[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-619048-105":59,"doc-detail-619048-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","exceptional-arrangements-for-assessment-and-grading-in-2020-consultation-response-6-may-2020","Exceptional arrangements for assessment and grading in 2020 - Consultation response - 6 May 2020","","AQA consultation response addressing Ofqual’s proposed extraordinary regulatory framework for 2020 assessment and grading. The submission evaluates approaches to qualifications outside scope, the learners included in the framework, and the balance between delegation, flexibility, and consistency. AQA largely supports key principles and the use of calculated results, while calling for safeguards, clearer guidance on evidence thresholds, and stronger standardisation through regulation to manage risks across awarding organisations.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":20,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/exam/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/exceptional-arrangements-for-assessment-and-grading-in-2020-consultation-response-6-may-2020/619048/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/exceptional-arrangements-for-assessment-and-grading-in-2020-consultation-response-6-may-2020/619048.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Patrick","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-03","2026-10-20",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":34},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What does AQA say about qualifications falling outside the extraordinary regulatory framework’s scope?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"AQA agrees that awarding organisations are well placed to decide whether calculation of results, adaptation, or delay is appropriate.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How does AQA view the proposed balance between delegation, flexibility, and consistency?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"AQA disagrees, arguing standardisation should be enforced through regulation to ensure consistency and to reduce unacceptable risks from high delegation levels.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What evidence does AQA say is needed for providing calculated results?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"AQA agrees that approaches must be based on at least one source of trusted evidence and a sufficiently robust quality assurance basis, while noting challenges in comparability and bias across centres.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},619048,1792502240,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":19,"category_name":20,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":34,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":29,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},549758146520,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/80002397d8c0411e94?_k=1775819394049821470","Consultation response  \nExceptional arrangements for assessment and grading in 2020  \n6 May 2020  \n1. To what extent do you agree or disagree with our proposed approach to qualifications which fall out of scope of the extraordinary regulatory framework?  \nAQA agrees. Awarding organisations are well placed to determine if a calculation of results, adaptation or delay is appropriate. It will be important for awarding organisations to have clear understanding and guidance from Ofqual to support any decisions being made and, where possible, ensure the approach being adopted aligns with approaches elsewhere.  \n2. To what extent do you agree or disagree with our proposed approach to determining to which learners the extraordinary regulatory framework applies?  \nAQA agrees – and it would be helpful where possible to have consistency across GQ and VTQ. The framework needs to be explicit around learners that are included, in particular, it will be important to have clarity around Year 10 and 12 learners.  \n3. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the balance we are proposing to strike  \nacross the 3 elements of: delegation to awarding organisations; flexibility; and consistency?  \nAQA disagrees. Standardisation between awarding organisations should beenforced through regulation, to ensure consistency. There are unacceptable risks around the level of delegation being passed to awarding organisations for these qualifications.  \n4. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the key principles we have set out?  \nAQA agrees, although we note that ‘as many students as possible’ and ‘as reliable as possible’ are somewhat vague, and that the best possible outcomes will not always be possible for all students. We would seek further clarity on the tension between the approach of being flexible and that of being consistent.  \n5. To what extent do you agree or disagree with our proposal to allow awarding organisations to deliver their qualifications as normal where they are able to?  \nAQA agrees. There should, however, be safeguards in place to ensure unreasonable expectations are not made which might put students, teachers and deliverers at risk.  \n6. To what extent do you agree or disagree with our proposed approaches for the different categories of qualifications?  \nAQA agrees. There should, however, be safeguards in place to ensure unreasonable expectations are not made which might put students, teachers and deliverers at risk.  \n7. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the aims of our proposed approach to calculating results?  \nAQA agrees.  \n8. To what extent do you agree or disagree with our proposal that the minimum  \nevidential threshold is that any approach to providing calculated results needs to be based upon at least one source of trusted evidence along with a sufficiently robust basis for quality assurance?  \nAQA agrees that at least one source of evidence should be used to calculate results, while noting that there will be different levels of evidence available for learners within different centres and there may be challenges in ensuring levels of trusted evidence are comparable and do not introduce bias into the approach to calculating results.  \nFor example, for our large-entry Functional Skills qualifications, we are able to replicate the secure statistical approach which will be used to provide estimates for GCSE awards. For our Level 3 Tech Levels, and Personal and Social Education awards, secure statistical data are not always available; quality assurance would normally be achieved by comparison with historic levels of verified/moderated results.  \n9. Do you have any other comments on the approach to providing learners with calculated results?  \nAQA does not think that awarding organisations should be required “to issue results for units even where a learner was not due to be awarded their qualification this summer”.  \nFirst, doing so would require a large increase in the number of centre assessment grades to be","cbCailpOxOS1bxsO","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCailpOxOS1bxsO","pdf",160114,"English","# Consultation response\n## Proposed approach to qualifications outside scope\n## Applying the framework to learners\n## Balance between delegation, flexibility, consistency\n## Key principles and clarity\n## Delivery of qualifications as normal\n## Approaches by qualification category\n## Aims for calculating results\n## Evidential threshold for calculated results\n## Additional comments on calculated results\n## Adaptation of assessments\n## Delaying or rescheduling assessments","[{\"question\":\"What does AQA say about qualifications falling outside the extraordinary regulatory framework’s scope?\",\"answer\":\"AQA agrees that awarding organisations are well placed to decide whether calculation of results, adaptation, or delay is appropriate.\"},{\"question\":\"How does AQA view the proposed balance between delegation, flexibility, and consistency?\",\"answer\":\"AQA disagrees, arguing standardisation should be enforced through regulation to ensure consistency and to reduce unacceptable risks from high delegation levels.\"},{\"question\":\"What evidence does AQA say is needed for providing calculated results?\",\"answer\":\"AQA agrees that approaches must be based on at least one source of trusted evidence and a sufficiently robust quality assurance basis, while noting challenges in comparability and bias across centres.\"}]","Exceptional arrangements for assessment and grading in 2020 - Consultation response - 6 May 2020 | PDF",1792462399,15]