Introduction
Marking pupils’ work has always been a core element of a teacher’s role. Marking is a professional activity which should be undertaken by teachers in accordance with their knowledge and expertise. In recent years, however, concerns about excessive requirements in respect of marking pupils’ work have become more acute, with the introduction of draconian ‘deep’, ‘double’ or even ‘triple’ marking policies. These are often combined with regular and often unannounced ‘book looks’. Such developments can undermine teachers’ professional autonomy, leaving them constantly on edge, fearful of scrutiny and under pressure to mark excessively, often with no educational benefit.
Excessive marking requirements cause additional unnecessary workload but are also indicative of an accountability system that no longer trusts and respects teachers.
This document sets out:
- how marking requirements have effectively got ‘out of control;
- how the Government and Ofsted have responded to NUT pressure, albeit belatedly;
- NUT views on reasonable expectations in respect of marking polices; and
- how NUT members can act collectively to protect themselves from excessive marking requirements.
There is evidence that, thanks to NUT pressure, both the Government and Ofsted now accept that there is a problem with excessive marking and are beginning to make concessions. These concessions are described later in this document and should be used by NUT members to bring about change in school marking requirements.
What have members told us about marking expectations in their school?
- that there are often ridiculous expectations to mark every piece of work, not to benefit students, but to provide as evidence in the event of an Ofsted visit;
- that it can be seen as more important to show evidence of a dialogue with students than to actually have a dialogue with them;
- that it does not always serve an educational purpose and is sometimes ‘marking for marking’s sake’;
- that there can be unreasonable expectations that a comment will be included on every item of writing;
- that there are regular changes to marking policies requiring previous marking to be re-marked in line with the new policy;
- that it is too time-consuming - marking every piece of work every day for 30 children can take two to three hours per day.
- that if too much time is spent on marking, there is no time left for planning.
- that marking policies can be over-complicated, e.g., two stars and a wish, use of highlights, SPG (spelling, punctuation and grammar), and verbal feedback
- that ultimately where marking policies are over-complicated they may be used to make it more difficult for teachers to meet appraisal objectives and thus lead to denial of pay progression.
DfE Workload Challenge Survey 2014
Further evidence about the impact of excessive marking on teachers emerged from the DfE’s Workload Challenge consultation which ran between 22 October and 21 November 2014. Respondents were asked about tasks contributing to unnecessary and unproductive workload and two specific tasks were reported as being burdensome for the majority of sample respondents. The second most ‘unnecessary and unproductive task’ listed was excessive marking, in terms of detail and frequency required. This was highlighted by 53 per cent of respondents. (The top unnecessary and unproductive task was ‘inputting, monitoring and analysing data’, mentioned by 56 per cent of respondents.). The volume of marking was an issue for many respondents, commonly reported to be hundreds of books per week/fortnight. With very little time available within lessons or school hours for marking, respondents commonly reported working late into the evening and at weekends to ensure that all marking was completed on time.
How did the Government respond to these findings?
The Government’s response to the findings of the Workload Challenge was disappointing generally, and in relation specifically to marking it made no proposals, despite the fact that excessive marking was shown to be the second most burdensome activity in which teachers were involved, causing unnecessary and unproductive workload. The response does, however, at Annex C, give examples of practical measures that schools have undertaken in order to reduce unnecessary workload, which teachers and head teachers are urged to consider. These include a recommendation for ‘sparing use of more detailed marking and written feedback’. You can view this document at
What are Ofsted’s expectations about marking?
Ofsted does not set out particular expectations in relation to marking. In its March 2015 ‘Clarification for Schools’, Ofsted makes clear that “it is up to schools themselves to determine their practices and for leadership teams to justify these on their own merits, rather than by reference to the inspection handbook”.
So, school management can no longer use Ofsted as the justification for unreasonable marking requirements. If school management wishes to introduce a new marking initiative, then it must be prepared to defend the decision itself, rather than blame Ofsted.
What exactly does Ofsted say about pupils’ work?
Set out below is the relevant extract from the March 2015 ‘Ofsted Inspections – Clarification for Schools’ document. This document was originally published in October 2014 and it is notable that the section on marking, reproduced below, has been considerably expanded to reflect concerns about unnecessary workload related to marking and the role of Ofsted in this.
Pupils’ Work
Ofsted does not expect to see a particular frequency or quantity of work in pupils’ books or folders. Ofsted recognises that the amount of work in books and folders will depend on the subject being studied and the age and ability of the pupils.
Ofsted recognises that marking and feedback to pupils, both written and oral, are important aspects of assessment. However, Ofsted does not expect to see any specific frequency, type or volume of marking and feedback; these are for the school to decide through its assessment policy. Marking and feedback should be consistent with that policy, which may cater for different subjects and different age groups of pupils in different ways, in order to be effective and efficient in promoting learning.
While inspectors will consider how written and oral feedback are used to promote learning, Ofsted does not expect to see any written record of oral feedback provided to pupils by teachers.
If it is necessary for inspectors to identify marking as an area for improvement for a school, they will pay careful attention to the way recommendations are written to ensure that these do not drive unnecessary workload for teachers.
In a ‘Message to Inspectors’ in Ofsted’s March 2015 School Inspections Update, Sean Harford, Ofsted’s National Director: Schools raises the issue of marking, reminding inspectors that they should not expect to see ‘any specific frequency, type or volume of marking; these are for the school to decide through its assessment policy’.
Significantly he goes on to state that marking and assessment need to be ‘useful for pupils’ but also ‘sustainable for teachers’, reflecting a concern for workload that hashitherto not been expressed by Ofsted. The full version of this document can be viewed here.
What would constitute reasonable marking arrangements?
It is reasonable to establish a consistent approach to the way in which pupils’ work is marked so that students feel valued and have a clear understanding of how well they are doing, and what the next steps are in their learning. Regular marking will enhance learning by helping pupils to improve their work and will inform teacher planning and assessment. It will also help parents to understand their child’s strengths and areas that need to be developed.
Marking does not always have to be undertaken by the teacher alone, sometimes it is appropriate for the teacher to mark alongside the pupil, for the pupil to mark their own work, or for pupils to mark each other’s work. The colour of the pen does not matter so long as it is in contrast to the pupil’s writing.
Beyond these basic principles, the NUT believes it is up to teachers to exercise their professional autonomy as to the frequency and type of marking that is appropriate. Teachers who come under pressure to mark in too detailed a way, according to their own professional judgement, are advised to highlight the Government-endorsed suggestion in the Workload Challenge response that there should be ‘sparing use of more detailed marking and written feedback’, as described above. Where marking policies do not seem to be supportive of learning, it is important that NUT members are able to challenge this. See section below on our Action Short of Strike Action (ASOS) campaign for information on how to do this.
What is the NUT’s view on ‘book looks’?
These should be kept to a minimum. Unless there is a specific school-wide reason for conducting a book look, there is no reason to conduct them on a school-wide basis. The principles of proportionality and professional dialogue should always be followed. If ‘book looks’ do take place, unless there are particular concerns about a teacher, they should be infrequent and followed up by high quality professional dialogue.
What is triple marking?
Triple marking involves teachers writing detailed feedback about a pupil’s work, on which the pupil writes comments, to which the teacher then responds. It is also known as ‘deep’ marking. It is a strategy adopted by schools, partly in response to the frequency with which new inspection frameworks have been introduced.
Is there any evidence base for this approach?
No, but there is plenty of evidence that it is detrimental to teachers’ working lives and of unproven benefit to pupils. It is clear from the thousands of responses to the NUT’s 2014 Workload Survey, and from responses to the Government’s Workload Challenge, that it is a major course of excessive workload.
Are all schools aware of what Ofsted has said about marking?
They should be as Nicky Morgan has written to all schools. However, making changes to marking policies is unlikely to happen simply as a result of head teachers receiving the Ofsted clarification. NUT members need to help bring about change by discussing in NUT groups what changes they would like to see implemented, before raising these with management.
What if school management refuses to act on either the Ofsted guidance, the Government-endorsed good practice in Annex C of the Workload Challenge findings, or the concerns of NUT members?
In such cases, NUT members have recourse to the Action Short of Strike Action (ASOS) programme which allows NUT members, alongside NASUWT members, to refuse to participate in particular activities which generate excessive and unnecessary workload and/or have no educational benefit.
Our ASOS instructions (see allow members to refuse to implement existing and new management-led policies and working practices which have not been workload impact assessed and agreed by the NUT.