For HSC English departments

Mark a class in an evening. Teach from what it tells you.

ReThinkHSC drafts feedback on your students’ essays against your question and your criteria. You edit it, approve it, and release it under your name. The AI never speaks to your students; you do.

Talk to us about a pilotTeacher sign-in

HSC English Advanced. Piloting with a small number of NSW schools.

What your department gets

Every screen below is the real product, captured against a demonstration school.

Your standards

It marks to your rubric, not a generic idea of good English

Attach the criteria this task is marked against, your faculty’s rubric wording, exemplars, and notes for whoever marks it. For example: “they sat this in forty minutes without the text, do not penalise quotation accuracy”. Set marking guidance once for the whole department and every class inherits it.

Feedback in your faculty’s language, against the criteria you actually use.

Marking

Mark a class without starting from a blank page

Students submit. A draft mark and feedback are waiting against your question and your criteria, with every comment on the essay itself. Click a passage to change what you disagree with, delete what you do not want, add your own comment, and release.

You review marking instead of writing every comment from scratch, and nothing reaches a student until you release it.

It learns from you

The drafts start sounding like you

When you rewrite a piece of feedback rather than tweak it, that rewrite becomes an example of how you phrase things. It picks up your register and vocabulary, but never your judgements, which stay yours to make on each essay.

Each set needs less editing than the last, because the draft starts closer to what you would have written.

Real classroom work

Students photograph handwritten work

A student points a phone at their pages and the handwriting is transcribed. They check it against their paper and fix anything misread before it is marked.

Use it on in-class essays and trials: the work students actually produce, not only what they typed at home.

After the set

See what the department’s feedback keeps naming

Released feedback is sorted into specific issues, such as “technique named, effect not explained”. Each shows how many students it reached and in which classes, with the approved comments behind it. Compare classes side by side, and see whether an issue is named less often from one essay to the next.

You see what the feedback says across the department, with the evidence to check it; what to teach next stays your call.

You set the rules, per assignment

Every setting defaults to the cautious option, and the settings freeze when you publish. Work already submitted keeps the rules it was submitted under.

Marks
Off unless you turn them on. When on, the mark is yours to confirm.
Rewriting
Off. The AI names the problem; the student writes the fix.
Release
Held for you. Nothing sends itself.
Focus
Point it at what you are teaching this fortnight.

Straight answers

Does this mark for us?
No. It drafts, you decide. Every piece of feedback a student receives has been read and approved by their teacher and appears under their name.
Who can see our students’ work?
The teachers assigned to that class and your head of department. Nobody at any other school can access it. This is enforced in the database, not by our code remembering to check.
How much time will it save?
We will not quote you a figure. We cannot observe how long your marking takes now, so any number would be invented. During a pilot we measure your actual review time and you judge it against your own experience.

Piloting now with NSW schools

One faculty, one or two classes, a term. We set your classes up and sit down each week to hear what is and is not working.

Start a conversation