Moderating Writing Judgements for Pupils with SEND

To moderate writing judgements for pupils with SEND, discuss three things separately: what the writing shows, what support or adjustments were provided, and what the pupil contributed independently. Then consider the evidence against the relevant standard, using professional judgement rather than assuming that a diagnosis, support method or recording format determines the outcome.

Start with the writing, not the label

A pupil’s SEND identification or provision is important context, but it is not itself evidence for or against a writing judgement. In moderation, begin by identifying what can be seen in the pupil’s writing: for example, how ideas are developed, how sentences are constructed, or how spelling and punctuation are used. Use the criteria for the relevant assessment framework, rather than comparing the pupil with classmates or making assumptions about what they can achieve.

Keep the discussion focused on the pupil’s demonstrated writing ability. If a pupil has used a scribe, speech-to-text, a keyboard, word cards or adult prompts, that does not automatically answer whether a piece is useful evidence. The important question is what the pupil decided, composed, selected or corrected, and what another person or tool supplied. This distinction helps colleagues discuss access and authorship without treating a particular method of recording as proof of a particular standard.

Use a three-part moderation conversation

A shared sequence can make SEND writing assessment moderation clearer and less dependent on individual assumptions. For each sample, ask the following questions in order:

1. What does the evidence show? Point to specific features in the writing and relate them to the relevant criteria. 2. What support or adaptation was in place? Describe it factually, including tools, prompts, adult input and any changes to the task. 3. What did the pupil do independently? Establish which choices and writing decisions were the pupil’s own, and what was modelled, supplied, corrected or dictated by someone else. Record uncertainty rather than filling gaps with assumptions.

This order matters. Starting with a label or a list of adjustments can lead the group to over-credit or discount the writing before looking at it. Starting with the evidence, then clarifying the conditions in which it was produced, gives the team a common basis for its judgement. If colleagues disagree, return to the writing and specify which feature they interpret differently.

Describe support and adjustments precisely

Avoid vague notes such as “supported” or “with help”. They do not tell another teacher what happened. Instead, record the practical details: “adult read the task instructions; pupil chose the ideas and dictated each sentence; adult transcribed verbatim” or “pupil used a keyboard and spellcheck; no adult suggested vocabulary”. This makes it possible to discuss the effect of the support on the evidence without making assumptions about the pupil.

A reasonable adjustment or alternative recording method may enable a pupil to show their writing. It does not mean every feature of the resulting text can automatically be attributed to the pupil. For instance, if an adult rephrases a pupil’s dictated sentence, the final wording may no longer show the pupil’s own sentence construction. If the adult writes the pupil’s words verbatim, those words may show composition, while handwriting is not being evidenced by that sample. Keep the specific assessment focus in view.

Where the pupil uses assistive technology, explain which functions were available and which they used. A tool that records the pupil’s chosen words differs from one that predicts or changes wording; spellcheck may affect what a sample shows about spelling. Do not make a blanket rule that a tool either invalidates or guarantees evidence. Ask what contribution the pupil made and whether the feature being assessed can be judged from that piece.

Establish independence without demanding one recording method

Independence is about who made the writing decisions, not simply whether a pupil worked alone or used a pen. A pupil can work independently while using an agreed communication or recording method. Conversely, a handwritten piece may include substantial adult contribution. Moderators should distinguish access support from help that supplies the content, language or decisions being assessed.

For each sample, clarify whether instructions were repeated, questions prompted ideas, vocabulary was offered, sentence structures were modelled, or spelling and punctuation were corrected. Also note whether these supports are usual for the pupil or specific to the task. This is context for interpreting the evidence, not a reason to disregard it automatically. For more detail on the Year 6 context, see guidance on what counts as independent Year 6 writing.

As an illustrative case, not an official DfE exemplar, imagine a pupil who dictates a narrative to an adult. If the adult transcribes the pupil’s words without improving them, the sample may provide evidence of the pupil’s composition and language choices, but not necessarily of handwriting or independent spelling. If the adult also suggests sentence openings or edits the text, the group should identify that contribution and consider whether other writing provides clearer evidence for those aspects.

Judge the body of evidence against the standard

For KS2, teacher assessment of writing is statutory and may be subject to external moderation under the KS2 teacher assessment guidance. WTS, EXS and GDS judgements are best-fit judgements: the majority of evidence across the pupil’s independent writing should meet the standard, weighed using professional judgement. Best-fit does not mean selecting whichever band seems closest, or letting one well-supported piece determine the overall judgement.

If a particular weakness is relevant to a framework, use the term carefully: it refers to a significant gap that can prevent a pupil meeting a standard even when most other criteria are met. It is not a general label for a SEND-related difference or a single weaker piece. Explain which evidence indicates the gap and how it affects the judgement. The National Curriculum English programmes of study set out the statutory curriculum; the writing assessment framework provides the relevant assessment criteria. For an accessible overview, see an overview of the writing assessment framework.

At KS1, teacher assessment arrangements are non-statutory and optional under the 2025–26 reforms; check the current KS1 teacher assessment collection for applicable guidance. In every key stage, be clear whether a conversation concerns statutory assessment, non-statutory guidance or the school’s own internal moderation process. These are not interchangeable.

Make the moderation record useful and respectful

A concise record should capture the sample and context, not every detail of a pupil’s needs. Note the task, recording method, relevant support, the pupil’s independent contribution, the features discussed and the reason for the agreed judgement. For example: “Used speech-to-text; pupil selected and dictated wording; teacher did not edit; spelling evidence considered from separate unaided writing.” This helps colleagues understand the decision and revisit it consistently.

Use neutral, precise language. “Adult supplied two key vocabulary choices” is more useful than “could not write without help”. Avoid describing a pupil as unable to demonstrate a skill when the sample simply does not provide evidence of it. If evidence is insufficient or mixed, say so, then identify what further ordinary classroom writing would clarify the question. Do not create an artificial task solely to make a borderline judgement appear settled.

A practical checklist for your next meeting

For each pupil whose writing involves support or adapted recording, check that the group has: identified the relevant standard; examined the writing itself; described the support specifically; separated access from adult contribution; noted what the pupil composed or decided; considered the range of independent writing; and explained how the evidence supports the final judgement. If the discussion becomes general or diagnostic, bring it back to the sample and the assessment question.

Agreeing a common way to record these points can help colleagues compare like with like, while leaving room for professional judgement in individual cases. For broader meeting routines, see practical approaches to consistent writing moderation. The aim is not to remove context from assessment, nor to let context replace the writing: it is to understand what the pupil has demonstrated and make the judgement transparent.