Guidance for NUT Members on

Reasonable Marking Arrangements

Introduction
Marking pupils work has always been a core element of a teachers 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 are indications that, thanks to NUT pressure, both the Government and Ofsted
now admit 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 markings 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 DfEs 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 Governments 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 www.gov.uk/government/publications/workloadchallenge-for-schools-government-response.
What are Ofsteds 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.

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 childs
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 others work. The colour of the pen does not
matter so long as it is in contrast to the pupils 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 NUTs 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 pupils 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
NUTs 2014 Workload Survey, and from responses to the Governments 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 www.teachers.org.uk/asos) 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.