Updated on
October 9, 2026
KS2 Writing Moderation 2027: A Practical Process Guide
Prepare for England KS2 writing moderation with ordinary evidence, support context and clear roles. Use fictional cases and a printable discussion note.
How should teachers prepare for KS2 writing moderation?
For England’s key stage 2 (KS2) English writing, moderation reviews teacher-assessment judgements against national standards. The 2027 guidance distinguishes internal and peer discussion from statutory local-authority external validation. It also requires internal moderation before an external visit. Use ordinary evidence and explain the writing’s context and support; this guide supplies no automatic grades.
Start with the task and the help given. In our fictional Year 6 English case, the class writes request letters about a reading corner. The teacher notes who will read them, how the class prepared and which spellings were given. Colleagues then have a clear question to discuss, not an automatic verdict.
Key takeaways
- Separate internal and peer discussion from statutory local-authority external moderation.
- Bring ordinary reliable evidence with its task, purpose and support context.
- Keep professional judgement with teachers. A note or tool cannot certify a result.
In this article
What process does this guide cover?
The Standards and Testing Agency (STA) publishes key stage 2 teacher-assessment guidance for 2027. It was updated on 14 September 2026 for the 2026–27 school year in England. Our guide covers selected writing-process rules, not all primary assessments or other United Kingdom (UK) countries.
Key stage 2 (KS2) teacher assessment makes end-of-stage judgements against national standards. Moderation reviews how those judgements fit the standards. This differs from planning the next lesson. Our Department for Education (DfE) writing guide concerns non-statutory teaching guidance, not these assessment rules.
Internal, peer and external moderation have different roles
| Form | Source role | Important condition |
|---|---|---|
| Internal | A non-statutory collaborative school process, strongly encouraged by STA. | Section 9.7 requires cohort judgements to have been internally moderated before an external visit. |
| Peer | Non-statutory discussion with other schools or networks, strongly favoured by STA. | A peer discussion does not replace the statutory external process. |
| External | Statutory local-authority validation of KS2 English-writing judgements. | Check the current school participation and local arrangements in the official guidance. |
STA 2027, sections 8 and 9.7. Non-statutory describes the general internal process; it does not erase the specific preparation requirement before external moderation.
A local authority (LA) carries out the external process. A school’s own agenda is not an official visit protocol. Discuss the evidence and reasons clearly. The discussion does not certify a judgement or prove a visit took place.
Use the statutory framework for the judgement under review. Its main principles say it is for end-point assessment, not progress tracking or lesson methods. For teaching choices, see modelled, shared, guided and independent writing.
Bring ordinary evidence and keep the writing purpose visible
STA section 5.5 asks for evidence that is reliable and can be shown. Use day-to-day work. A workbook may contain what is needed; projects or teacher notes may also help. Avoid gathering more than is needed. These passages give no fixed number of pieces for everyone.
What was the writing for? Was it explaining an idea, telling a story or making a request? Describe the task and help given. Keep the review about what the writing does for its reader, not a hunt for features or one required folder.
Keep four parts of the context together
PurposeWhat was the task trying to communicate, and to whom?
PreparationWhat discussion, topic or experience preceded the writing?
SupportWhat words, criteria, models, feedback or tools were supplied?
Source questionWhich condition or statement needs professional clarification?
An authored discussion aid, not an official moderation form, a required record format or an independence classifier.
Look across the work where the judgement needs it. One piece can support several statements without settling everything. Keep the relevant condition and evidence in view. A feature total does not replace the framework’s main principles.
Independence needs the support context
STA section 6.2 says judgements must use writing the learner produced independently. Discussion and rehearsal can come before it. A piece may show that the writer met some statements without help, but not others. The source gives teacher-provided spellings as an example: composition or grammar may still be shown independently.
| Context | Check | Avoid this claim |
|---|---|---|
| Topic discussion or rehearsal | How learners used their own ideas and choices, alongside the other independence conditions. | Any discussion makes writing non-independent. |
| Teacher-provided spellings | Which spelling was supplied and which statements the work might independently support. | One supplied spelling decides the status of every aspect. |
| Purpose-level success criteria | Whether criteria describe the task’s purpose and effect, or direct the expected outcome. | All success criteria are banned. |
| Specific adult edits | Whether the writing was edited or rewritten through direct adult intervention. | A neat final version automatically demonstrates independence. |
STA 2027, section 6.2. This table records questions, not individual eligibility, grade or piece-status decisions.
Criteria that direct words, features or where to put them differ from task-purpose criteria. Detailed criteria for one aspect may still leave other, unmentioned statements shown independently. Keep that condition. One label should not decide the status of the whole collection.
The source also names modelled or heavily scaffolded writing, copying, specific adult edits and work written or edited by artificial intelligence (AI). It distinguishes automatic electronic corrections from work done with that aid turned off. Check the exact source and facts. The note cannot decide independence.
Fictional Year 6 case: request letters
Authored process-discussion case. The class plans letters asking a fictional headteacher to improve a reading corner. Learners choose their own proposals and reasons after a topic discussion. The teacher supplies some domain-specific spellings. No learner text, name or grade is included.
| Case fact | Ask | Keep open |
|---|---|---|
| The task concerns a request and its reader. | How was the overall purpose described? | No required feature count is created here. |
| Learners discussed ideas and chose proposals. | How does that preparation relate to section 6.2’s conditions? | Discussion alone supplies no whole-piece verdict. |
| Some spellings were supplied. | Which spelling evidence was supported, and what other statements might the work show independently? | No automatic grade or whole-collection decision follows. |
A fictional discussion, not an official exemplar, a model answer or a moderation finding.
First clarify the help given and the source question. Then discuss the evidence using the framework. An unknown fact stays unknown in the note. Neat writing does not fill that gap.
For a request task, see Talk for Writing. For the place of a model, see writing exemplars. Teaching with a model differs from using work as independent statutory evidence.
Fictional Year 6 case: information leaflets
Authored process-discussion case. Learners prepare information leaflets for visitors to an invented school garden. A peer discussion concerns whether the information is clear. The teacher also identifies omitted punctuation and directs specific corrections on a later version. The discussion needs to distinguish those contexts; no actual writing is reproduced.
| Case fact | Ask | Source condition |
|---|---|---|
| Peers discussed the leaflet’s purpose and clarity. | Did the writer make their own changes, or follow specific directed edits? | Self-editing after peer evaluation is a different condition from direct adult rewriting. |
| An adult identified punctuation and directed corrections. | Which version and changes are being considered? | STA identifies writing edited through direct adult intervention as not independent. |
| The available context is incomplete. | What needs clarifying before evidence is relied on? | This guide supplies no grade, certification or individual decision. |
An invented record of process facts. The table is neither a statutory decision tree nor a judgement on a learner.
Keep the versions and changes clear. Use the source and school process for the judgement. For teaching feedback, see assessment for learning. Its formative purpose differs from end-KS2 reporting.
Build a writing-context discussion note
Load either fictional case or edit the fields for a planned discussion. Use no real learner names, text or personal records. The result copies your entries and source question. It makes no independence, grade or compliance decision. The print action includes the note rather than the article.
One writing task, one context, one source question
An optional local aid. Entries are not submitted. No learner grade, independence status or official certification is produced.
Download the fictional writing-context note (PDF). This is the coherent request-letter case, with space for handwritten discussion notes.
External preparation and the published 2027 schedule
Section 9.7 requires internal moderation of cohort judgements before an external visit, with evidence available. Use day-to-day work. Check actual arrangements with the responsible local authority and current source. This article records no real visit or agreement.
| Stage | 2027 guidance schedule | Check before relying on it |
|---|---|---|
| Notification | From 14 May 2027. | Whether the school is selected and the actual arrangements. |
| External visits | 7–29 June 2027. | Current official dates and the agreed visit details. |
| Assessment data submission | By 29 June 2027. | The current submission arrangements and responsible person. |
STA 2027, section 3: these dates may be subject to change. No live portal transaction, submission or local agreement is claimed.
Section 9.8 says LA moderators must not dictate how evidence looks or is presented, including expecting portfolios or checklists. This limits what moderators may require. It does not ban schools’ ordinary records. Invent no required folder, piece quota or record format.
For deciding what the next lesson needs, see formative and summative assessment. For mapping writing opportunities, see curriculum mapping. Neither replaces the current statutory process.
Teacher voices
Verbatim short excerpts of dated public reactions to writing-moderation discussions. They report experience or opinion, not regulatory guidance or proof of assessment outcomes.
@CurrConDated public experience excerpt
Thank you to @DominoAlliance for making me feel so welcome leading some writing moderation
2 May 2024 (UTC)Post by @CurrCon, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
@WoodchurchRoadDated public opinion excerpt
Proud of the professional curiosity in the room.
12 November 2025 (UTC)Post by @WoodchurchRoad, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
What do the official sources establish?
| Original source | Use here | Boundary |
|---|---|---|
| STA teacher-assessment guidance 2027 | Process roles, ordinary evidence, independence conditions and dated arrangements. | No individual grade, local agreement or legal-case verdict. |
| Teacher-assessment framework main principles | End-point assessment purpose and broad day-to-day evidence. | Not a lesson-method checklist, progress tracker or full individual framework application. |
Official policy and assessment documents, not empirical proof that this note or a particular teaching routine improves attainment.
Section 8 says schools should not rely on artificial intelligence (AI) tools or comparative judgement to make or moderate teacher-assessment judgements. The guidance also describes assisted creation of moderator standardisation materials. These uses differ. Neither makes this note or an AI reply a grading tool.
Scope and limitations
This is a dated England end-KS2 writing-process guide. It does not cover every school’s participation, local agreement, individual assessment or other UK years. Use the original current guidance for the actual school process.
The invented cases use no real names, learner text, grades or official assessment material. The note copies entries. It decides no independence, eligibility, grade or legal issue. Individual framework use and exceptional cases are outside this guide.
Feature counting and extra evidence collection can displace the writing purpose. That is an authored teacher concern, not a reported public quotation. Keep the task’s reader and effect visible, then use the relevant source condition. The framework does not become a quota of features for every new piece.
Frequently asked questions
Is internal moderation always optional?
STA describes the general internal process as non-statutory, but section 9.7 requires internal moderation before an external visit.
Does discussion make writing non-independent?
Not automatically. Section 6.2 recognises discussion and rehearsal, with the other conditions and statement-specific evidence still important.
Must we create a portfolio or collect a fixed number of pieces?
The selected guidance supplies no universal piece quota. The portfolio/checklist constraint concerns what local-authority moderators may dictate, not a school-record ban.
Can AI make or moderate the judgement?
STA says schools should not rely on AI tools or comparative judgement to make or moderate teacher-assessment judgements. This note makes no judgement.
What does the printed note prove?
It records your entries and an open source question. It proves no learner grade, independence status or compliance.
Plan the writing opportunity behind the discussion
Choose a genuine writing purpose for the next task. Keep its audience, preparation and support clear. Use the note for the question colleagues need to resolve, then start planning the Year 6 writing lesson. Teaching and moderation keep their distinct purposes.
For how writing fits a wider programme, see curriculum design.
References
- Standards and Testing Agency (2026). Key stage 2 teacher assessment guidance 2027. Updated 14 September 2026, relevant to 2026–27. Selected sections 3, 5.5, 6.2, 8 and 9.7–9.8.
- Standards and Testing Agency. Teacher assessment frameworks at the end of key stage 2. For use from 2018/19 onwards. Main principles, printed pages 1–2. No individual standards application is supplied here.
