30 marker exam guidance
EF: 30 marker guidance 2024-2025 Politics
There are four 30 Mark Essay Questions in the three 2-hour exams that you will take at the
end of your A-Level course. This means 120 marks, 48% of all available, will be awarded
based on the 30 Mark Essay Question. For this reason, it is really important that you are
able to tackle it correctly. Please see the assessment objectives below, this is how we
assess your essays:
What are the three Assessment Objectives?
AO1 (35% of the A-Level)
Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of political institutions, processes, concepts,
theories and issues.
In summary AO1 is what you know and the depth and breadth of your knowledge about the
topics in the specification.
AO2 (35% of the A-Level)
Analyse aspects of politics and political information, including in relation to parallels,
connections, similarities and differences.
In summary AO2 is your ability to analyse. This means your ability to explain the implications
of an issue with reference to the question you are being asked.
AO3 (30% of the A-Level)
Evaluate aspects of politics and political information, including to construct arguments.
In summary AO3 is your ability to create coherent arguments and to make clear judgements
on the question you are being asked.
How
is A01
assessed? How might you achieve the highest marks in A01?
AO1 is the foundation for everything else in A-Level Politics. Without good use of knowledge,
effective AO2 is not going to be possible and, consequently, AO3 through substantiated
judgements will be limited.
What is needed for different levels of AO1 according to the Mark Scheme?
Below is criteria for AO1 within the different levels for 30 Mark Essay questions:
Level 1 – Demonstrates superficial knowledge and understanding of political institutions,
processes, concepts, theories and issues, with limited underpinning of analysis and
evaluation.
Level 2 – Demonstrates some accurate knowledge and understanding of political institutions,
processes, concepts, theories and issues, some of which are selected appropriately in order
to underpin analysis and evaluation.
Level 3 – Demonstrates mostly accurate knowledge and understanding of political institutions,
processes, concepts, theories and issues, many of which are selected appropriately in order
to underpin analysis and evaluation.
Level 4 – Demonstrates accurate knowledge and understanding of political institutions,
processes, concepts, theories and issues, which are carefully selected in order to underpin
analysis and evaluation.
Level 5 – Demonstrates thorough and in-depth knowledge and understanding of political
institutions, processes, concepts, theories and issues, which are effectively selected in order
to underpin analysis and evaluation.
What do these descriptors look like in reality?
The wording of the Mark Scheme is unnecessarily complicated. In reality what they mean is:
Level 1 – The knowledge shown is very limited and the understanding shown of the concepts
related to the question is very limited. There is likely to be some significant misunderstanding
of concepts and mistaken facts. Any accurate knowledge shown is not really being used to
answer the question.
Level 2 – Candidates are starting to show some accurate knowledge. The knowledge used,
however, is likely to be limited. In addition, there may also be some inaccuracy. The candidate
is starting to show some understanding of the concepts related to the question, but there may
still be some aspects of misunderstanding. The candidate is starting to use their knowledge to
build an argument to answer the question.
Level 3 – Most of the knowledge that candidates are showing is accurate. There may be some
specific knowledge used. Whilst there may be inaccuracies, overall, it is clear the candidate
deploys good knowledge to answer the question. In addition, the candidate understands the
topic and any misunderstandings are relatively minor. The candidate is now using their
knowledge to support arguments more clearly related to the question.
Level 4 – The candidate is routinely showing accurate knowledge. This will also be beginning
to be more consistently specific than at Level 3. The candidate is showing they clearly
understand the topic and is not showing any significant misunderstanding. The candidate is
now selecting knowledge that clearly helps to support the argument they are making.
Level 5 – The candidate is demonstrating thorough knowledge throughout the majority of their
essay. Not only is knowledge consistent, it is also regularly showing excellent levels of
specificity. The candidate has a very thorough understanding of the concepts related to the
question. The candidate is effectively selecting knowledge that helps to drive their argument.
What is needed for successful A02? What does the mark scheme really mean?
The wording of the Mark Scheme is unnecessarily complicated. In reality what they mean is:
Level 1 – The analysis is very limited. The significance and links of different points is limited
and simplistic and there is very little focus on the question being asked. There is limited
evidence of AO1 being developed. There is no real sense of any argument being made. No
real foundation is being made for a substantiated judgement.
Level 2 – Candidates are starting to show that they are analysing information. They are
starting to recognise the significance and links between different point, but these might not be
well developed. They are starting to show some focus on the question being asked. The AO1
they have deployed is starting to be developed. There is beginning to be a sense of an
argument being made which is forming some basis for a substantiated conclusion.
Level 3 – Candidates are showing that they are normally analysing information. They are
normally recognising the significance and links between different points, although this could
be more consistent. They are normally showing focus on the question and are developing AO1
to drive an argument. There is normally a sense of argument being made and this is forming
the basis for a more substantiated judgements.
Level 4 – Candidates are routinely analysing political information. They are routinely
recognising the significance and links between different points. They show good focus on the
question and develop AO1 well in order to answer the question. There is a clear sense of
argument being made throughout and there is a clear basis for a substantiated judgement.
Level 5 – Candidates are not only routinely analysing political information, they are doing this
to a high level, often making complex points. They are recognising the significance of key
points and make links between them throughout the essay. They show excellent focus on the
question and precisely develop AO1 to answer the question. There is a clear argument made
throughout and these arguments are consistently cogent. An excellent basis of a substantiated
judgement is laid.
What terminology can help signpost AO2 to the examiner?
The use of particular terminology can help to signpost to the examiner that you are doing AO2.
Whilst the words themselves are not AO2, they do help to reinforce to the examiner that you
are doing so.
Examples of AO2 signpost phrases within paragraphs might include:
● This shows that
● This indicates tat
● This is important because
● This is significant because
● This highlight that
● What this means is
● This suggests that
● This supports the idea that
● This questions the idea that
Examples of AO2 that might highlight that you are considering similar or differing points
include:
● Similarly
● Likewise
● Correspondingly
● Furthermore
● Moreover
● Additionally
● Equally
● Contrastingly
● Alternatively
● Conversely
● However
● Nonetheless
What might the different levels look in reality?
In order to see what the different levels might look like in reality, the following question is
going to be used:
Q. Evaluate the view that the Executive dominates Parliament in the UK political
system (30 Marks)
Below is the first half of a single section of the essay written at each level:
Level 5 AO2
In normal circumstances the government can dominate the House of Commons. The primary
cause of this is the First Past the Post voting system which is heavily disproportional and
provides the winning party with a ‘winners bonus’. For example, in 2019 it took just 38,000
votes to elect a Conservative MP but 853k to elect a Green MP. This is significant as it means
FPTP produces significant majorities, even with less than a significant proportion of the vote.
For example, in 2019 the Conservative Party won 56.1% of seats from 43.6% of the vote and
the average majority since 1945 is 58.5 seats. This parliamentary arithmetic is enhanced also
by the power political parties have over their MPs. It is almost impossible to be elected without
the support of a party and MPs rely on their party of their position. Consequently, few MPs are
willing to rebel against their party and risk the withdrawal of the whip (as happened to 21
Conservative MPs in 2019) or deselection, as happened to Sam Tarry in 2022. Taken
together, these things mean that the government is normally able to pass its agenda without
much resistance. For example, both Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher only suffered four
Commons defeats each in over a decade as Prime Minister. Alternatively, nonetheless, it is
important to note that this dominance of the Commons is not always the case and sometimes
there are minority governments that cannot force through their agenda. The best example of
this was between the 2017 and 2019 elections when neither Theresa May nor Boris Johnson
were able to push their agenda, including their policies on Brexit, through Parliament. During
this period Theresa May had her Brexit deal rejected three times, including by a modern record
defeat of 230 votes. This shows that when party dominance is challenged, governments can
no longer dominating Parliament. This can also be illustrated by the fact that even under
majority government there are sometimes significant backbench rebellions. For example, in
2021 there were 99 Conservative MPs who rebelled against Boris Johnson’s Plan-B COVID
measures which were only able to be passed with the support of Labour. This indicates that
Governments cannot always rely on their party to enforce their domination of Parliament.
Ultimately, whilst there are periods where Governments are not dominant, these are rare and
circumstantial. Instead, Lord Hailsham’s ‘elective dictatorship’ is normally in operation and the
Executive can comfortably dominate the House of Commons.
Rationale: The candidate is clearly made an argument in this section. Not only is there a clear
point (normally the government can dominate the commons) and a counter-argument (this
dominance is not always the case), but these points are very cogent. It is clear that they are
routinely explaining the significant of the points they make and making clear links between
them to answer the question. There is a very consistent focus on the question throughout and
AO1 is precisely developed. Argument flows throughout the section and lays a very clear basis
for a well substantiated judgement.
Level 4 AO2
The government can often dominate the House of Commons. One of the reasons for this is
the First Past the Post voting system which is heavily disproportional and provides the winning
party with a ‘winners bonus’. For example, in 2019 it took just 38,000 votes to elect a
Conservative MP but 853k to elect a Green MP. FPTP can even produce significant majorities
without a significant proportion of the vote. For example, in 2019 the Conservative Party won
56.1% of seats from 43.6% of the vote. The power of being the largest party is also enhanced
by the power political parties have over their MPs. MPs cannot usually get elected without the
support of a party and MPs rely on their party for their position. Consequently, few MPs are
willing to rebel against their party and risk the withdrawal of the whip, as happened to 21
Conservative MPs in 2019. These things mean that the government is normally able to pass
its agenda without much resistance. For example, both Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher only
suffered four Commons defeats each in over a decade as Prime Minister. Alternatively, it is
important to note that sometimes Governments do not have their own way and cannot force
through their agenda. This is the case with minority governments. The best example of this
was between the 2017 and 2019 elections when neither Theresa May nor Boris Johnson were
able to push their agenda, including their policies on Brexit, through Parliament. During this
period Theresa May had her Brexit deal rejected three times. It can also be illustrated by the
fact that even under majority government there are sometimes significant backbench
rebellions. For example, in 2021 there were 99 Conservative MPs who rebelled against Boris
Johnson’s Plan-B COVID measures. These instances show that governments cannot always
rely on their parties in order to dominate Parliament. Ultimately, whilst there are periods when
governments do not dominate Parliament, these are rare. Normally, Governments can use the
size of their majority to comfortably control the House of Commons.
Rationale: The candidate is making an argument throughout this section. There is a clear
point (governments usually dominate the House of Commons) and a counter-argument (there
are circumstances in which they do not). These points are usually well made and, normally,
they are considering the significance of each point they make. Sometimes, they are clearly
making links between them focused on the question. The question is well focused on and AO1
is developed very well. There is argument through the question laying the basis for a
substantiated judgement.
STRUCTURE OF 30 MARKERS:
What should the overall structure of the 30 Mark Essay Question look like?
It is important to note that there are no set criteria for what a 30 Mark Essay should look like.
Examiners are not allowed to look for a certain template. However, this does not mean that
there are not ways to approach the question that are better suited to meeting all of the
assessment objectives.
We recommend this approach:
A Thematic Approach
Candidates should look for themes which allow them to consider the arguments in favour of
the statement and those that are contrary to it. This enables candidates to develop arguments
(achieving AO2) and to come to substantiated judgements (achieving AO3). Importantly, AO3
will be possible throughout the essay, rather than candidates simply relying on their final
conclusion. The 2023 Examiners Report made clear that this was still a key area for
improvement for students:
‘Essay questions were generally structured well, but we are still seeing AO3 as the weakest
AO across the board’. (Paper 1 Examiners Report – 2023)
‘Essay questions were generally structured well looking to develop a real sense of debate that
engaged with the question. There is still a need to develop a stronger sense of A03 –
realistically the reader should be able to write the conclusion in their head having read the
essay, and it should match the conclusion written by the candidate’. (Paper 2 Examiners
Report – 2023)
What then should the general structure of an essay look like?
Whilst there will be some essays in which a different approach should be taken, generally a
general structure should look as below. For illustration purposes, the following Exemplar
Question has been used – Evaluate the extent to which direct democracy is unhelpful in
Liberal Democracy (30 Marks).
1. Introduction: An introduction to an A-Level Politics essay has three purposes.
Firstly, it sets the tone for your essay and for the examiner reading it. Examiners read
many exams per day and, frankly, some of what they read will not be very good.
Starting in a positive way is really important and gets them interested in your answer.
Showing off some knowledge and being able to define any key terms will also help to
do this. Secondly, it should lay out the things you will discuss in your essay. By the
end of your introduction the examiner should have a clear idea of what your essay
will look like. Finally, your introduction should set out the argument that you are going
to be putting forward in your essay.
Main body of your essay:
2. Three x Body Sections: You should aim for three sections, each focusing on a particular
theme. Within this, you should explore a point and a counterpoint. At the end of each
section, you need to come to a judgement (often called a mini-conclusion). It is essential you
are making judgements throughout your essay and not just leaving it to the conclusion. In
recent exam series Examiners Reports have highlighted the importance of this. You should
also look to prioritise your arguments, with your best arguments used first. This means if you
run out of time you are doing so on your weakest section.
2022 Candidate example:
One reason that it could be argued that more direct democracy should be deployed in the UK
is because it encourages participation in the political process. Recent developments of direct
democracy in the UK have had the impact of increasing participation in British politics. For
example, the e-petitions process has led to public opinion on key political issues being clearly
shown – for instance when 6.1 million people signed a petition calling for Brexit to be
abandoned. This might influence the policies of political parties (for example the Lib
Democrats chose to run on a manifesto of abandoning Brexit). In addition, recent referendums
have resulted in significant turnout such as the Scottish Independence Referendum (84%) and
the EU Referendum (72%). Increased participation is significant for the political process as it
makes any decision that is eventually taken more legitimate. This means that, in terms of
increasing participation, direct democracy should be encouraged wherever possible in the UK.
On the other hand, direct democracy arguably puts too much power in the hands of people
who are not politically well-informed and therefore might not make decisions in the interests
of the country. People can be too easily swayed by populism and self-interest. This was seen
in the Brexit Referendum of 2016 which was emotionalised and arguably people did not fully
understand what they were voting for. It is notable that the most googled term on the day after
the Brexit Referendum was ‘what is the EU’. Further to this, not everyone has equal interest
in Politics. Direct democracy gives equal say to those with little to no interest as those who
have intense interest. This can lead to political positions in which there is more activism taking
precedence at the expense of more moderate positions. This delegitimises the decisions that
are taken as they are defined by levels of interest, not levels of expertise. Ultimately, whilst
direct democracy may increase participation it does so at the expense of direct expertise at
an issue. Whilst representative democracy can be frustrating, it allows for an educated political
class to make decisions about complex issues. Therefore, it should be argued that the use of
Direct Democracy should be limited.
3. Conclusion:
The purpose of a conclusion is to compare their relative strengths and come to a clear overall
judgement. You shouldn’t be adding any extra information in your conclusion, new material
should be in the body of your essay. In addition, try not to make it a binary issue, try to consider
the extent to which you are making your judgement. Remember, the command word in the
question is ‘Evaluate’, this means examiners want you to place a level of value on the
statement you are being asked to consider.
This should NOT be a summary, but instead an opportunity to explain why one side of the
argument is more convincing than the other.
A way to structure this is to remember the mnemonic J.A.R:
J – Make sure you start the conclusion with a clear overall judgement on the question.
A – What is the potential alternative to the judgement that you have come to.
R – Return to your judgement and explain why you have decided it is superior to the
alternatives.
Conclusion example
There can be no doubt that, although appealing in principle, direct democracy is deeply flawed.
In order to make an issue accessible for ordinary systems it has to be simplified, often to the
point that it no longer reflects the realities of the issue in question. However, direct democracy
can sometimes play a role in supplementing direct democracy, for example, petitions are a
useful way of alerting representatives to the issues that matter to their constituents. Yet,
although limited direct democracy can support a representative system, the normalisation of
its use on deciding big issues is dangerous and can lead to political confusion.
2022 Level 5 conclusion:
-
Considers both sides of the argument and establishes why one side is stronger than
the other.