The questions Heads of English actually ask.

Writeiq is for English teachers and Heads of English in Years 3 to 12, and for the school leaders who sit alongside them and want to see what the writing data is saying across cohorts.

It was built in Australian schools first. The primary and secondary content libraries are written separately, the curriculum alignment covers sixteen framework surfaces (nine mapped curricula across the Victorian, Australian, IB and UK frameworks, plus the senior assessment constructs of every Australian jurisdiction), and the moderation language assumes how Australian faculties actually work.

If you teach English, lead an English faculty, or are responsible for whole-school literacy, Writeiq is built for you.

Yes. Student writing is hosted in Australia (AWS Sydney), encrypted at rest with AES-256, and never used to train any model: ours or anyone else's.

Edsthetic complies with the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and the Australian Privacy Principles. We sign Data Processing Agreements with schools that need them, and our subprocessor list is public. The detail is on the security page, including incident response, data deletion, and the staff training programme.

If your procurement team has questions we have not answered there, email us and we will respond within a working day.

Four enrolment tiers per product. Writeiq starts at $3,600 a year for a school of up to 300 students; Allocateiq at $2,400. Bundle the two and save approximately 25%. All prices exclude GST.

The full breakdown is at /pricing, including a buyer-led calculator for your school's size and the complete feature matrix per tier.

2026 implementation places are fully funded and allocated by invitation. Schools joining in 2027 pay the published pricing above.

No, and we have built it on the assumption that you wouldn't want it to. Writeiq scores writing against the IWAF rubric and surfaces patterns across a class or cohort. Teachers retain the final word on every score and every piece of feedback.

The work the platform handles is the consistent dimension-by-dimension scoring and the writing of dozens of similar comments: the parts of marking that drain the week. The judgement work, the sitting with the piece, the conversation with the student, the moderation meeting, all of that stays with the teacher. That is where it belongs.

If anything, Writeiq makes moderation conversations easier, because the whole faculty is now looking at writing through the same lens.

A typed submission usually has its full result within a couple of minutes, and timing varies at busy class-submission peaks. Scanned handwriting takes longer because Vision transcribes the page for a teacher check first.

Writeiq is built for fast teacher review: the marking, evidence and feedback are prepared so the teacher's time goes to professional judgement. Teachers tell us they spend more time on the students who need the conference, less time on the students who don't.

We will publish measured time-saving figures after Term 3 2026, when we run a structured survey across pilot schools and publish the result with a third-party evaluator footnote.

Adjust it. Every dimension score and every comment is editable before you save. Your edit becomes the final record: the saved score is the score you decided on, not the one Writeiq suggested.

We log overrides quietly in the background, not as a check on you, but so that we can see where the platform's judgement and the faculty's judgement diverge. Over time, those overrides feed back into the way the rubric is calibrated and the way feedback is written. Your override does not make the score wrong; it makes the score yours.

Yes. Writeiq maps to nine curriculum frameworks across primary and secondary: Victorian Curriculum 2.0, Australian Curriculum v9, IB MYP, IB PYP, VCE, NESA (NSW), QCAA (Queensland), SCSA (Western Australia), and the UK National Curriculum. Seven senior assessment constructs (HSC, WACE, QCE, SACE, TASC, ACT BSSS and IB DP) sit beside these for indicative, teacher-confirmed exam-style marking: sixteen framework surfaces in all.

Choose your framework once at the school level. The IWAF bands map onto your curriculum's achievement standards and language, so the report a Year 8 English teacher sees uses the descriptors and codes their school actually reports against. The full mapping is at /band-framework-correlation.

If your school uses a framework we do not yet support, tell us. The mapping work is bounded and we can usually add a framework within a term if there is a school waiting on it.

Writeiq is formative, not summative. It does not replace VCAA marking, and it does not replace NAPLAN scoring. Nothing in Writeiq counts towards a student's official mark anywhere.

What it does is tell you, much earlier than NAPLAN can, where the cohort is weakest. If a Year 7 group is consistently low on Text Structure but strong on Vocabulary, you know what to teach in the back half of the term, not after the results come back the following year.

For VCE, the value is the same. Writeiq doesn't give the official VCE grade, but it gives the teacher a reliable read on the dimensions VCAA assesses, weeks before the SAC.

For Year 12, Writeiq can also set and mark a complete three-section English trial exam (2024-2027 study design) in one step. Each section is marked separately with section feedback, and results are presented the way a VCE statement reads - an indicative mark out of 10 per section and an overall result out of 60. Indicative means indicative: the projection is derived from the published VCAA assessment criteria, the teacher confirms every mark, and nothing in Writeiq counts towards the official VCE result.

No. Students do not need email accounts, passwords, or single sign-on to use Writeiq. This is a deliberate design decision: many primary and lower-secondary students do not have school-issued email, and mandating it would exclude them.

Three student-access paths are available, ranked from most-recommended:

• Class Links (recommended): each class has a unique signed URL minted by the school administrator. Students click the link or scan its QR code to enter Writeiq directly. The link itself is the credential, signed and scoped to a specific school and class.
• Student Access Code: a school-set code (like ENG7A or RIVER2026) that students type once per device. The administrator rotates the code by archiving the prior task and issuing a new one for the next assessment.
• SSO (opt-in): schools with mature student identity infrastructure (Google Workspace for Education, Microsoft Entra ID) may enable student SSO. Off by default; on only if the school turns it on.

The database table that stores student data has no authentication fields: no password hashes, no SSO links, no auth.users foreign keys. An optional parent-contact email column exists for end-of-task report PDF delivery, but it is never used for student sign-in. This holds across all bulk import workflows: importing a student CSV creates demographic and class-assignment data only, never an authentication identity.

In Sydney, Australia, on Supabase Postgres running on AWS Sydney (ap-southeast-2). Data is encrypted at rest with AES-256 and in transit with TLS 1.3.

Since 25 July 2026, writing analysis and transcription also happen in Australia. Student writing is sent to Claude models running on Amazon Bedrock inside the Australian boundary (AWS Sydney ap-southeast-2 and Melbourne ap-southeast-4), not to a US endpoint. Nothing submitted is retained by the service or used to train models. The resulting scores, feedback, and original writing samples are stored back in Sydney. If the Australian Bedrock capacity is unavailable, marking waits or fails with a clear message: it is never rerouted offshore.

Before 25 July 2026, this one step ran on the Anthropic API in the United States under a zero-retention, no-training contract. That is the only period in which student writing left Australian infrastructure during normal operation.

No student writing or student names leave Australia today. The only offshore processing that remains is operational telemetry (anonymous error and usage diagnostics used to keep the product running), which carries no submission content and no student names.

Full subprocessor list, retention periods, and the journey of each data type is on the security page.

No. Submission content is never used to train any language model: ours, Anthropic's, AWS's, or anyone else's. Analysis runs on Amazon Bedrock, whose service terms prohibit using customer content to develop or improve models; Bedrock does not store prompts or completions. Before 25 July 2026 the same guarantee applied contractually through Anthropic's commercial API terms.

Writeiq's marking framework was authored by educators and is benchmarked at engine level against openly licensed external corpora. The year-level interpretation layer is versioned and sealed; it changes only through a governed release process.

Yes. We publish a detailed Security & Privacy Overview (PDF, v1.7) intended to give your school's privacy and IT teams the technical facts they need to populate their own Privacy Impact Assessment for Writeiq. The document covers authentication, encryption, data flow, subprocessor responsibilities, incident response, and our roadmap for independent certification.

Edsthetic does not complete or sign Privacy Impact Assessments on behalf of schools. The PIA remains the school's responsibility under departmental policy, but we provide every fact the school needs and respond to direct questions from your privacy officer within two working days at legal@edsthetic.com.au.

External verification on the roadmap: independent OWASP ZAP DAST scan in Term 3 2026, ST4S Readiness Check Term 3 2026 with badge attainment mid-2027, formal third-party penetration test in 2027, SOC 2 Type II in 2028.

In 2026, by invitation: a small number of schools are implementing Writeiq under a structured, fully funded evidence partnership, with capped cohorts and blind moderation building the published evidence base. We work directly with the lead teacher or Head of English, not a support queue, and we are honest about what is in beta.

The funded period has a fixed end date, and it ends with a decision conversation and a school evidence report. Continued use in 2027 is a paid licence at the published pricing.

To register interest for 2027, use the form on the homepage. We respond inside two working days.

Yes. If your school management system can export a OneRoster 1.2 CSV bundle (a standard format that Compass, Edval, Sentral, Edumate and most others support), drop the ZIP into Settings → Data import. We extract users.csv, classes.csv, and enrollments.csv from the bundle and normalise them into three pre-filled imports for you to review: classes, staff, students.

Each one runs through a dry-run validation before any data is touched. You see exactly what will be inserted, updated, or archived, plus any errors and warnings. Commit when you are happy. Per-table audit log for every import.

If your SMS doesn't do OneRoster but does do plain CSV export, you can also upload class, staff, and student CSVs separately; same validation flow. CSV templates are downloadable from the Data import tab so you don't have to guess column names.

Three separate CSVs with documented columns, downloadable as templates from the Settings → Data import tab inside Writeiq.

• Classes: code, year_level, display_name, archived
• Staff: email, first_name, last_name, role, faculty, classes, archived: the classes column is pipe-separated, e.g. 9A|9B|10C
• Students: student_uid, first_name, last_name, year_level, email, classes, archived: student_uid is your SIS identifier; we generate one if blank, but populating it makes future imports idempotent

Headers are case-sensitive and exact. Empty cells are allowed for optional fields. The dry-run validation tells you about any rows that won't import and why, before you commit anything.

You see them before any data changes. The Validate step runs a dry-run that returns a list of errors and warnings with row numbers and specific column references. Examples: "Row 14 column email: invalid email format", "Row 23 column classes: class code 7Z does not exist".

Errors block the commit until you fix them. Warnings (less serious things, like a year-level outside the supported range) you can explicitly acknowledge before proceeding.

The whole flow is reversible up until you click Commit. You can change file, change mode (merge vs replace), re-validate, or cancel entirely; no data is touched.

Most commonly: it's in spam, or your school's mail filter is blocking edsthetic.com.au because the domain is recent and your filter is being cautious.

What to check, in order:

1. Ask the recipient to check their spam folder and search for from:invitations@edsthetic.com.au.
2. Have your IT team whitelist edsthetic.com.au at the school's email gateway. We supply the SES sender configuration (SPF, DKIM, DMARC) on request to hello@edsthetic.com.au.
3. From the Users tab, click "Resend invitation": this generates a fresh claim URL and re-sends.
4. As a last resort, the admin panel has a "Copy claim URL" option per pending invitation. The administrator can paste this link into a separate email or message channel.

Two ways, depending on what you need.

To see how the platform behaves with realistic data, the Riverside College pilot reference environment is fully populated: classes, students, sample submissions, leadership analytics, the whole picture. Open app.writeiq.com.au and use the demo school access details (we share these on request, or they are in the Pilot Welcome Pack at /help).

To trial it with your own staff and students, that is the pilot. Free for a term, your data, your school, real classroom use. Apply here.