concerning assessment evidence. Evidence can be
quite different in character and detail across schools and across subjects within
schools, but indicate and equivalent standard. This process of moderation allows
assessments to differ from place to place and student to student but to be mapped onto
a common set of standards.
This is a very unique system that is characterized by a partnership between schools
and the central agency. (In fact during one of his AERA presentations on assessment
in April 2003, Paul Black himself praised this system and said that this is where he
would be, given the chance). Here, the agency cannot intervene directly in the
assessment programme of a school, nor can it undo assessments undertaken by the
school over the two year course of study. However, it can hold the school accountable
14

15. for an appropriate interpretation of the syllabus, appropriate implementation of their
teaching and assessment plan, and the application of common standards for assessing
the evidence on student achievement on exit from Year 12. It also provides help to
schools that seek it or have a record of problems. About 10 percent of teachers are
involved in moderation panels whose membership is rotated periodically.
Consequently, in this context, the moderation system operates a powerful mechanism
for professional development.
Maxwell (2003) concludes that, in essence, the Queensland experience shows that it is
possible to balance internal and external interests in assessment to ensure that
assessment is located internally but verified centrally. This demands careful design
and implementation of the relationship between schools and the central agency so that
their separate and legitimate interests are held in creative tension. On the one hand,
the demand on the central agency is to maintain the quality, credibility and usefulness
of the qualification it issues. On the other, the demand on schools and teachers is to
develop high quality assessment procedures and practices. To some extend this
represents a dilemma for starting such a system. Maxwell (2003) recommends that:
it is necessary to trust schools and teachers initially but schools and
teachers can really only develop expertise in assessment when they have
to practice themselves. You have to grow the system, taking a calculated
risk and orchestrating the transition with appropriate support
mechanisms.
Conclusion
To conclude, I refer to a publication of the National Research Council (2001) of the
US. Setting out to explore the implications of our new understandings of knowing and
learning, and asking how do we know what students know, Pellegrino and his
colleagues’ conclusions highlight several features of school-based assessment. They
suggest that assessment needs to move from a focus on discrete bits of knowledge to
more comprehensive wholes, cover a broader range of understandings and skills, and
involve a variety of applications and contexts. They advocate attention and shifting
resources towards teacher- managed assessments involving tasks that students
undertake in the normal course of their classroom activities and portfolios for
assembling student performance information. Their hope is for more comprehensive,
coherent and continuous assessment systems.
It is our task as assessment professionals to find ways and means to make assessment
more relevant and valid for our learners yet at the same time maintain optimal
standards. I have tried to show how this can happen by outlining ways of valorizing
school-based assessment in different education systems, because essentially I concur
with Raffan (2001) when he says that “effective assessment is difficult, time
consuming and very often expensive, yet it is essential for education”.
15

16. References
Broadfoot, P. (1995) Performance Assessment Perspective: International Trends and
Current English Experience. In H. Torrance (Ed) Evaluating Authentic Assessment.
London: The Falmer Press
Brookhart, S. (2001) ‘Successful Students’ Formative and Summative Uses of
Assessment Information. Assessment in Education, 8, 2.
Burton, L. (1992) Who assesses whom and to what purpose? In M. Stephens and J.
Izard (Eds.) Reshaping Assessment Practices: Assessment in the Mathematical
Sciences Under Challenge. Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Dougherty, R. (1994) Quality Assurance, Teacher Assessment and Public
Examinations. In W. Harlen (Ed) Enhancing Quality in Assessment. Newcastle
Upon Tyne: Athenaeum Press.
Gipps, C. (1999) Socio-cultural Aspects of Assessment. Review of Research in
Education, 24, 355-392.
Grima, G. and Ventura, F. (2001) School-based Assessment in Malta: lessons from
the past, directions for the future. Proceedings of The First International
Conference of the Association of Commonwealth Examinations and Accreditation
Bodies. Reduit: Mauritius Examinations Syndicate
Harlen, W. (1994) Enhancing Quality in Assessment. London: British Educational
Research Association.
Haynes, A.B., (2001) Current Practices and Future Possibilities for the Caribbean
Examinations Council. Proceedings of The First International Conference of the
Association of Commonwealth Examinations and Accreditation Bodies. Reduit:
Mauritius Examinations Syndicate
Izard, J. (2001) Implementing School-Based Assessment: Some Successful Recent
Approaches used in Australia and the Philippines. Proceedings of The First
International Conference of the Association of Commonwealth Examinations and
Accreditation Bodies. Reduit: Mauritius Examinations Syndicate.
Lennox, B. (2001) Achieving National Consistency in School-Based Assessment
Against Standards. Proceedings of The First International Conference of the
Association of Commonwealth Examinations and Accreditation Bodies. Reduit:
Mauritius Examinations Syndicate
Maxwell, G.S. (2003) Progressive Assessment: Synthesising Formative and
Summative Purposes of Assessment. Proceedings of The Second International
Conference of the Association of Commonwealth Examinations and Accreditation
Bodies. Malta: MATSEC Examinations Board.
National Research Council (2001) Rethinking what students know: the science an
design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
16

17. Portal, M. (2001) School-based Assessment: Problems and Solutions. Proceedings of
The First International Conference of the Association of Commonwealth
Examinations and Accreditation Bodies. Reduit: Mauritius Examinations
Syndicate
Portal, M. (2003) Classroom Assessment and its Consequences. Proceedings of The
Second International Conference of the Association of Commonwealth
Examinations and Accreditation Bodies. Malta: MATSEC Examinations Board.
Radnor, H. and Shaw, K. (1995) Developing a collaborative approach to moderation.
In H. Torrance (Ed) Evaluating Authentic Assessment. London: The Falmer Press
Raivoce, A. and Pongi, V. (2001) School-Based Assessment: A First Hand Experience
in the Small Island States of the South Pacific. Proceedings of The First
International Conference of the Association of Commonwealth Examinations and
Accreditation Bodies. Reduit: Mauritius Examinations Syndicate.
Raffan, J. (2001) School-Based Assessment: Principles and Practice. Proceedings of
The First International Conference of the Association of Commonwealth
Examinations and Accreditation Bodies. Reduit: Mauritius Examinations
Syndicate.
Singh, P. (2001) Implementing School-Based Assessment: A Functional Approach.
Proceedings of The First International Conference of the Association of
Commonwealth Examinations and Accreditation Bodies. Reduit: Mauritius
Examinations Syndicate
Ventura, F. (1995) Coursework assessment and moderation at secondary education
certificate (SEC) level. Report No.1, MATSEC Support Unit, University of Malta.
Unpublished Document.
Ventura, F. and Murphy, R. (1998) The impact of measures to promote equity in the
secondary education certificate examinations in Malta: an evaluation.
Mediterranean Journal of Educational Studies, 3, 1.
Williams, S. (2001) How do I know if they’re cheating? Teacher strategies in an
information age. The Curriculum Journal, 12, 2.
Wolf, A. (1995) Authentic Assessment in a Competitive Sector: Institutional
Prerequisites and Cautionary Tales. In H. Torrance (Ed) Evaluating Authentic
Assessment. London: The Falmer Press
Wood, R. (1991) Assessment and Testing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wright, R. (2001) School-Based Assessment – Scotland. Proceedings of The First
International Conference of the Association of Commonwealth Examinations and
Accreditation Bodies. Reduit: Mauritius Examinations Syndicate
17