HSC English marking criteria, explained

There is no single HSC English rubric. NESA publishes marking guidelines for each exam question, and schools write their own criteria for school-based tasks. This guide explains how both work, and what changes with the new syllabus.

The HSC English exam

How the marking guidelines work

Each question has its own marking guideline. Short answers use a small ladder of marks. For example, on a 3-mark question the top mark goes to an effective explanation supported by evidence, and 1 mark to some relevant information.

The 20-mark extended responses use five bands: 17 to 20, 13 to 16, 9 to 12, 5 to 8 and 1 to 4. Each band describes three things together: how well the response deals with the idea in the question, the quality of the textual references, and control of language. The key verbs step down from skilfully, to effectively, to explains, to limited, to attempts.

Markers place a response in the band that fits best, then decide where in that band it sits.

School-based assessment

• School assessment counts for 50% of the HSC mark. Two components are each worth half: knowledge and understanding of course content, and skills in responding to texts and communicating ideas.
• Schools set the number, type and weighting of tasks. NESA's guidance is that each task is worth 10% to 40%.
• From Term 4 2026, each HSC course may have only one take-home task, worth at most 15%. Preliminary courses follow from Term 1 2027.
• Each school writes its own marking criteria for its tasks, often modelled on the style of NESA's guidelines.

How marks become HSC results

• The HSC mark is 50% moderated school assessment and 50% exam.
• Moderation rescales each school's assessment marks against how that same group of students performed in the exam. A student's rank within the school is kept, but the marks themselves can move.
• Judges set the exam's band cut-offs, and raw marks are aligned to a reporting scale where Band 6 starts at 90 and Band 5 at 80.

AI and HSC English

Under NESA's rules, using generative AI without acknowledgement counts as plagiarism, and unauthorised use counts as collusion. Schools decide whether AI is allowed on each task, and they must not rely on AI detection software to decide malpractice.

Giving feedback that uses the marking guidelines

• Name the part of the guideline, then the next step. "Your analysis is mostly descriptive" helps less than "pick one technique per paragraph and say what it does to the reader".
• Feed forward on drafts. Feedback lands when students still have time to act on it. Comments on a final piece are mostly read for the mark.
• Hide the mark on practice work. Students read feedback more closely when there is no number to look at first.
• Show the gap with work samples. Two short responses side by side teach the difference between levels faster than the descriptors do.
• Moderate early. Marking one set of practice responses together as a faculty catches drift before it reaches assessed work.