[Jeremy Scott]

09/05/2016 at 8:19 am

Whilst being verified recently, I was told that SQA currently has a survey out to gather views on internal assessment of coursework in Computing Science (and other Technologies subjects). The URL is:
https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/VVNLMXJ

I am told by SQA that the survey was supposed to have been included in a news update on 23rd March (24th?), but the request to include it in the update was not acted upon by the communications team. For this reason, SQA says that the original deadline of April 29th has been extended – the survey remains open just now and will stay open until a month after it is included in a Centre News update.

Please complete the survey and have your say.

For what it’s worth, internal marking and verification of my own N5, H and AH candidates’ coursework for the SQA has taken me 56 hours this year (I kept an accurate log). This cost a significant part of my Easter holiday.
Apologies for cross-posting, but I wanted to reach as many colleagues as possible.

[speirs]

12/05/2016 at 7:58 pm

Thanks for the information Jeremy, have now completed the survey. No consolation I know, but you are not alone in the number of hours spent marking and remarking SQA assessments. I imagine I am not far off that and do not teach AH.
J

[Carl Roderick]

13/05/2016 at 10:32 am

So many colleagues are appalled when I tell them that we do not get paid and have to give up our free time and holidays.

I am sure this is a union matter and we should all take this up with our union reps asap. I am not an expert in Law but what about setting a precedent? We should get back payments.

[Peter Thoresen]

03/09/2016 at 8:28 am

from EIS email bulletin Sep 2016:

“The SQA announced at the National Qualification Working Group that teachers in Computing and Technology who have been required to undertake unpaid coursework marking – an issue the EIS has pursued on a number of occasions – would now be paid for said work.

This will apply for this session and for next, with SQA reviewing assessment options longer term, with a view to bringing the marking of all coursework items in these subjects in-house.”

Hopefully this will be at a rate on par with other subject markers, not the tens of pence we used to get paid per candidate.

[Graham Stoddart]

28/11/2016 at 10:25 am

So, if we are being paid, this is an additional activity.  Therefore, I’m pretty sure I can say thanks but no thanks to the marking.  Also, what about the last decade?  This is an utter mess.

[Enrico Vanni]

28/11/2016 at 10:50 am

Good thread revival BTW.  Guess we’ve all been busy with other things.

I raised the issue that the marking was an additional activity with my HT (who was also the EIS representative on the GTC) and he agreed with me that it looked bad that the SQA previously paid teachers for marking internal assessments but had suddenly stopped.  The payments constituted a legal acceptance that the marking activities were ‘over-and-above’ standard contractual duties, so what exactly made someone, somewhere, think that they could smuggle this change in under the radar?

I had heard it said at various events that Computing teachers had ‘agreed’ to handle internal marking, but when I challenged those making this claim none could produce the minutes of any meeting or results of any consultation to back it up, plus as no formal group representing Computing teachers exists then to make the claim  it would mean every single teacher would have had to have been asked, and I (and many other present) could not recall every being asked.

The problem now for the SQA is that goodwill has evaporated, and as far as Computing is concerned their reputation is tainted as a result of demonstrably poor quality control in their documentation and assessments.  I know that this is because of the constraints they have been under, but the damage has been done.

If I thought that when it does eventually go to external marking the process would be sensibly conducted with proper markers meetings and discussions over what constitutes acceptable answers, based on assessments that are not woolly and error-strewn, then I would willingly take part.

It is however going to take a lot of work from certain people to convince me that it isn’t going to be more hassle than it is worth.

[Tommy McKeirnan]

28/11/2016 at 12:26 pm

Totally agree with everything you say. I think it about time that all computing teachers say the same and stand up and be counted. We have Larry Flannigan of the EIS coming to the school tomorrow and this is a question I am looking for clarification on. If the SQA are offering payment (how much?) we cannot be legally bound to do this, therefore we should have the option to refuse to mark (if we think the amount offered is not adequate) and they can then pay a marker to do this just like they do to mark the exam paper with contributes to the other 60% of the final grade. Marking these coursework’s also increases our workload as these coursework marks are verified by the SQA which means two members of the department need to mark each coursework which is then remarked (verified) by the SQA. My point is just let the SQA mark the coursework as it cuts out verification and reduces teachers workload. Also if all other subjects are sending coursework’s to the SQA to be marked computing should have the same option. If they insist on us marking then we should get back payment for this at higher, national 5 and Standard grade for the last 10+ years.

[Andy McSwan]

20/03/2017 at 2:39 pm

Hi all,

I thought you might be interested in this, we’ve just been given paperwork about the payment arrangements for this year’s assignments:

N5: £3.56
Higher: 4.75
Adv. Higher:£7.13

I also have received from the SSTA the following advice regarding this year’s assignments: SSTA Guidance ‘Action Short of Strike Action’ Phase 3

Personally I’m going to inform my HT that I’m not willing to do this.

[Andrew Douglas]

20/03/2017 at 2:49 pm

Thanks for posting this Andy. I wasn’t aware of the current/ updated arrangement (poor communication from the SQA once again).

Can I ask if this is SQA payment arrangements documentation or from your local authority? Nothing has been mentioned in my school about the paperwork or payment and obviously if I am entitled to payment for marking assignments I would like to obtain it!

Thanks,

[Mr Stagg]

20/03/2017 at 3:38 pm

If that is the case for the pay arrangements for the CW then is seems a bit strange.

Buisness Mngt get £9.50 per higher CW (worth 30%)

History and Modern Studies Higher about the same for CW (worth 33%)

and Nat 5 History get £7.13 per paper for CW.

 

Our CW is 40% yet we get 1/2 the amount?

 

Seems a little unjust and likely to be under the minimum wage, I would be expecting at least an hour a paper.

 

Harry

[Jeremy Scott]

20/03/2017 at 4:17 pm

If Andy’s information is correct (and I’ve yet to get word in my own school), then we are being seriously short-changed here and are in now way receiving equitable treatment with our colleagues who are able to choose whether or not to mark SQA’s coursework for it

Earlier this year, I sought to find out what the coursework rates were in other subjects. After consulting with colleagues in other subjects and schools, I eventually spoke to Robert Shiell, SQA’s Appointee Services Manager, who gave me the following information regarding a sample of external coursework marking rates I asked for:

 

Subject	N5	Est. time allocation (min)*	H	Est. time allocation (min)*	AH	Est. time allocation (min)*
English	£4.75	20	£5.70	24	£14.25	60
Modern Studies	£7.13	30	£9.50	40	£16.63	70
Physics	£7.13	30	£9.50	40	£35.63	150
Chemistry	£7.13	30	£9.50	40	£35.63	150
Biology	£7.13	30	£9.50	40	£35.63	150

 

 

* All rates are per assignment and the estimated time taken to mark each one is reviewed by SQA each year. The notional rate SQA uses is £14.25 per hour. I commented that this seemed quite low, to which he replied “It has to come out of our grant from Scottish Government and is public money after all.”

He also cautioned against assuming that CS/D&T teachers would get the same, as internal assessment may be different. He appears to have been quite prophetic.

A survey on CompEdNet a while back suggested an average of 47 minutes to mark an N5 coursework assignment (which at £14.25 per hour = £11.16 per assignment). A Higher assignment takes a bit longer  – say one hour (£14.25 per assignment) and in my experience, an AH project takes a minimum of three hours (£42.75 per project).

Remember, too, that we are required by SQA (not our employer, but SQA) to carry out internal verification, which adds considerably to the task. Furthermore, we are also held accountable by SQA via the process of verification.

More to follow…

[Jeremy Scott]

20/03/2017 at 5:27 pm

If the rates in Andy’s earlier post are per assignment, then the hourly payment rates (based on my figures above to mark N5, H and AH assignments respectively, but not including time to perform internal verification) would appear to be:

• N5: £3.56  = £4.54 per hour (at 47 minutes per assignment)
  H: £4.75  = £4.75 per hour (at 1 hour per assignment)
  AH: £7.13  = £2.38 per hour (at 3 hours per assignment)

Contrast these figures with the legal national minimum wage of £7.50 per hour (from 1st April 2017).

Who would be a CS teacher with payment like this? Just as well it isn’t a shortage subject!

Oh, hang on…

 

[Marc McWhirter]

21/03/2017 at 9:35 am

It’s insulting. I was paid more to pour coffee in Starbucks as a student.

[Paul Alexander Brandt]

21/03/2017 at 9:40 am

Why is there no payment being offered for marking the N4 AVU? Some schools will potentially have lots of candidates doing N4. Also some of us have candidates that are being dual presented.

[Jeremy Scott]

18/04/2017 at 12:08 pm

Following legal advice on the vexed issue of enforced and hitherto unpaid marking of SQA’s Computing Science coursework in personal time, I wrote to Dr Janet Brown, Chief Executive of the SQA on behalf of CS teachers at my school on 16 February 2017. I noted that my words would also speak for other teachers of CS and Design & Technology (DT) subjects to whom the same situation applies.

I pointed out that since I started teaching almost 30 years ago, I have never had an Easter holiday free from marking for SQA, in contrast with my colleagues in other subjects. However, unlike those colleagues, I was neither given the choice whether or not to do this work, nor payment.

Until recently, I had believed that this enforced, unpaid marking and verification of SQA’s coursework in my own time was a requirement of my job. Indeed, SQA has sought to reinforce this belief on numerous occasions by stating as much.

Following my recent legal advice, however, I now understand that I was never required to do this work at all. Nowhere in my written contract of employment does it state that I am required to do it, nor is it an implied term, as colleagues in other subjects do not do it.

However, I was clearly working at the behest and under the control of SQA, undertaking marking which it imposed on me. I was even accountable to SQA for the quality of my marking, which was reported on when selected for verification. So whilst I did not have a written contract with SQA, I was in fact employed as a worker for SQA under the terms of the Employment Rights Act of 1996. Consequently, SQA had a legal duty to pay me for that work.

I have also been advised that under the terms of Section 13 of the Employment Rights Act, back payment is due for these unpaid wages.

I have therefore asked Dr Brown to make arrangements to pay me and my colleagues the unpaid wages due to us for work done to date as soon as possible. If not, I have made it clear to Dr Brown that I will exercise my right under Section 23 of the Employment Rights Act to raise tribunal proceedings against SQA.

I requested a reply within 14 days, yet two months later I have yet to receive anything more than an acknowledgement of receipt from Dr Brown, so those tribunal proceedings now seem likely.

It is for individuals to decide what they should do in respect of this; however, I thought it only right to make colleagues aware of what is happening.