Unless the Curriculum and Assessment Review state otherwise, Ofqual have confirmed there will be no change to the process of giving Raw Marks to art and design students. Ofqual cites their decision is based on ‘fairness reasons’. Given there has been no up-to-date review of the process, we are continuing our campaign and calling for a review to fully evidence this decision. We asked Ofqual and JCQ to consider:
- Student wellbeing: In our survey report, 92 percent of art and design teacher respondents indicated that the process is causing undue stress on students.
- Art and design teacher wellbeing: Managing internal or even external assessment appeals is frequently organised by art and design teachers. Ninety-five percent of survey respondents said that this process is causing undue stress on teachers.
- Instructions and guidance: Since raw marks became a statutory requirement, there has been variance in the guidance for teachers, examiners, and senior leaders. This has resulted in inconsistent interpretations of how the process is best shared, organised and managed.
- Inequalities: NSEAD's Raw Marks survey report indicated that a high number of appeals were taking place in independent schools. We will be calling on Ofqual and our members to confirm and evidence if the process may in any way add to the widening of the attainment gap between independent and state schools.
Given our evidence and raw marks report, published 10 October 2024, we will continue to campaign for a review of the process. The impacts on wellbeing, teacher workload and equity need to be fully evidenced and understood. Read our full Raw Marks report here.
What’s happened so far:
NSEAD’s Raw Marks Survey Report was published in October 2024. It aimed to identify the impacts on teachers and learners of giving centre-assessed raw marks to GCSE, AS and A level art and design candidates.
The Raw Marks Survey Report recommended JCQ and Ofqual undertake an urgent independent consultation and impact study of the requirement that all raw marks are given to art and design candidates. Given the evidence and findings in our report, NSEAD met with JCQ and Ofqual, andrecommended that the process is reviewed or ends as soon as possible.
Meetings with JCQ and Ofqual
Our first meeting was with JCQ at the beginning of April this year. Kath Tindale, Head of Creative Arts and NSEAD Council member; Michele Gregson CEO and General Secretary; and Sophie Leach, Deputy General Secretary represented NSEAD.
JCQ confirmed their role, which is to publish examination guidance but not to change policies or procedures. They confirmed they would await instruction from Ofqual regarding any changes to the process and its guidance.
NSEAD recommendations for JCQ are:
- Better subject-specific raw marks guidance materials for awarding organisations, examiners, senior leaders and art and design leaders.
- Removing out-of-date online instructions which are easy to find and widely available online.
- Raw marks training modules for art and design leaders, examinations officers and senior leadership teams, which evidences best practice and guides leaders through the process.
Our second meeting, which was with Ofqual, took place in May. Kath Tindale and Sophie Leach represented NSEAD. Both the full Raw Marks Report and a new concise Raw Marks Summary Presentation was shared.
The discussions considered student agency, fairness and wellbeing; teacher workload the uniqueness of our subject; the examination schedule and the timing of the process; evidence and equities across the sector.
We noted that our recommendations for Ofqual had not changed and that further review and evidence gathering was essential. Such a review could recommend ending or how the process might be improved.
Ofqual shared that in September 2025, the Curriculum and Assessment Review (CAR) review would be published and that this would steer their future work.
Letter from Ofqual, 13 June 2025
NSEAD has received written confirmation from Ofqual that the process of giving raw marks to art and design candidates will continue. They state that they understand how the process might impact mostly on art and design teachers, but that the process for ‘fairness reasons’ will remain in place and without revision:
‘During October and November 2016, we ran an online survey of teachers for two weeks, receiving approximately 300 responses. We also held two teacher focus groups. These asked when we should introduce the requirement to give students access to the results of centre marked assessments. Again, responses and feedback were mixed. Some argued for this requirement to be introduced immediately, others raised concerns about the potential impact on students’ confidence in the assessment process, and others noted the likelihood of an increase in requests for reviews of centre decisions.
‘We appreciate that art and design qualifications differ from other subjects in that 100% of students’ marks are derived from centre-marked assessments. This might contribute to some of the difficulties teachers have raised in your report.
‘Our view remains that it is important for fairness reasons that students can request reviews of the marking of their assessments, irrespective of who carried out that marking.
'We also continue to think that students need to know their marks to be properly informed when deciding whether to request a review.
‘While we would always seek to consider the effectiveness of our rules if any changes were to be made in the future (for example, if required by the Curriculum and Assessment Review), our decisions will always be evidence-led.
NSEAD believe that this position does not provide the data or evidence we need. As long ago as 2016, when teachers were consulted, and as noted by Ofqual, some raised concerns about the potential impact on students’ confidence in the assessment process, and others noted the likelihood of an increase in requests for reviews of centre decisions. There has been no follow-up review to address or measure these concerns.
Whilst Ofqual say they would consider any changes if required by the CAR, we do not believe Raw Marks will be covered by the review’s outcomes. No changes to the procedure are therefore currently anticipated this year or beyond.
Next steps. We will be asking:
JCQ: To review and improve Raw Marks guidance materials and information for teachers, examination officers and SLTs.
Ofqual: To organise a new independent review of the raw mark’s procedures and its impacts. Without evidence we ask, how can Ofqual be sure that the process is not having a detrimental impact on students’ confidence and wellbeing; on art and design teachers’ workload and their wellbeing too. We also essentially ask, is the process adding to the growing attainment gap across school sectors? Without answers to these key questions, we recommend that the process ends.
Art and design teacher members: We need members' help. We will be asking you to complete our next indicative Raw Marks sector-wide survey. We aim to assess which school types have been impacted most by the process: which sectors have had the most appeals, and ‘who’ gets to have their marks changed. As it stands, this key information has not been monitored.
Examination boards: To better evidence the impacts of the process of giving raw marks to candidates, we have begun discussing the procedure with examination boards. So far, those boards we have met with have agreed to investigate the issues that NSEAD has raised.
NSEAD has briefed Polly Billington MP, the Chair of The All-Party Parliamentary Group for Art, Craft and Design in Education, regarding the impact of this process on young peoples’ wellbeing.
NSEAD is seeking to identify if the processes instructed by Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA), the CCEA Regulation (Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment, and Qualifications Wales are the same as those required by Ofqual. We are seeking to identify if art educators in these nations experience similar issues arising from the process, or if there are alternatives.
We will continue to call for a rigorous review of the Raw Marks procedure. We believe all decisions need to be based on up-to-date, subject-specific, and relevant evidence.
To answer the question, is the process fair? A review is urgently needed. Without evidence, we ask, how can we be sure if the process of giving raw marks to students is best serving the very students the process was set up to help. Until we can answer this question, we believe the process of giving raw marks to students should end.
Read our 10 October Raw Marks summary and news report here.