Preparing for KS2 writing moderation: a practical guide

What does preparing for moderation actually involve?

Less than the folklore says. The STA is explicit that moderators must “not dictate what schools’ evidence should look like”, that local authorities “should not expect portfolios or checklists of evidence”, and that “teachers should avoid excessive evidence gathering”. The evidence is the day-to-day work already in pupils' books. Preparation, properly understood, is three habits: teach a genuinely broad writing curriculum, protect the independence of the pieces you intend to count, and know your books well enough to talk a stranger through any judgement.

This guide covers the practical side. For how the process itself works — who is selected, the sample sizes, what happens on the day — start with the complete guide to KS2 writing moderation; for the statements themselves, see the teacher assessment framework, explained.

How should you collect evidence across the year?

By planning the writing, not the paperwork. If the year's curriculum genuinely covers a range of purposes, audiences and forms, the evidence accumulates on its own. What needs deliberate attention:

• Plan for range early. The framework's first statement at every standard is about range of purpose. Map the year so that narrative, persuasion, explanation, formal and informal writing all appear before May — a spring-term gap is recoverable, a June one is not.
• Count cross-curricular writing in. The framework expects evidence to include writing from subjects other than English. Keep topic books to the same standard of independence and they double your evidence base for free.
• Let books show the process. Planning, drafting and pupil-led editing in the book is evidence of independence, not mess. A collection of suspiciously clean final pieces invites harder questions than one with visible working.
• Note the context as you go. A one-line record of how supported each assessed piece was — modelled, scaffolded, fully independent, AI feedback given — takes seconds in the moment and is exactly what the professional discussion runs on a year later.
• Moderate internally before it's statutory. The STA strongly encourages internal and inter-school moderation. A staff-meeting hour comparing borderline collections against the STA exemplification collections in the autumn is worth three in June.

What does a strong collection of writing look like?

There is no prescribed number of pieces — the guidance notes a pupil's workbook will often hold everything needed, and a single comprehensive piece can evidence several statements. Judged against the framework, a convincing collection typically shows:

• Every statement, somewhere. Across the collection — not in every piece — each “pupil can” statement at the awarded standard is demonstrable, including the spelling and handwriting statements at working towards and expected standard.
• Real range. Narrative and non-narrative; formal and informal; writing that addresses different audiences differently. Range is what separates “writes effectively for a range of purposes and audiences” from five versions of the same genre.
• Consistency over flukes. Qualifiers like “mostly correctly” are judged across the collection: one immaculate piece proves less than steady competence with occasional errors everywhere.
• Visible independence. Pupil-led editing, unprompted dictionary use, ideas that vary from the class model. Seven near-identical pieces from one class scream scaffolding to a moderator.

Calibrate against the STA's exemplified collections — Dani (working towards), Morgan and Leigh (expected standard), Frankie (greater depth) — and, for the standard moderators probe hardest, see greater depth in writing.

What are the independence rules?

The single most common way an otherwise strong collection fails is that the best pieces weren't independent. Judgements “must only be based on writing that a pupil produced independently” — which permits discussed and rehearsed stimulus, pupil choice, self-editing and unprompted dictionary use, but rules out heavily scaffolded or modelled work, copying, editing after direct adult intervention, and — named explicitly in the current guidance — work edited or rewritten after AI feedback, or produced by AI at all.

The full rules, with the STA's exact wording on AI, spellcheckers and word processing, are quoted verbatim in AI marking and independent writing. The habit that keeps you safe is unglamorous: keep original versions as your evidence, treat post-feedback redrafts as taught work, and note where feedback — human or AI — shaped a piece.

What should you do when you're notified?

You get at least 2 school days' notice, and the local authority tells you who is coming. In 2026 notification ran from 15 May with visits from 1 to 26 June — check the current STA guidance for this year's dates. Two days is enough, because the work is done; spend them like this:

• Finalise the judgement breakdown. The school must provide a breakdown of TA judgements for the cohort, categorised by standard — the moderator selects the sample from it, so it needs to be accurate before the visit.
• Gather the books, not new evidence. All English and cross-curricular writing books for the cohort, ready to hand. Nothing new gets made — the sample is 15% of pupils (minimum 5), but you won't know which until the moderator chooses.
• Re-read your borderlines. The professional discussion concentrates on pupils near thresholds. Re-read those collections against the statements and rehearse, out loud, why each judgement is right.
• Ready your caveats. Where you've applied the “particular weakness” discretion, or a piece had support or AI feedback behind it, have that clear and volunteered — moderators are told to scrutinise these, and surprises are the only thing that sours the day.
• Brief SLT and protect the time. The Year 6 teacher needs to be released for the discussion. The guidance frames the visit as collaborative and positive; walking in rested does more than a weekend of laminating.

What will moderators expect — and what won't they?

A one-glance summary, anchored to what the STA guidance actually instructs:

Knowing thirty books is the real preparation

Common questions

How much notice do you get of a writing moderation visit?

At least 2 school days. The STA guidance requires local authorities to give at least 2 school days' notice of an external moderation visit and to let the school know who will be attending. Notification begins from mid-May (15 May in 2026), with visits in a window through June. The short notice is deliberate: the evidence is supposed to be the day-to-day work already in books, not something assembled for the occasion.

Do I need to prepare a portfolio for each pupil?

No. The STA guidance instructs moderators not to dictate what schools' evidence should look like or how it is presented, and says local authorities 'should not expect portfolios or checklists of evidence'. It also warns that teachers 'should avoid excessive evidence gathering' — a pupil's workbook will often have all the evidence a teacher needs. Time spent photocopying into folders is better spent knowing the books.

How many pieces of writing does each pupil need?

There is no prescribed number. Judgements need a broad range of evidence from day-to-day classroom work — including writing from subjects other than English — and a single comprehensive piece can evidence multiple statements. What matters is that the collection as a whole demonstrates every 'pupil can' statement at the standard awarded, across a range of purposes, audiences and forms.

Can writing from other subjects be used as moderation evidence?

Yes — the framework expects it. It says evidence should include work in curriculum subjects other than the one being assessed. A history diary entry, a science explanation or an RE discussion text are all legitimate evidence, provided they were produced independently. For many pupils, cross-curricular writing is where range of purpose is easiest to show.

What will the moderator ask me on the day?

To talk through your judgements. The moderator reviews the sampled pupils' work against the 'pupil can' statements and holds a professional discussion with the Year 6 teacher — the guidance says it should be 'a positive discussion, allowing teachers to talk through their judgements, using evidence to support their decisions and articulate their understanding of the standards'. Expect questions about borderline statements, where a piece sits on independence, and any 'particular weakness' discretion you've applied.

Does work marked or fed back on by AI count as evidence?

The original piece can; a redraft after AI feedback can't. The STA guidance says writing edited or rewritten following feedback from AI is not independent, and teachers should make clear to moderators where AI feedback was used so that work can be excluded from the collection. Writing produced in full or in part by AI must never support a judgement. A teacher using AI to inform their own assessment of a completed piece doesn't change how the piece was produced — keep originals as evidence and note where AI feedback was given.

Sources

1. Standards and Testing Agency (updated 2 March 2026), “Key stage 2 teacher assessment guidance” — notice periods, sample sizes, evidence expectations and independent-writing rules quoted verbatim from this document.
2. Standards and Testing Agency, “Teacher assessment frameworks at the end of key stage 2” (2018/19 onwards) — the ‘pupil can’ statements and evidence principles.
3. Standards and Testing Agency (2017), “Teacher assessment exemplification: KS2 English writing” — moderated collections at each standard for calibration.