Confirmation is an annual quality assurance process for General and General (Extension) subjects based on the reliability attribute of quality assessment.
Confirmation examines the accuracy and consistency of teachers’ judgments about students’ responses to summative internal assessment instruments, to ensure comparability of results across Queensland. The confirmation process aims to ensure fair and reliable results for students.
Overall subject results for General and General (Extension) subjects are determined by a student’s confirmed results in the three summative internal assessment instruments specified by the relevant syllabus, and the summative external assessment (see Section 11.3.1: QCAA reporting to schools).
Confirmers review a selected sample of student responses to check that the application of the ISMG is accurate and consistent. All confirmation activities take place in the Confirmation application in the QCAA Portal and follow the timelines published in the SEP calendar. The QCAA makes the final decision about student results.
The QCAA is responsible for managing the confirmation process, notifying schools of confirmation decisions, and training confirmers to understand the principles of confirmation and the characteristics of effective assessors.
The chief confirmer for each subject contributes to an annual subject report, which will be available to schools, to inform future practice.
Confirmation is an annual process. Timelines for key communications between the QCAA and schools, and specific dates for confirmation, are published in the SEP calendar and through the Confirmation application in the QCAA Portal.
Schools enter their student enrolment data, including the order in which they will implement their assessment, in the Student Management application, by the dates published in the SEP calendar. The principal must approve any variation to sequence, beginning date, or completion date.
9.6.1 Preparing for confirmation
The QCAA provides the following resources to help schools make judgments about summative internal assessment instruments and prepare for confirmation:
- detailed assessment specifications and ISMGs in each syllabus
- sample annotated student responses in the QCAA Portal
- syllabus-specific information about confirmation submissions in the QCAA Portal
- training and resources for schools and confirmers
- online assessment literacy courses
- consultation with QCAA subject officers
- timelines for confirmation activities, published in the SEP calendar
- subject report.
Determining provisional marks
The confirmation process begins with the provisional criterion marks awarded by the school for each summative internal assessment.
Schools are responsible for administering and marking three endorsed summative internal assessment instruments to students of General and General (Extension) subjects. Assessment objectives are drawn from the unit objectives of the syllabus, contextualised, and grouped into criteria, or a single criterion. This grouping depends on the subject, the subject matter and skills to be assessed, and the technique through which students will demonstrate what they know and can do.
The syllabus describes the assessment objectives for each criterion at different levels of performance, to assist teachers in making decisions about the qualities of student work in response to the assessment. In some criteria, teachers determine the appropriate performance level through observation of the skills and cognitions demonstrated in the student work.
Teachers make judgments about the evidence in student responses, using the ISMG to indicate the alignment of student work with performance level descriptors and determine a mark for each criterion according to the maximum number of marks specified in the syllabus. Where a performance level has a two-mark range, the teacher uses the best-fit approach defined in each syllabus to determine the mark.
Teachers implement internal quality assurance processes to ensure accuracy of the provisional criterion marks. Where there are multiple classes for a subject cohort, and more than one teacher assessing students, it is important for teachers to work together to quality assure the accuracy of provisional criterion marks.
Schools may provide students with provisional criterion marks for summative internal assessment instruments, before confirmation. However, students and parents/carers should be made aware that results are not final, and are subject to change until confirmation processes are concluded.
To receive a subject result, a response for every summative internal assessment is required. Once the assessment response has been submitted, it is marked by the school, and provisional criterion marks are reported to the QCAA (see Section 9.6.7: Confirmation requirements for illness and misadventure and Section 13.2.5: Enrolments and results).
For examination assessments with percentage cut-offs in the ISMG, teachers use a school-devised marking scheme to allocate marks to questions and mark student work. The teacher then determines the student’s achievement percentage, identifies this on the ISMG and awards a mark. Schools report the provisional mark from the ISMG to the QCAA, not the mark achieved on the student response using the school’s marking scheme.
Using zero as a result
ISMGs for different subjects have different criteria and mark ranges. All ISMGs have zero (0) as the lowest possible mark. To be awarded a zero for a criterion, the student must have produced some evidence of a response in the mode of the assessment instrument, but there is no alignment of this evidence to any of the higher performance level descriptors. The evidence must be authenticated as the student’s own. A zero cannot be awarded where there is no evidence of a response to the assessment, or if the response is wholly plagiarised.
Using not yet administered (NYA) as a result
NYA (Not Yet Administered) may be used by schools when recording internal assessment (IA) results for General and General (Extension) subjects. NYA should be recorded for individual students when in an emergent situation, schools have not administered or finalised results for an IA by the date the IA provisional results are required in Student Management. Situations where NYA might be required are mainly those where individual students have an extension of time to complete an IA due to principal-approved access arrangements and reasonable adjustments (AARA). This includes assessment techniques (e.g. assessment with a separate performance component) for which the student is unable to complete the entire response at that time, as provisional marks are not available for all criteria, for reporting to the QCAA. When NYA is recorded, the school acknowledges that the IA will be administered to the student and completed during the student’s completion year for that subject and the school is responsible for ensuring the provisional marks are provided to the QCAA. The response must be completed during the student’s completion year for the subject. The QCAA may require the school to provide further evidence.
Using not rated (NR) as a result
For examination techniques, the student must attend the examination at the time and date set by the school and produce a response in the set timeframe to be awarded a provisional mark, unless the student has principal-reported or QCAA-approved AARA or a school-approved absence. Students with a school-approved absence must be given the opportunity to complete the assessment (or a comparable assessment) on or before the due date, as specified by the school. If a student does not have an AARA and does not provide a response by the due date, a result of not rated (NR) is awarded. A student who makes no attempt to provide answers in the examination is awarded an NR.
For all other assessment types please refer to Section 11.1.4: Non-submission of a student response.
Using did not administer (DNA) as a result
DNA (Did Not Administer) can be used by schools when recording internal assessment (IA) results for General, General (Extension), Applied and Applied (Essential) subjects. DNA should be recorded in Student Management for individual students when the school did not administer an assessment. Situations where DNA might be required are mainly those where individual students have transferred registration to another main learning provider and the assessment was not completed at the school, e.g. where an assessment was not administered to an intrastate transfer student as they transferred registration to a new main learning provider. When DNA is recorded for the IA in Student Management, the school acknowledges that the IA will not be administered to the student at their school.
Using developmental student work to award a mark
For non-examination techniques, developmental work (i.e. a draft response or assessment work-in-progress) would be appropriate evidence to use to award a provisional mark if a response is not provided on or before the due date.
For performance assessments, or projects that include a performance element, a draft version is the assessment work-in-progress demonstrated by the student. Therefore, a draft or checkpoint version is evidence of a performance, demonstrated by the student in the assessment preparation phase. Evidence used to make a judgment must be able to be provided to the QCAA to support confirmation processes (see Section 8.2.7: Gathering evidence of student achievement).
If there is no evidence of the student’s developmental work toward a response in the same mode as the required response, a result of NR is awarded (see Section 11.1.4: Non-submission of a student response).
Marked ISMGs need to clearly indicate the characteristics evident in the student response and the mark awarded for each criterion. Teachers may highlight, tick, underline or in some other way identify the characteristics evident for each criterion, and indicate the mark awarded. Whatever method is chosen must be visible when reviewed by confirmers.
For instruments that use ISMGs with percentages for performance-level cut-offs, the student response needs to be annotated to clearly indicate how the student was marked against the marking scheme.
Teacher feedback on student responses
Schools make decisions about teacher feedback and/or comments on student work. Any feedback or comments written on student work should be for the purpose of the learning and future improvement of the student. Teacher comment or feedback, if present on samples of student work at confirmation, may be read by the confirmer as part of the review. The school is not required to de-identify responses by removing teacher comments or other context-specific references by teachers or students within the response. However, the school must ensure that any feedback or comments written by the teacher on the response are clearly discernible from the student’s response.
In some circumstances, a student who has transferred intrastate or interstate to a Queensland school cannot produce evidence of a response to a summative internal assessment instrument within the timelines published in the SEP calendar for confirmation.
Schools make all reasonable attempts to support such a student to complete the teaching, learning and assessment before the confirmation deadlines.
If no evidence is available for one or more criterion by the set date for confirmation, an NYA should be reported in Student Management.
Once the student/s results are available, the school follows the procedure for replacing a an NYA result (see Section 13.2.5: Enrolments and results).
Collecting and storing evidence
Teachers ensure that they gather and store evidence of each student’s response to each assessment instrument. Indirect evidence, such as teacher observations alone, or a written script for a live multi-modal or spoken assessment, is not sufficient to confirm results for a student in General and General (Extension) subjects.
The QCAA provides detailed, syllabus-specific confirmation submission information for each General and General (Extension) syllabus via the QCAA Portal, setting out recommended practices for gathering student responses and requirements for submitting samples for confirmation.
To prepare for confirmation, schools must be proactive in outlining their strategies for teachers, students and parents/carers in the school’s assessment policy. Schools should collect and store responses used to make judgments and award provisional criterion marks for each student for each summative internal assessment instrument.
For each summative internal assessment instrument administered, schools submit electronic samples of specific student responses identified by the QCAA, via the QCAA Portal.
To support the upload of student submissions to the QCAA Portal, schools should:
- use the assessment instrument from the Endorsement application
- use white paper of scannable quality for all assessment papers, including response booklets
- indicate judgments legibly on ISMGs, e.g. highlight characteristics in performance levels that align with the evidence in a student response, then determine a result for that criterion
- refer to the latest version of the subject confirmation submission information via the QCAA Portal
- ensure scanned responses and documents are complete, with all parts of the response visible and able to be read, i.e. all pages of the student response have been scanned
- plan documentation proactively, e.g. to film spoken and performance assessment evidence, consider the device on which the response is filmed, the file type, compression of the file to a suitable size, file management, including name conventions, and protocols for recording teacher feedback
- ensure any feedback or comments written by the teacher on the response are clearly discernible from the student’s response.
Submitting provisional marks in Student Management
The QCAA publishes timelines for submission of provisional marks in the SEP calendar. The principal or principal’s delegate is responsible for accurate submission of provisional criterion marks. Schools enter provisional criterion marks for each student, from the marked ISMGs, and enact their quality assurance processes (see Section 9.1: Quality management system). The provisional mark for each criterion must match the mark indicated in the ISMG. Schools must indicate whether a student has completed a comparable assessment in Student Management.
If a school identifies a clerical error in provisional marks, the principal or principal’s delegate explains the error in writing to the QCAA Certification Unit at email@example.com. (See Section 13.3.3: Managing data.)
Identifying samples for review
The QCAA uses provisional criterion marks to identify the samples that schools are required to submit for confirmation. Confirmation samples are representative of the school’s decisions about the quality of student work in relation to the ISMG and are used to make decisions about the results of the cohort.
Each school has a unique sampling design, based on the:
- distribution of achievement for each subject’s cohort
- number of students enrolled in each subject’s cohort
- confirmation decisions for the school in previous events.
The number of samples required for confirmation from a school for any subject may differ at each confirmation event, and may also be different from the number at another school offering the subject with the same or similar cohort numbers. The QCAA’s decision about sample numbers is based on multiple factors, including the distribution of achievement for each criterion, and the subject cohort at previous confirmation events.
Number of students
Minimum number of samples required
5 or fewer
After determining the sample size for each subject and each internal assessment, the sample students are identified. Any individual student may be sampled multiple times in one or more subjects, or not at all during the confirmation process.
Any individual student who has provisional criterion marks submitted, including those with principal-reported or QCAA-approved AARA for an assessment, are included in the cohort when the QCAA identifies samples for review at confirmation. See Section 9.6.1: Preparing for confirmation.
For each internal assessment, the first student is chosen from the highest achieving students in the cohort, but is not necessarily the individual with the highest overall score. The selection of each of the subsequent sampled students will reflect the distribution of previously sampled students to minimise overlap with previously sampled scores in each criterion. This also ensures that the sample pattern reflects the overall distribution of students.
The QCAA notifies each school, via the QCAA Portal, which samples are required for confirmation, identified by student name and learner unique identifier (LUI). After the school has submitted the required samples, they will be identified by LUI only.
9.6.3 Submitting samples via the Confirmation application
Schools submit the samples required to the QCAA by the due date, via the Confirmation application in the QCAA Portal. These samples must have been marked by the teacher, and quality assured using the school’s internal quality assurance process.
Sample files must include the student response to the summative internal assessment instrument. The principal, or principal’s delegate, is responsible for ensuring the accuracy and completeness of the required samples before submitting them via the QCAA Portal. Schools should contact the QCAA as soon as possible to seek advice if they have identified issue that may affect the whole cohort.
Schools should use the Confirmation submission information to ensure the required materials are provided, including:
- the marked ISMG, indicating which performance level descriptors and provisional criterion marks were allocated
- the student response (including any relevant notes about managing response length according to school policy).
Schools do not submit students’ drafts, except if a draft was used to award a provisional mark. Schools do not submit explanatory letters or any other type of documentation in place of the marked ISMG and/or student response.
Variation to confirmation submission
Variations to the samples required by the QCAA are only permitted if the student work — or a significant part of the student work — for a nominated sample has been lost, destroyed or is incomplete for another reason. In these cases, a school may apply for a Variation to confirmation submission. A variation is usually not required if the school has used evidence collected on or before the due date, such as a draft.
The QCAA reviews the school’s application for a variationand determines:
- whether material for the original required sample should be submitted, where it is available
- whether alternative sample/s should be submitted, and if so, which one/s.
The QCAA monitors applications for Variation to confirmation submission for a school or subject and intervenes if necessary. Schools should contact the QCAA as soon as possible to seek advice if they have identified an issue that may affect the whole cohort.
Comparable assessment instruments at confirmation
If a comparable assessment instrument has been administered to one or more of the sample students, this must be indicated in Student Management when provisional marks are entered. If the assessment for one or more sample students was not developed in the Endorsement application, the school will need to submit the comparable assessment instrument (as a PDF) via the Confirmation application. The QCAA recommends that schools use the Endorsement application to develop any comparable assessment that is administered with students.
Alternative submission strategy
An alternative strategy for submission of files is provided to schools that have not been able to submit files via the QCAA Portal. This is available upon request by the principal or principal’s delegate via the QCAA Portal.
The principal or principal’s delegate is responsible for the complete, accurate and timely submission of evidence in the confirmation process, including requesting the alternative submission strategy, an encrypted USB if required. The QCAA is not responsible for editing or compressing large audio-visual files on behalf of a school. A school that provides files that exceed the specified file limits in the Confirmation submission information may be required to remove, compress and re-upload files.
9.6.4 Confirmation review meeting
The QCAA defines the process for reviewing samples of student work for confirmation and is responsible for training confirmers to complete reviews using the Confirmation application, which supports the workflow required.
Confirmers, lead confirmers and chief confirmers review student responses submitted by schools at confirmation review meetings. Confirmers check whether schools have accurately and consistently applied the ISMG, and communicate their decisions to the lead confirmer using the Confirmation application in the QCAA Portal.
Confirmers review samples and use the ISMG within the Confirmation application to make decisions about the accuracy and consistency of school judgments.
Lead confirmers monitor, manage and quality assure the work of the confirmers, review student responses as required, and prepare interim marks to communicate to the QCAA, using the Confirmation application in the QCAA Portal. Lead confirmers manage a small group of confirmers, and oversee all review decisions made by their confirmer group. The number of confirmers within a confirmer group depends on the total number of students and confirmers for a subject.
Each school’s subject submission is allocated to two confirmers and a lead confirmer. If this cannot be accommodated in small candidature subjects, the QCAA determines how at least one independent review and a check of this review will occur. Samples within a submission are divided amongst confirmers so that all samples are independently reviewed at least once, and some are allocated to two confirmers and independently reviewed twice.
A review begins with the confirmer developing an understanding of the context and task requirements of the endorsed assessment instrument. The context-specific nature of internal assessment means the confirmer must engage with the context and task sections of the instrument to understand the school’s approach. Next the confirmer views the school judgments, looking at the provisional criterion marks, as well as the marked ISMG. With this understanding of the school judgments, the confirmer looks at each student work sample and scans it for evidence of characteristics aligned with the school’s judgments.
The confirmer considers each mark for each criterion of each sample they are allocated. If the evidence supports the school judgments, the confirmer records this in the Confirmation application. If the evidence does not support the school judgments, the confirmer identifies the descriptors on the ISMG that better match the student work and records the alternative mark.
The lead confirmer is responsible for the reviews for every sample in each submission allocated to their confirmer group. They must make decisions about marks using the confirmer review information, and complete independent reviews when required.
The lead confirmer starts with the information provided by the confirmer/s for the samples. If two confirmers supported the school’s criterion marks for a sample, the lead confirmer will support the school’s provisional criterion marks. If there are differences in the review information provided by two confirmers, the lead confirmer may conduct an independent review. The lead confirmer then looks at the review information provided for all other samples and makes decisions about criterion marks. It is the lead confirmer’s responsibility to make final decisions for all samples and all criterion marks for every submission in the confirmer group. The QCAA uses this information to determine confirmed results.
Lead confirmers are supported in their work by the chief confirmer and QCAA officers.
The work of confirmers within review activities is monitored by the chief confirmer, lead confirmer and QCAA officers. All confirmer review data is considered by the lead confirmer before being finalised by the QCAA.
Chief confirmers sample schools’ submissions of student responses from across the state and analyse the work of confirmers and lead confirmers. They monitor and manage lead confirmers and assist them to complete reviews, if required. They resolve escalated samples and liaise with QCAA officers as needed.
The QCAA reviews information provided by confirmers and implements calibration activities, or intervenes in the confirmer’s work, as required. This information may also feed forward for continuous improvement of assessor training.
If the QCAA decides that a confirmer or lead confirmer’s decisions are inaccurate, the decisions of that confirmer or lead confirmer are reviewed by a subject expert, which may include the chief confirmer, principal education officers or Learning Area Managers. The QCAA also decides whether the confirmer or lead confirmer is able to continue work as an assessor.
9.6.5 Confirmation decision process
Schools are notified of the confirmation decision for each subject for their school as soon as the decision has been finalised. See Figure: Confirmation process overview in Section 9.6: Confirmation.
The QCAA uses the lead confirmers’ criterion mark decisions for each sample to finalise the review, whether they match the school provisional criterion marks, or differ from them.
The QCAA officers, supported by a rules-based algorithm, determine whether a pattern of marking exists. If necessary, the pattern is used to adjust criteria marks for every student in the subject cohort (both sample and non-sample students). Algorithmic outputs are considered by QCAA subject matter experts, which may include the principal education officers and/or learning area managers before being finalised.
If the provisional marks are supported or a pattern is identified, no further samples are required. If no pattern can be identified, supplementary samples are required from the school for review.
During confirmation, the QCAA may determine that an intervention is required for a subject cohort at a school. In this situation, schools are required to re-mark an aspect of, or the whole of, a student response/s to assessment for the subject cohort. Situations that could give rise to an intervention include:
- errors in the application of a marking scheme for percentage cut-off examinations for one or more samples
- significant authentication issues across samples
- multiple responses across samples that exceed syllabus conditions for length and where the school has not annotated the responses to show how the school’s assessment policy has been applied
- divergent application of the ISMG across samples, impeding the determination of a cohort pattern.
Schools will be notified of an intervention in writing by the QCAA. With the advice of the QCAA subject officers, the school will remark the assessment responses of the entire cohort, marking an ISMG and the student responses as appropriate. The school will submit updated provisional marks to the QCAA Certification Unit and may have new samples for confirmation identified. The school will be notified of samples via the Confirmation application. The confirmation review process will then resume with the upload of annotated responses and ISMG for the identified samples, and this may delay the release of the confirmed decision.
The QCAA initiates the supplementary sample process when further information is required about the school’s application of the ISMG to finalise a confirmation decision.
The QCAA selects which samples are required. The number may differ from the original sample (see Identifying samples for review: Table 1: Minimum number of samples for implementation).
Where the QCAA determines that supplementary samples are required to finalise a confirmation decision:
- The QCAA notifies schools via the Confirmation application that additional samples are required, and must be submitted by the dates published in the SEP calendar.
- Schools submit the samples via the Confirmation application using the same process as for the initial samples.
- Samples are allocated to the same confirmer group as the initial samples, where possible.
Confirmers and lead confirmers review the additional student responses independently.
Supplementary samples are reviewed by a single confirmer; otherwise the review process is the same as for the initial sample. Confirmers cannot access or amend the previously reviewed samples (see Section 9.6.6: Review of a confirmed result).
The lead confirmer must make final decisions for all samples and all criterion marks for every supplementary sample. The QCAA uses this information to determine confirmed results.
Schools that have supplementary samples may receive their confirmation decision at a date later than that published in the SEP calendar.
If, after the review of supplementary samples, a decision about a whole cohort cannot be made, the QCAA initiates an extraordinary review, in which more samples are reviewed.
The QCAA determines which further samples are required — potentially all of the remaining student responses from a subject cohort — and requests them from the school, via the Confirmation application.
Schools submit the required samples via the Confirmation application, by the date specified.
Samples are reviewed by a confirmer and a lead confirmer. The decision about the review is made by the QCAA on a school or subject basis. If possible, the samples are reviewed by the same confirmer group as the initial and supplementary samples. If these confirmer/s are not available, the QCAA identifies other available confirmer/s to complete the reviews.
The QCAA determines the confirmed results for each student in the cohort.
Schools that have an extraordinary review will receive their confirmation decision at a date later than that published in the SEP calendar.
Confirmation decision panel
The QCAA convenes an internal panel of subject matter, quality assurance and technical experts who meet before the release of confirmation decisions, to review, analyse and approve outcomes.
The confirmation decision
The confirmation decision is the official record of the confirmation outcome for each student (sampled and non-sampled) in the cohort for each summative internal assessment response.
The confirmation decision provides schools with the following:
- confirmed results for all students in the subject cohort
- summary of the decisions across criteria for the subject cohort
- submission summary comments pertaining to academic integrity issues or file quality, to improve future school assessment practice, as relevant.
The principal and principal’s delegate are notified of the confirmation decision via the QCAA Portal.
Once a confirmation event is finalised, schools are notified of the confirmation decision for the summative assessment/s submitted for review in that confirmation event. If schools are implementing a flexible delivery, such as a compressed curriculum, the confirmation decision may be released at a different time.
Schools use the confirmed marks by criterion for the subject cohort and the syllabus ISMG to understand any movements from the school’s provisional marks.
The QCAA provides school support for the confirmation decision where the school may seek feedback to clarify how the ISMG should be applied where there has been cohort movement identified through the confirmation process.
The QCAA releases confirmed results for each student via the Student Portal. This occurs after the completion of any school review process, and by the date published in the SEP calendar (see Section 11.3.2: QCAA reporting to students).
9.6.6 Review of a confirmed result
The QCAA communicates confirmed results to schools via the QCAA Portal in the confirmation decision. Student samples are reviewed by confirmers, lead confirmers and QCAA officers prior to the release of the confirmation decision.
Schools may request a review where a student’s confirmed result is different from the school’s provisional mark in one or more criteria and the school considers this result to be an anomaly or exception to the cohort pattern.
Review requests may only be made for a sampled or non-sampled student in the manner specified by the QCAA. Before submitting a request for a review of a confirmed result, schools:
- use the ISMG and the match to the student work at the confirmed result to understand the reason for the movement in student marks
- access QCAA subject-specific support resources to clarify expectations for the adjusted criteria
- identify why the individual student’s result is an anomaly or exception to the cohort pattern
- a confirmed result may be an anomaly where the cohort pattern was determined using incorrect or incomplete evidence
- the evidence in a student response may demonstrate an exception to the cohort pattern where the reason for the mark movements identified from the review of sample responses does not apply to that student, e.g. non-sample student may have demonstrated all elements of the characteristic
- advise the student and their parent/carer of the potential outcome of a requested review, including that the final confirmed result may be lower
- contact the QCAA subject Principal Education Officer for clarification about the school’s application of the ISMG and the cohort pattern movement.
Requests for a review of a confirmed result must be submitted by the principal’s delegate through the Confirmation application as specified by the QCAA (typically five days following the release of the confirmation decision). A student or parent/carer cannot directly request a review, see Section 11.5: Applying for verification of information.
Once the request meets the QCAA’s requirements for reviewing a confirmation decision, the review is undertaken by a single lead confirmer or chief confirmer and checked by a QCAA officer. The outcome of a review may be a change to the student’s mark (higher or lower than the confirmed result), or that the confirmed mark stands.
As the review of a confirmed result is about an individual student, the outcome of a review will not impact the cohort pattern determined through the confirmation process.
The review process is not provided for schools to request a review for all students in the cohort. Nor is it an opportunity for a school to request that a cohort pattern is reinterrogated by the QCAA.
When the review process is complete, the QCAA will notify the school of the outcome and, where relevant, reissue a confirmation decision. The confirmation process does not include an opportunity for further review.
The QCAA releases confirmed results for each student via the Student Portal (see Section 11.3.2: QCAA reporting to students).
9.6.7 Confirmation requirements for illness and misadventure
Illness and misadventure may prevent a single student or a group of students from participating in a summative internal assessment instrument at the same time as other students in the cohort (see Section 6: Access arrangements and reasonable adjustments (AARA), including illness and misadventure).
All students are required to provide evidence that they can demonstrate the assessment objectives for the summative internal assessment instrument. Schools make decisions about AARA to minimise barriers for a student in accessing summative internal assessment instruments, and make judgments about the students’ work using the ISMG for the particular assessment from the syllabus. Schools cannot amend ISMGs, and must provide provisional criterion marks for all students within the timelines published in the SEP calendar, or follow the process for using Not Yet Administered (NYA) as a result (see Section 13.2.5: Enrolments and results).
Individual students with AARA — incomplete or no evidence available within the timeline
In some circumstances, principal-reported AARA may mean that a student cannot respond to a summative internal assessment instrument within the timelines published in the SEP calendar for confirmation.
If the response is not available by the due date for reporting provisional results for confirmation, a Not Yet Administered (NYA) should be reported in Student Management. Once the result is available, schools follow the process for replacing an NYA result in Student Management (see Section 13.2.5: Enrolments and results ).
Confirmation and emergent circumstances
AARA may be relevant in situations where a critical incident (e.g. disaster, emergency, traumatic event) has significantly impacted the school community and students. In these cases, schools should contact the QCAA (see Section 6: Access arrangements and reasonable adjustments (AARA), including illness and misadventure).
Cohorts of students — no provisional marks
Schools may experience emergent circumstances that mean they are unable to submit provisional criterion marks for all students in a cohort by the due date. Emergent circumstances may include natural disasters or wide-spread illness affecting an entire cohort.
If a school experiences emergent circumstances and cannot submit provisional criterion marks, students should be given an opportunity to attempt the summative internal assessment. If this is not possible, the school should contact the Quality Assurance Unit at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Cohorts of students — only provisional marks available
Schools may experience emergent circumstances that mean they are able to submit provisional marks for all students in a cohort, but no evidence of student responses. Emergent circumstances of this kind may include where fire or flood has destroyed all student responses, electronic or hard copy.
If a school experiences emergent circumstances and cannot submit any samples for confirmation, they should contact the Quality Assurance Unit at email@example.com.