Switch course ▾
Session 4. Moderation: Consistent Judgements Between Teachers
Objective. Run a short moderation meeting: mark the same anonymous work with a shared rubric, discuss differences using evidence from the work, and agree anchor examples for each level.
A mark means something only if it means the same thing from one classroom to another. Parents compare, pupils compare, and next year's teacher relies on what you wrote. Moderation is the simple habit that makes marks comparable: a few teachers look at the same work, say what they see and agree what each level looks like. It takes less time than most meetings, and many teachers find it the best professional learning they do.
Key ideas
What moderation is, and why pupils need it
- Moderation means teachers compare their judgements of the same pupil work against shared criteria and agree what each level looks like.
- Without it, a pupil's result may depend on which teacher marks the work. Two classes in the same school, or two schools in Fergana, may use the same words for different standards.
- It is also professional learning: teachers learn what 'good' means in their subject by looking at real work together.
Why two fair teachers still disagree
- Some teachers are stricter and some more generous, so the same work receives different marks.
- Neat handwriting or a long answer can raise a mark even when the content is weak (the halo effect). Marking a weak piece straight after a very strong one can pull it down.
- Knowing the pupil ('Jasur always tries hard') and reading a criterion in your own way also change judgements. None of this means bad teaching; it is normal, and it is why we moderate.
A moderation meeting in six steps
- 1. Everyone marks the same four or five anonymous pieces alone, using the shared rubric. 2. Marks are written on one grid so everybody sees them.
- 3. Discuss only the pieces where marks differ by one level or more. Each teacher points to the words in the work and the words in the rubric that support their mark.
- 4. Agree the mark and choose an anchor example for each level. 5. Note any rubric words to rewrite. 6. Later, mark a new piece alone and check that you now agree.
Keep it light, regular and kind
- Two teachers of the same grade are enough to begin. Take five pieces from each class: one strong, one weak and three in between, without names.
- Aim for agreement within one level, not identical marks. Argue about evidence in the work, never about the pupil or the teacher.
- Keep the anchors in a folder and record decisions in a few lines. A meeting of 30 to 40 minutes once a term is better than a long one once a year.
Marking alone vs. moderating together
Alone
Private picture of 'good'
- Open words filled by habit
- Marks differ between classes
- Nobody sees the gaps
Moderated
Shared picture of 'good'
- Evidence from the work
- Anchors for each level
- Gaps found and rewritten
Why disagreement is normal
Judging a piece of writing or a solution is not like reading a thermometer. Each of us carries a private picture of 'good' built from our own schooling and our own classes. When rubric words are open ('clear', 'well developed'), the private picture fills the gaps. That is why two careful teachers can differ by a whole level, and why a rubric alone is not enough.
Some effects are well known. Neat handwriting and length can raise a mark (the halo effect). A weak piece marked after a very strong one can look weaker. Knowing that a pupil always tries can lift a mark, and knowing that another pupil is often careless can lower it. Marking without names and in a different order each time reduces all of these. The aim is not to remove judgement but to make it shared.
What happens in a good moderation meeting
The strongest moment is the pause after marks are written down but before anyone speaks. Everybody has committed to a view. The facilitator then picks a piece with a gap and asks each person for the sentence in the work and the words in the rubric that support their mark. Arguing about the evidence is safe: nobody is being judged, only the work.
Agreement comes from the conversation, not from a vote. When the group settles on a mark for each piece, keep the pieces as anchors for each level and note any rubric words that caused trouble. Next time, new teachers or new pupils can start from the anchors. Aim for agreement within one level and check by marking a new piece alone a few weeks later. If you teach alone, a colleague from another school, or re-marking your own work after a week, gives a smaller version of the same benefit.
Examples from the classroom
7A and 7B in Samarkand
Scene. Dilnoza and Nodira each bring five anonymous Grade 7 history answers. Alone, they differ by two levels on a long, neat answer that contains wrong facts. Dilnoza says she liked the structure; Nodira points to the sentence about Amir Temur that is wrong. They agree on level 1 for facts and choose the answer as an anchor for 'starting'. The meeting lasts 35 minutes.
Insight. Pointing to evidence in the work, not to the writer, resolves disagreements and creates an anchor.
A school with one teacher per subject
Scene. Jasur is the only physics teacher in a rural school near Fergana. He photographs five anonymous lab reports and sends them with the rubric to a physics teacher in a nearby school. Each marks them alone and they compare by phone for 20 minutes. They differ on the criterion for conclusions and rewrite its descriptor together.
Insight. Moderation does not need a large school; two teachers and a phone call are enough.
Halo effect found
Scene. Malika marks five Grade 8 essays blind, in a mixed order. One essay she had thought was weak, because of messy handwriting, earns the second-highest total. She had first marked the same pupil's work on her usual pile and given it a lower mark. She keeps the essay as an anchor and reminds herself to read content before looking at presentation.
Insight. Blind marking with the rubric makes our own habits visible.
Common pitfalls
- Talking about the pupil ('he always tries') instead of the work.
- Averaging two marks instead of finding the evidence for the disagreement.
- Holding one long meeting a year instead of short regular ones.
- Forgetting to record the anchors and rubric changes, so the next meeting starts again.
Mark Blind, Then Agree Anchors
- Alone (10 min): mark the four anonymous Grade 7 history answers (Silk Road) with the rubric in your Activity Kit. Give each criterion a level from 1 to 3 and write the total. Do not talk yet.
- In groups of four (5 min): write all totals on the shared grid. Circle every piece where the highest and lowest total differ by 2 or more.
- Discuss the circled pieces (15 min). Each person points to a sentence in the answer and the rubric words that support their mark. Look for the halo effect: did neat handwriting or length change your mark?
- Agree a final mark for each piece, choose one anchor example per level and rewrite one rubric word that caused confusion (10 min).
- Plan a real routine (10 min): which colleague, which grade, which five pieces, which date within the next four weeks, and who will keep the folder.
Your facilitator will guide you through this activity in the session.
Questions to discuss
- How far apart were the first totals? Which criterion caused most disagreement, and why?
- Did anyone change a mark after discussion? What persuaded them: a sentence in the work or the person speaking?
- What is the smallest version of this routine that you can actually keep going at your school?
Reflect
- When did you last compare your marking with a colleague's on the same piece of work?
- Which effect (halo, order, knowing the pupil) do you think affects you most?
- Which colleague would you invite to your first moderation meeting?
Try it tomorrow
- Invite one colleague to mark five anonymous pieces from your classes alone, then compare for 30 minutes.
- Mark your next set without looking at names and in a different order than usual.
- Save one anchor piece for each level in a folder with a note on why it fits.
Further reading and links
Consistency comes from looking at real work together and agreeing on evidence, not from stricter marking.