Instructions for Boards of Examiners
+++
1. Introduction
This document outlines the key aspects of examination governance and administration as a set of instructions for assessment officers and chairs of boards of examiners. The authoritative source of Board of Examiner regulations is the Code of Assessment, 2025-26. References below prefixed with § refer to the Code.
---
+++
2. Roles and Governance Structure
This section defines the key roles involved in the operation of Boards of Examiners and the governance responsibilities attached to each.
Most members of a Board will be Internal Examiners. “Internal Examiner” is a status, not a board role: any academic staff member who teaches on a programme holds Internal Examiner status, as well as others appointed by the Head of School (§16.55). This status is a precondition for attending a Board of Examiners, but it is not sufficient on its own. To attend a Board, an Internal Examiner must also have completed current training (i.e. within the last 12 months, per §16.57) and undertaken suitable preparatory work for the business of the Board (§16.66). Internal Examiners who attend a Board having met these requirements are referred to in this document as “Attending Internal Examiners”. Suitable Internal Examiners are invited to a Board by the Chair. The roles of Chair, Assessment Officer, Reviewer, and Clerk described below are all drawn from or work alongside the pool of Attending Internal Examiners, but carry specific responsibilities and restrictions as set out in each definition.
For programmes where many colleagues hold Internal Examiner status, the Chair should manage attendance to ensure the Board remains focused and effective. The purpose of limiting attendance to prepared, trained individuals is to avoid diffusion of collective responsibility. The Chair should invite those who have undertaken the preparatory work and can give an informed opinion on the results, typically the programme or Honours convener(s), the Reviewers, and the other required roles.
Head of School: The Head of School has final responsibility for managing the assessment scheme of all degrees in their School and for the outcomes of all Boards held in their School (§16.54, §16.66). This includes their oversight of examiner appointments, assessment procedures, and quality assurance mechanisms. Where they delegate any of these functions, the delegation must be recorded in writing and regularly reassessed to ensure it is valid and the actions are being carried out to their satisfaction. Under the Code, Heads of School must ensure appropriate annual training has been undertaken by all attendees of Boards of Examiners (§16.57).
Chair of the Board of Examiners:
For each Board, the Head of School either acts as Chair or appoints a suitably qualified senior academic colleague to act as Chair (§16.66). A suitable delegate Chair would be an academic within the School with a good knowledge of the assessment regulations, experience of chairing meetings, and with sufficient seniority to ensure the Board exercises appropriate rigour.
The Chair must not also be appointed as Assessment Officer for the same programme and must not also act as a Reviewer for the same Board, because the Chair’s role includes receiving and validating the Reviewers’ reports. The Chair will often also hold Internal Examiner status (e.g. will have marked some component of assessment within the scope of the Board); however, the Chair’s primary role at the Board is chairing, not commenting as an Internal Examiner.
Assessment Officer(s): For each course, the Head of School appoints one or more academic or senior administrative staff members as Assessment Officer(s). In many schools, the AO role is carried out in whole or in part by professional services staff; where this is the case, the AO must be of sufficient seniority and have completed appropriate training. The AO role is the operational core of the assessment process, and AOs are primarily charged with ensuring procedural integrity and administrative diligence (§16.58). A single AO may oversee multiple courses, or responsibilities may be distributed across multiple AOs at School level. As with the Chair of Boards of Examiners, an AO should have sufficient seniority to ensure colleagues’ appropriate attention to assessment regulations and timelines.
The key responsibilities of the AO are outlined in §16.58 and include:
- Results Processing: Taking the provisional results of courses and ensuring processes are in place to verify their robustness and accuracy, having results scrutinized in advance of the meeting by the named Reviewers, reporting the outcome of the scrutiny procedure and all results to the Board of Examiners, receiving the Board’s confirmation of the results, and ensuring authenticated results are conveyed to the Registry.
- Documentation Management: Ensuring course documentation accurately describes assessment schemes and procedures.
- Administrative and security coordination: Supervising candidate lists, submission recording, and special needs arrangements, and maintaining the security of examination papers, assessed work, and records throughout the assessment period.
Where these tasks are distributed across multiple AOs (for example, where one person takes responsibility for the scrutiny of the examination process and the AO’s functions at Board of Examiners, and another colleague is responsible for the administrative coordination of examination papers and conveying results to the Registry), it is essential that a clear schedule of the division of tasks is drawn up so that no tasks fall between multiple AOs. This schedule should be based on the list of functions of the AO in the Code at §16.58 and should be reviewed annually, not simply inherited from previous role holders.
Each College has appointed one or more academics to the role of Senior Assessment Officers, and some Schools appoint a School AO to provide a reporting and escalation structure for AOs. These roles do not preclude carrying out any other functions (e.g. acting as AO for a given Board, or chairing other Boards) providing that at all times the same person cannot be the Chair and AO for any given Board.
Reviewers: Reviewers are a subset of Internal Examiners appointed by the Chair or the AO for a specific Board. Their function is to conduct the pre-board scrutiny of results data and produce a written report confirming readiness for the Board. The Code requires at least two Reviewers (§16.66); three or more are recommended to provide cover for short-term colleague unavailability, given the tight timescales involved in Boards. At least one Reviewer should be an Assessment Officer. Reviewers must not include the Chair.
Course heads, course leads, and programme leads may serve as Reviewers and are encouraged to do so, as they hold the deepest knowledge of their assessment structures. Many Schools have adopted a model where Reviewer 1 is the AO, Reviewer 2 is the relevant programme or year convener/lead, and Reviewer 3 is a senior colleague teaching on the programme under review.
The scope of the Reviewers’ work is the accuracy and integrity of data: marks, calculations, grade translations, weightings, and administrative grades. Reviewers are not there to relitigate the marking itself and do not normally need access to candidate answer papers or scripts: review of marking quality is the province of External Examiners and the School’s internal quality assurance processes.
Clerk: The Clerk’s responsibilities include data integrity verification (carried out by the Clerk and School Administration Team under the supervision of the School Head of Professional Services or equivalent, per §16.66), issuing the data pack, preparing minutes, and providing administrative support to the Board. It is recommended that the Clerk has undertaken Board of Examiners training, but in cases of constrained resourcing it is not mandatory.
External Examiners: External Examiners’ functions can be discharged by email but they should attend at least one Board per year.
Additional attendees: Under §16.66, two categories of additional attendees may be present at a Board of Examiners. First, administrative colleagues involved in the Board’s administration may attend in a supporting capacity. Second, colleagues with direct responsibilities for quality assurance, clinical regulation, or institutional governance (for example, Senior Assessment Officers, or colleagues instructed to attend a Board by the Clerk of Senate or the Executive Director of Student & Academic Services) may attend, either by invitation or by the instruction of senior staff, and are full members of the Board when doing so.
---
+++
3. Boards of Examiners
Purpose: The Board of Examiners serves three substantive functions. First, it provides formal institutional validation that correct processes have been followed in the assessment of students. Second, it provides a forum for collective academic oversight, including questions about the application of regulations, training for newer colleagues, and identification of systemic issues not apparent during individual scrutiny. Third, it certifies results, establishing collective responsibility for the outcomes. The detailed scrutiny of data takes place before the Board meeting by design, because live scrutiny of complex data in a time-constrained meeting is not effective. The Board’s value lies in the assurance and collective sign-off, and in the academic judgment it exercises over complex cases, not in live data processing.
Quorum: The quorum for any Board is the Chair, an Assessment Officer, a Clerk, an Internal Examiner, and an External Examiner. If no External Examiner is present then written confirmation of the discharge of the functions of the External Examiner may be considered as equivalent to attendance (§16.66). There is no scope within the Code of Assessment for holding a “provisional” or “internal” Board of Examiners: by definition, a Board is a quorate meeting, and its purpose is to take provisional results and certify them as final. Other meetings which work through results for the purposes of comment or scrutiny of data should not be called Boards.
Scheduling: Boards of Examiners should be scheduled with due attention given to the necessary time before a Board for the scrutiny process by Reviewers, then the time necessary to prepare the data pack, then the time necessary for the Clerk and other staff to perform their data handling checks, then the time necessary to ensure marks are input correctly. Many areas separate the Board meetings which deal with programme results from the Board meetings which deal with course results, sometimes by over a week or more. This is good practice, especially for large programmes, in order to provide appropriate space for each task.
Schools are reminded, under §16.80, that interim Boards can be convened for the purposes of certifying as final the results of visiting or exchange students. As these do not lead to programme outcomes of the University, these interim Boards for visiting students can be done via a light-touch process provided the required scrutiny, data integrity checks, and quorum requirements have been met (with External Examiners usually providing approval by correspondence). Schools are also reminded that visiting students are also permitted under the regulations to take reassessment at any point, not only at the specified resit diets. Schools should ensure this is communicated clearly and that appropriate arrangements are in place.
---
+++
4. The Conduct of Boards
The Code of Assessment requires that the meeting of a Board of Examiners is where results are confirmed. The Code at §16.66(i) states that the Board of Examiners shall receive reports on advance checking and verification processes, and shall on that basis and any other evidence available to it “validate and certify” the provided results.
Scrutiny: Boards should not be undertaking initial scrutiny or verification processes “live” in the meeting itself. The nature of scrutiny is not easily compatible with the collective viewing of complex data in a time-constrained environment. Rather, scrutiny and checking should take place in advance within a clear, documented framework with sufficient time dedicated to the work, and the Board of Examiners instead assesses the overall effectiveness of that scrutiny, receives reports from the AO(s) on the outcomes of various verification processes, and then it can validate and confirm these results (see below). A robust pre-scrutiny framework is essential for the rigour and efficiency of Boards. There is no centrally mandated template for the pre-board scrutiny process or scrutiny report, although Schools are encouraged to use the headings in section B of the Board of Examiners checklist.
Where Schools are using MyGrades as the primary grading tool, the recommended approach to scrutiny is to export the course grade aggregation from MyGrades and run spot checks and formula-based checks on the exported data. For academic year 2025-26, Schools may continue to maintain local systems alongside MyGrades where the former provide useful additional information about cohort performance, but the MyGrades data is the authoritative dataset for the Board. Where a school is at an early stage of MyGrades adoption, the data pack should make clear which system has been used for which purpose so that Reviewers and the Board understand the provenance of the data.
Briefing: In advance of a Board of Examiners, the Chair should check the instructions issued regarding the conduct of Boards as well as the Key Changes to the University Regulations and issue any necessary reminders to Board attendees in relation to the regulations applicable to those Boards. The Chair is also responsible for confirming that all attendees have completed current training. Any prospective attendees who have not completed the mandatory training in full should not be invited to or attend a Board of Examiners, and the Chair is responsible for enforcing this. Academic Services will therefore send in mid-May and in time for the December boards a list of colleagues who have completed the training to Heads of School, who are asked to share with Chairs of Boards in their Schools, so that Chairs can check the eligibility of their invite list to the Boards of Examiners and ensure only trained Internal Examiners attend or act as Reviewers.
Data Integrity: Before review of the overall process commences, the Clerk and School Administration Team, under the supervision of the School Head of Professional Services or equivalent, should complete their data integrity checks, auditing transfer accuracy between systems, confirming system integrity, spot-checking any formulae in use, and so on.
Timescales: Sufficient time for administrative and academic data entry and validation is one of the most significant factors in the accuracy of results and the effective running of a Board of Examiners. Chairs and AOs must ensure that there is a published timescale for the work of a Board with the turnaround time of each task agreed in advance with the relevant staff. General scrutiny of marks therefore will occur after a results dataset is “locked” for review. Late returns of marks to a Board must not be allowed where marks come in after a dataset is locked, as this can compromise the scrutiny and checking of the provisional results to be presented to a Board. In the case of results which are only available after the published deadline for locking provisional results for verification and scrutiny, then the Chair must decide if the meeting of the Board should be delayed, if a short supplementary meeting should be arranged to validate these specific results, or if validation of the relevant results should be delayed until the next meeting of the Board. In this instance, because of the potential impact on graduation or the student experience, the Head of School should be informed of the delay and its reasons; the Head of School has the responsibility of contacting both the relevant student(s) concerned and the Registry regarding the delay.
Exchange of results for joint Honours students: Where a Board deals with joint Honours programme outcomes (which is done at the Board which meets last), the awarding programme Board should seek to obtain preliminary course results from the other subject as early as possible, including in advance of the other Board's formal certification, in order to allow sufficient time for scrutiny of the combined programme outcomes. Where exchanged results are not available before the programme Board’s dataset is locked, the Chair should arrange a short supplementary meeting to certify the affected programme outcomes once the results are received, rather than delay the Board as a whole. Note that the course results from the subject which meets earlier will already have been scrutinised and certified by that subject’s own Board before the meeting of the receiving Board. These results therefore arrive pre-checked and do not require the receiving Board to repeat course-level scrutiny, and so may arrive after the receiving Board’s scrutiny has taken place.
Extenuating Circumstances: Where Extenuating Circumstances claims are received after the dataset is locked but before the Board meeting, these should be noted at the Board but cannot be incorporated into the locked dataset. The Board should agree a process for handling these cases, typically either by Chair’s action once the EC outcome is known, or by holding a short supplementary meeting which meets the minimum quorum above (generally with External Examiners confirming their approval by correspondence). Where an earlier deadline is set for the locking of a Board dataset in relation to EC claims, this should be clearly communicated to students in advance.
Review: The Board’s Clerk will issue the Board’s dataset to reviewers, who conduct their scrutiny until they are satisfied with the outcomes and are confident the provisional results are ready for a Board of Examiners. Suggested checks include:
- Oversight scanning for expected patterns and distributions
- Random spot checks confirming correctness of standard outcomes
- Scanning for anomalies, outliers, or unusual patterns (including impossible totals)
- Analysis of fails and unusual outcomes
- Verification that component weightings match course specifications
- Confirmation that grade scales are correct and translated accurately
- Validation that administrative grades (such as EC) are applied correctly
- Verification that manual penalties or caps (such as Conduct outcomes) are correctly applied
- Confirmation that any other manual interventions are valid and justified
- Validation of progression rules and any local degree classification rules
- Identification of difficult or uncertain outcomes for Board discussion
Reviewers will discuss (e.g. in person, by email, on Teams, or in an online meeting) concerns, queries, or identified issues with the Assessment Officer and fellow reviewers by the agreed deadline. These discussions must be documented and form the basis of any items brought to the Board's attention.
Where Reviewers identify course-level questions during the review period, they should liaise with the relevant course convener to resolve them. If a question cannot be resolved during the review period, the Chair may invite the relevant convener to the Board, provided they have completed current training and have otherwise engaged with the preparatory process. This ensures that course-level expertise is available when needed without requiring all course conveners to attend the Board as a standing arrangement.
Pre-Board Distribution: The Clerk must issue the Board of Examiners data pack to all attendees at least two working days before the scheduled meeting. This pack must include:
- Board dataset (such as a marks spreadsheet, reports, MyGrades link, or equivalent)
- Clerk data integrity statement confirming completed checks
- Assessment Officer(s) statement confirming the processes and scrutiny processes performed
- Scrutiny log containing reviewer names, exceptions list, and corrections made
The final three statements may be issued as a joint statement from the Clerk and AO(s). All Board attendees must undertake their own final review of the materials before the meeting. Attendance at a Board of Examiners carries an expectation of active, prepared participation: only colleagues who have both completed current training and reviewed the Board materials in advance may attend and attest to outcomes.
At the Board of Examiners: The Assessment Officer(s) should present a report on the pre-scrutiny process, outlining checks undertaken and highlighting any issues identified during review that require collective consideration or any patterns that warrant discussion. There is no prescribed format for this report: slides, written reports sent in advance, or oral reports are all acceptable. The Chair should decide what format communicates the information most effectively for their Board, and the AO should share materials with the Chair in advance of the meeting. Reviewers may at this point add additional comments for the Board.
Whilst efficiency is important, and appropriately scrutinised uncomplicated cases need not be discussed individually, Boards should collectively verify general processes and outcomes. This verification serves multiple purposes: it ensures all attendees understand the assessment framework and its application; it provides training for newer colleagues; it allows for identification of any systemic issues not apparent during individual scrutiny; and it establishes collective responsibility for the outcomes being certified.
Best practice could therefore be for the Board to conduct some limited sample spot-checks during the meeting itself. This typically involves the Chair or Assessment Officer selecting one or two uncomplicated cases and walking through the calculation from component marks to final outcome. The Board should verify that the grade calculation is correct, that any relevant regulations (such as rounding rules or progression thresholds) have been properly applied, and that the outcome matches expectations. This process need not be lengthy – often two or three minutes per case – but it allows attendees to see the mechanics of the system in operation and to raise questions about standard procedures.
Attendees must then be given the opportunity for procedural clarifications during this process. These clarifications might concern interpretation of regulations, application of marking schemes, or handling of administrative grades. Creating space for such questions serves both a training function and a quality assurance function, as it may surface misunderstandings or inconsistencies that require resolution. The Chair should actively invite questions rather than assuming silence indicates comprehension.
Extenuating Circumstances at the Board: With the exception of the final stage of affected performance claims, Boards of Examiners do not otherwise confirm Extenuating Circumstances and have no other formal role in the EC process. It is, however, part of the checks above for Boards to ensure that EC decisions have been correctly reflected in the data (that is, that the correct administrative grades have been applied) in the same way that checks should confirm other administrative grades are correctly applied. The sole substantive area where EC is relevant to the Board’s discussion is affected performance: where a student’s circumstances may have affected their performance in assessments they did submit. This is where the Board’s academic judgment is engaged, and the Board should satisfy itself that such cases have been identified and considered.
Complex cases and progression: The Board should review complex situations involving cases of significant volumes of incomplete assessment (whether due to EC or not) with progression implications, and any other flagged matters. These reviews serve to standardise decision-making across similar cases and ensure consistency in the application of regulations. For Boards which also address progression, the review of complex cases may include those students who are at the borderline of progression requirements or facing discontinuation, and the Board should satisfy itself that all relevant factors have been considered and that the student has been treated in accordance with published regulations.
Professional and clinical programmes: Some programmes, particularly professional and clinical degrees, have additional course requirements beyond standard assessment (for example, clinical competency requirements or fitness to practise elements). Where these form part of the Board’s business, they should be included in the data pack and any scrutiny template should be adapted to cover them.
Certification: The validation process ends with the Board collectively confirming its certification of the results. This is typically carried out by the Chair explicitly asking whether any attendee has concerns or objections about the process or about any cases, allowing a pause for response, and then formally requesting the Board certifies the results as presented (subject to any exceptions such as cases agreed to be deferred for further analysis). This formal confirmation establishes the Board’s collective responsibility for the outcomes and should be clearly recorded in the minutes.
External Examiner feedback: External Examiner programme-level feedback is best handled in a separate meeting dedicated to feedback discussion and review, so that a wider group of teaching staff can engage with the comments. However, it is also acceptable for such feedback to be heard at the Board, at the Chair’s discretion.
Post-Board: Following the Board, the Clerk must undertake or oversee verification checks to confirm accurate transfer of results from Board materials to MyCampus. Minutes must be prepared using the approved APG template (available at www.gla.systa-s.com/myglasgow/apg/policies/assessment/examboardtemplate/), alongside the completed checklist from Appendix 1, and uploaded with the dataset to the dedicated APG SharePoint site within 10 working days, following sign-off by the Chair, Assessment Officer(s), and Clerk. Note that this deadline for minutes and datasets is independent of the published deadline for the upload of results to MyCampus.
---