2025 OCR GCSE History A (Explaining the Modern World) - J410 Practice Paper with Answers

Model answer (top level): The Locarno Treaties were agreed in 1925 and were a major step towards reconciliation. Germany, France and Belgium agreed to accept their common borders as laid down at Versailles, and promised not to invade each other. Britain and Italy acted as guarantors, promising to help any country attacked by another. This made France feel more secure, which reduced the fear of a new war in the west. In 1926 Germany was admitted to the League of Nations with a permanent seat on the Council, so she was treated as an equal. This helped create the 'Locarno spirit', in which leaders such as Stresemann, Briand and Chamberlain met and cooperated. But Germany refused to accept her eastern borders with Poland and Czechoslovakia as permanent, so tension remained in the east, and France kept her own alliances with these states.

Any other historically valid content is acceptable. Indicative content only.

AO1 (5 marks). Level of response, outline question.

Level 3 (4-5 marks): Candidate outlines several effects of Locarno, with accurate and specific supporting detail. The answer shows a developed understanding of how relations between powers changed. Nutshell: several developed, accurate effects.
Level 2 (2-3 marks): Candidate outlines one or two effects, with some supporting detail. Nutshell: some effects, partly developed.
Level 1 (1 mark): Candidate gives a general or limited statement about Locarno with little or no detail. Nutshell: general statement.
Level 0 (0 marks): No creditworthy response.

Within a level: bottom = fewer points or less development, middle = secure, top = fullest range and detail.

Indicative content: Germany, France and Belgium accepted their western borders (Rhineland demilitarised); Britain and Italy were guarantors; Germany admitted to the League in 1926 with a Council seat; improved Franco-German relations and the 'Locarno spirit'; France felt more secure; Germany's eastern borders were not guaranteed, leaving tension with Poland and Czechoslovakia; the treaties were voluntary and were negotiated rather than imposed, which was different from Versailles.

NB: Mere description of the treaty with no link to relations between powers should not go above Level 2. Candidates who confuse Locarno with the Dawes Plan or the Kellogg-Briand Pact should be capped at Level 1 unless they also give relevant Locarno content.

Model answer (indicative):

By 1923 Germany had fallen behind with reparations payments set at 132 billion gold marks in 1921. France and Belgium responded by occupying the Ruhr, and Germany met this with passive resistance. The result was hyperinflation, bitterness between Germany and France, and a real risk of further conflict.

The Dawes Plan (1924), drawn up by an American banker, Charles Dawes, tackled this. Annual payments were cut and set according to what Germany could afford, with a lower sum at first, rising as the economy recovered. Germany also received loans of 800 million gold marks, mainly from the USA. French troops agreed to leave the Ruhr. This ended the immediate crisis and showed that disputes could be settled by negotiation rather than force.

The plan also helped the German economy to recover. American money flowed into industry and the currency was stabilised. Because Germany could now pay reparations, France and Britain received money which they used to repay their own war debts to the USA, so a cycle of payments developed. This made the countries economically dependent on one another and gave them an interest in peace.

Finally, better relations produced further co-operation. With tensions lower, Stresemann and Briand could negotiate the Locarno Treaties of 1925, in which Germany accepted its western borders, and Germany joined the League of Nations in 1926. The Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928) followed.

However, the improvement relied on American loans, so it was fragile and ended when the Depression began in 1929.

Indicative content only; any other historically valid content is acceptable. AO1 (5) knowledge and understanding; AO2 (5) explanation of causation/consequence.

Level 4 (9-10 marks): Explains several reasons in a sustained, well-supported line of reasoning, with accurate and detailed knowledge, and links the Dawes Plan to improved relations (e.g. ending the Ruhr crisis, loans and recovery, economic interdependence, Locarno/League). Nutshell: developed, linked explanation of more than one reason with precise evidence.
Level 3 (6-8 marks): Explains at least two reasons, supported by accurate knowledge; the link to improved relations is clear but may be uneven. Nutshell: two explained reasons.
Level 2 (3-5 marks): Explains one reason with support, or identifies several reasons with limited development. Nutshell: one explained reason or a list.
Level 1 (1-2 marks): Simple statements about the Dawes Plan or the 1920s, with little knowledge or no link to improved relations. Nutshell: generalised.
Level 0 (0 marks): No creditable response.

Place the answer within a level by its overall quality: bottom of the level for a threshold response, middle for a secure one, top for a response that just meets the next level.

Indicative content: 1923 Ruhr occupation and hyperinflation; lower, flexible payments; loans of 800 million gold marks mainly from the USA; French withdrawal from the Ruhr; economic recovery and currency stabilisation; cycle of payments between Germany, Britain, France and the USA; trust which led to Locarno 1925, League membership 1926 and Kellogg-Briand 1928; fragility - dependence on US loans (ended by the 1929 Depression).
NB: Candidates need not use the stimulus points. Narrative of the Ruhr with no link to the question stays in Level 2 at most. Description of the Young Plan alone, without the Dawes Plan, cannot go above Level 1.

Model approach: (1) Identify A's view: Chamberlain was weak and misjudged Hitler; concessions encouraged aggression; firmer earlier action with allies could have prevented war. (2) Test against B and C and own knowledge. Support for A: Hitler broke the Munich promise by occupying the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939, showing that concessions did not satisfy him; earlier concessions (remilitarisation of the Rhineland 1936, Anschluss March 1938) had been followed by greater demands; Czechoslovakia was not consulted at Munich; Chamberlain was slow and reluctant to seek an alliance with the Soviet Union, and the guarantee to Poland in March 1939 came only after Prague. Challenge to A: Britain's rearmament was incomplete (radar chain, new fighters, air defence), the Treasury warned about the economy, the Chiefs of Staff doubted Britain could fight Germany, Italy and Japan together, France was reluctant to act, the Dominions opposed war, and public opinion strongly favoured peace after 1918; Munich was greeted with relief by many. Hence 'failure of nerve' is arguably unfair: Chamberlain made a calculated choice to buy time. Interpretation C shows that misjudgement is a fair charge but practical limits do not explain it fully. (3) Evaluate the provenance: A, written in 1948, reflects the experience of the war and criticism of appeasers (the postwar mood of blame) without access to government papers; B, written in 1985 with opened archives, stresses constraints; C, from 2005, balances both. (4) Judgement: A is partly fair; it is persuasive on the results of Munich and on Hitler's aims, but one-sided in leaving out the constraints and the later use of the delay.

Indicative content only; any other historically valid content is acceptable. Assessment objectives: AO4 (20 marks) and AO1 (5 marks); knowledge of the period is credited within each level.

Level 5 (21-25) Nutshell: sustained, reasoned judgement on fairness. AO4: Evaluates Interpretation A in depth, using the other interpretations and own knowledge to test its claims about weakness, misjudgement and the failure of earlier firmness; shows understanding of why the interpretations differ, using provenance and the context of the debate (e.g. 1948 postwar mood vs archive-based work after 1985). Reaches a fully supported overall judgement. Knowledge is accurate and precisely selected. Exemplar (top): 'A is fair that Munich encouraged Hitler, as Prague in March 1939 shows, but it is unfair in presenting appeasement as weakness, since B shows that Britain needed time to complete radar and fighter production. Written in 1948, A reflects the shock of war and lacked the Treasury papers that later historians used...'

Level 4 (16-20) Nutshell: developed evaluation. Considers A against at least one other interpretation and own knowledge with some judgement, but links to debate or provenance are partial or unbalanced.

Level 3 (11-15) Nutshell: some evaluation. Identifies the view in A and supports or challenges it with relevant knowledge, and may use another interpretation, but evaluation is limited or judgement is asserted. (threshold response: 'A is partly fair because Hitler took Czechoslovakia in 1939, but B says Britain was not ready.')

Level 2 (6-10) Nutshell: basic. Describes A and/or other interpretations or offers general knowledge on appeasement with limited link to fairness.

Level 1 (1-5) Nutshell: very limited. Simple, generalised comments or copying from the interpretations.

0 marks: no creditworthy response.

Within a level: bottom = partly meets descriptor; middle = meets it; top = fully meets it and approaches the next level.

Caps: NB: if the interpretation is misunderstood (e.g. treated as defending Chamberlain), cap at Level 2. Responses that do not use other interpretations or own knowledge cap at Level 3. Responses that only compare the interpretations without addressing fairness cap at Level 2.

Indicative content: Support for A: Hitler's later aggression; Czechoslovakia abandoned; USSR excluded; opportunity for firmer stand earlier (Rhineland 1936, Anschluss 1938). Challenge to A: rearmament and finance; military advice; France and Dominions; public opinion; time bought; Munich seen as a way to demonstrate Hitler's guilt. Provenance and debate: wartime and postwar condemnation, Cold War, post-1980s archives, later revisionist views.

Model answer outline. (1) Different views stated: A sees appeasement as weak and foolish, B as realistic and practical. (2) Why: context and date. A was written in 1941, in the middle of a war that appeared to prove appeasement had failed. Writers then wanted to blame the leaders and had no access to private papers. B was written in 1985 after the 30-year rule released cabinet and Treasury papers, showing Britain's financial limits, the defence chiefs' warnings of weakness against Germany, Japan and Italy at once, and the Dominions' reluctance. Cold War and later perspectives also made historians more sympathetic to difficult choices. (3) Different selection of evidence: A focuses on Hitler breaking Versailles, the Rhineland 1936, the Sudetenland and Munich 1938, and the League's failure; B focuses on the Depression, the Empire, public pacifism and the time bought for rearmament (e.g. radar, Hurricane and Spitfire production). (4) Different emphasis on alternatives: A assumes France, the League and Britain could have stood firm; B argues that this was not realistic as France was divided and the League had been weakened by the failures over Manchuria and Abyssinia. (5) Own knowledge on the wider debate: post-1990 historians using Soviet and German archives have argued about Stalin's role, Hitler's aims and whether war in 1938 would have been better or worse for Britain; so disagreement continues. Credit a conclusion that both interpretations are valid but built on different evidence, purposes and dates.

Indicative content only; any other historically valid content is acceptable. AO4 20 marks (assessing why interpretations differ) plus 5 SPaG marks (additional).

Level 4 (16-20 marks, Nutshell: sustained explanation of why interpretations differ, supported by both interpretations and well-selected knowledge): Explains several reasons for difference (e.g. date and purpose, access to evidence, selection and emphasis, view of alternatives) in a developed, linked way, with precise reference to the content of both A and B and accurate own knowledge of the wider debate (e.g. wartime criticism of the leaders, release of 1930s records, post-1990 research). Top: reaches a judgement about the nature of the debate. Middle: sustained but some reasons less developed. Bottom: threshold of the level.

Level 3 (11-15, Nutshell: explains one or two reasons with support): Explains at least one reason for difference with support from the interpretations and own knowledge, e.g. 'A was written in 1941 when war had broken out so the author blamed leaders; B was written later with records showing Britain's economic weakness (threshold response)'.

Level 2 (6-10, Nutshell: identifies differences, limited explanation): Identifies that A and B differ in view or emphasis, or makes general statements about hindsight or bias with limited support from knowledge.

Level 1 (1-5, Nutshell: simple comment): Simple statements about the interpretations or about appeasement without addressing why they differ.

0 marks: no creditworthy response.

NB: Caps: if the interpretations are misunderstood (e.g. A taken to support Chamberlain), cap at Level 2. If no own knowledge is used, cap at Level 2 (max 10). Describing differences only without explaining why caps at Level 2.

SPaG (5 marks, additional): High performance 4-5: spelling and punctuation consistently accurate, wide range of specialist terms (e.g. appeasement, rearmament, Dominions, interpretation) used accurately, meaning clear. Intermediate 2-3: considerable accuracy in spelling and punctuation, adequate range of terms, clear meaning. Threshold 1: reasonable accuracy, limited terms, meaning generally clear. 0: writing too weak or no relevant response.

Choose one agency and give a point about what it did (1 mark), then add specific supporting detail (1 mark). Example: The Civilian Conservation Corps, set up in 1933, gave work to unemployed young men (1). They planted trees, built dams and cleared paths in forests and national parks, living in camps and earning wages of around $30 a month, most of which was sent home to their families (1).

Indicative content only; any other historically valid content is acceptable. Points marking: 1 mark for a valid identification or description of how an agency helped the unemployed; 1 further mark for specific development with accurate detail (e.g. names, dates, numbers, type of work). Maximum 2 marks.

AO1: 2.

Valid examples include: Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) - jobs for young unemployed men on conservation work, wages sent home to families; Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) - gave grants to states to provide direct relief and food to the jobless; Civil Works Administration (CWA) - created temporary jobs in 1933-34 building roads, schools and airports; Public Works Administration (PWA) - funded large construction projects such as dams and bridges that created jobs.

NB: Credit only one example; if two are given, mark the first. Do not credit descriptions of agencies that did not target unemployment (e.g. the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, or the Securities and Exchange Commission) unless explicitly linked to jobs or relief for the unemployed. A bare name of an agency with no description of its help gains 0 marks, and a general statement such as 'it helped people' with no detail gains 0 marks.

Model answer: After the First World War many Americans feared that the Communist revolution in Russia could spread to the USA. A wave of strikes and bomb attacks in 1919 convinced many that 'Reds' were at work. The Attorney General, A. Mitchell Palmer, responded with the Palmer Raids of 1919-20, in which thousands of suspected radicals, many of them recent immigrants, were arrested and hundreds were deported without proper trial. This linked foreigners with revolution in the public mind. The Sacco and Vanzetti case (convicted 1921, executed 1927) showed how far this suspicion went: the two Italian immigrants were anarchists, and many believed they were convicted on weak evidence because of prejudice against their politics and origins. This made restricting immigration popular. In addition, immigration from southern and eastern Europe had increased, and nativists argued these newcomers were Catholic or Jewish, would not assimilate, and would take jobs and lower wages, especially in the post-war recession of 1920-21. Congress therefore passed the Emergency Quota Act (1921), limiting each nationality to a percentage of those already in the USA, and the 1924 Immigration Act, which cut quotas further and favoured northern and western Europeans. Overall, fear of Communism started the process, but nativism and economic anxiety made restriction lasting, as the quotas continued after the Red Scare faded.

Indicative content only; any other historically valid content is acceptable. AO1 (5 marks) knowledge and understanding; AO2 (5 marks) explanation using the second-order concept of cause.

Level 4 (9-10 marks): Explains a range of causes in a sustained, well-supported line of reasoning, with accurate and detailed knowledge and links between factors, and a judgement on their relative importance. Nutshell: Developed, linked, evaluated explanation. Top 10: judgement is fully supported; bottom 9: links are less explicit.

Level 3 (6-8 marks): Explains at least two causes with accurate, relevant knowledge and analysis, but links or judgement are limited. Nutshell: Two or more developed explanations. Top 8; middle 7; bottom 6.

Level 2 (3-5 marks): Explains one cause well, or identifies several with some supporting knowledge and limited explanation. Nutshell: One developed or several partly developed points. Top 5; middle 4; bottom 3.

Level 1 (1-2 marks): Simple statements about restriction or the Red Scare with little accurate knowledge or no link to the question. Nutshell: Generalised assertion.

Level 0 (0 marks): No creditworthy response.

Indicative content: Fear of Communism after 1917 and the 1919 strikes and bombings; the Palmer Raids (arrests, deportations, no due process); Sacco and Vanzetti (Italian anarchists, 1921 conviction, 1927 execution, prejudice); nativism and anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish feeling; job and wage competition in 1920-21; Emergency Quota Act 1921; Immigration Act 1924 (quota cuts favouring northern and western Europe); continuation of restriction after the Red Scare faded.

NB: Material on the Ku Klux Klan or Prohibition should only be credited if explicitly linked to anti-immigrant feeling. Candidates need not use both stimulus points. Cap at Level 2 if the answer is only about events after 1927 or only describes the Palmer Raids without explanation of why restriction followed.

The message is critical of the New Deal. Source details: the oversized 'Alphabet Agencies' figure gives out parcels to smiling workers, suggesting the government is handing out benefits and jobs, but it pushes the 'Taxpayers' Bills' cart onto a struggling shopkeeper, suggesting the cost falls unfairly on small business owners and taxpayers. The signpost with a question mark, 'Recovery - this way?', suggests the cartoonist doubts that these policies will end the Depression. Context: by 1935 agencies such as the Civil Works Administration, the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Works Progress Administration were providing jobs and relief, paid for by government spending and higher taxes. Critics, including many Republicans, businessmen and wealthy opponents, claimed that Roosevelt was expanding federal power, wasting money and creating dependency. Unemployment was still high in 1935, which gave weight to doubts about recovery. The Supreme Court was also striking down parts of the New Deal, showing the political divide.

Indicative content only; any other historically valid content is acceptable.

AO3 (5 marks). Level of response.

Level 3 (4-5 marks): The answer identifies the message and supports it with detailed, explained use of the source AND knowledge of the context. Nutshell: message + source details + context. Eg: 'The cartoonist is warning that the New Deal benefits some at the cost of others. The figure hands parcels to workers but forces a heavy cart of taxpayers' bills on a shopkeeper, which reflects how Roosevelt's agencies such as the WPA were paid for by taxation and borrowing, and criticised by business owners. The signpost with a question mark shows doubt that recovery will come, which fits the continuing high unemployment in 1935.' (top of level: developed context with several points)

Level 2 (2-3 marks): Identifies a message and supports it with either source details or knowledge, or makes a limited use of both. Nutshell: message + one type of support. Eg: 'The cartoonist thinks the New Deal is unfair because the taxpayers have to pay for it (source detail).' (threshold)

Level 1 (1 mark): Describes the source or gives a basic message with no support. Eg: 'It shows a big man giving out parcels.'

Level 0 (0 marks): No creditworthy response.

NB: Answers that only describe the cartoon, or give only knowledge of the New Deal without linking it to the source, cannot go beyond Level 1. Answers that say the cartoonist supports the New Deal, misreading the source, cap at Level 1.

Bottom/middle/top: award the bottom of a level for a general response, the middle for a clear but partly developed response, and the top for a fully developed one.

Content: the writer says war work brought better pay and that a presidential order forbade discrimination by firms with government contracts. This matches Executive Order 8802 (1941), which Roosevelt issued after A. Philip Randolph threatened a march on Washington. The source also shows that the order was poorly enforced: Black workers were kept in low-paid jobs, were separated from skilled white workers, and faced hate strikes when promoted. This fits the tension in wartime Detroit that led to the race riots of June 1943, and the contrast between fighting for freedom abroad and lacking it at home, which fed the foundations of the later Civil Rights movement.

Provenance: a letter by an ordinary worker, written in 1942, so it is a genuine and immediate account of lived experience, not shaped by hindsight. The purpose of a published letter is to complain and to persuade, so it may stress grievances. It is a single voice from one factory, so it cannot show the experience of Black Americans in the South, in the armed forces (where segregation continued), or of women. It tells us nothing about those who gained skilled posts.

Judgement: useful for the gap between government policy and workplace reality in northern war industry, but limited in representativeness.

Indicative content only; any other historically valid content is acceptable. AO3 (5 marks). Level of response.

Level 3 (4-5 marks): Evaluates the usefulness of the source for the stated enquiry in a sustained way, using the content AND the provenance (author, type, date, purpose) AND contextual knowledge to reach a supported judgement. Nutshell: content + provenance + context, with a judgement. Top of level (5): the judgement is balanced and explicit about both strengths and limits. Bottom of level (4): good use of two of the three elements with a reasoned judgement.
Exemplar: 'The source is useful because it shows that Executive Order 8802 opened war jobs to African Americans, yet employers and white workers resisted it, which matches the tensions that produced the 1943 Detroit riots. As a 1942 letter it is a first-hand, contemporary view. However it is one worker's opinion, written to be published and to make a point, and it only covers northern industry, not the South or the army.'

Level 2 (2-3 marks): Some evaluation of usefulness using content and/or provenance, with some context, but the judgement is partial or not fully supported. Nutshell: some evaluation, one or two elements. Top (3): two elements developed. Bottom (2): one element developed with some support.
Exemplar: 'It is useful because it shows that Black workers got better pay in war industries but were still discriminated against. It is a letter from a worker at the time so it is a real experience. (threshold response)'

Level 1 (1 mark): Simple, undeveloped comments on the source: describes or paraphrases content, or makes generic comments on provenance ('it is useful because it was written at the time'). Nutshell: describes the source.

0 marks: no creditable response.

NB: Do not credit answers that only say what the source does not cover without explaining why this limits its usefulness for the enquiry. Maximum Level 2 for answers that use only content with no provenance or context. Maximum Level 1 for answers using only own knowledge with no reference to the source.

Model approach: Introduce a line of argument, then examine intolerance, then competing problems, then reach a judgement.

For the statement (intolerance): The Ku Klux Klan revived in the early 1920s and, at its peak, claimed several million members, targeting African Americans, Catholics, Jews and immigrants with intimidation and lynching. Jim Crow laws in the South enforced segregation and kept most African Americans from voting, so many migrated north, where they met discrimination in housing and jobs. The Red Scare of 1919-20 led to the Palmer Raids, with thousands arrested and many deported on suspicion of being communists or anarchists. The Sacco and Vanzetti case (convicted 1921, executed 1927) showed prejudice against Italian immigrants and radicals. The Emergency Quota Act (1921) and Immigration Act (1924) restricted immigration, especially from southern and eastern Europe. The NAACP and UNIA grew in response, showing how serious the problem was for those affected.

Against the statement (other problems): Prosperity was uneven. Farmers suffered falling prices and debt after wartime demand fell; older industries such as coal and textiles struggled; many African Americans, immigrants and unskilled workers stayed poor, and much of the population shared little in the consumer boom. Prohibition (1920) was widely flouted, creating speakeasies, bootlegging and organised crime (e.g. Al Capone), corruption and disrespect for the law. Women's changing roles (flappers) caused cultural tension, though the Sheppard-Towner Act showed some progress. Republican policies of low taxes and limited government regulation arguably left economic weaknesses.

Judgement: A strong answer might argue that intolerance was the most serious because it affected people's basic safety and rights and was linked to violence and state action, whereas the effects of Prohibition and farm poverty were more limited or less physically threatening; or argue that uneven prosperity was most serious because it affected the largest number of Americans and caused the weaknesses exposed in 1929. Either is acceptable if supported by evidence and criteria for 'most serious' (for example scale, severity, long-term effect). Links should show that the problems were connected, e.g. intolerance towards immigrants was partly driven by fear of communism and competition for work.

Indicative content only. Any other historically valid content is acceptable.

AO1 (knowledge and understanding) = 7 marks; AO2 (explanation and analysis using second-order concepts, here significance and judgement) = 11 marks. Total 18.

Level 5 (16-18 marks): Sustained, well-supported evaluation. Shows detailed, accurate knowledge of the 1920s (AO1) and analyses both intolerance and at least one other problem, using clear criteria to weigh them and reaching a fully justified judgement on 'how far' (AO2). Nutshell: a convincing, supported judgement that weighs the factors against each other. Top (18): judgement is sustained throughout and criteria are explicit; middle (17); bottom (16): judgement is sound but the weighing is less consistent.

Level 4 (12-15 marks): Developed analysis of intolerance and at least one other problem with mostly accurate, relevant detail; a judgement is reached and supported, but weighing of the factors is partial or implicit. Nutshell: a reasoned judgement, but not fully tested.

Level 3 (8-11 marks): Explains some features of intolerance and/or other problems with relevant knowledge; some attempt at judgement, but it is asserted or not linked to the evidence. Nutshell: explanation with an undeveloped judgement.

Level 2 (4-7 marks): Describes some relevant features with limited explanation; limited or no judgement. Nutshell: description, with generalised links to the question.

Level 1 (1-3 marks): Simple, general statements with little accurate knowledge. Nutshell: isolated facts or assertions.

Level 0 (0 marks): No creditworthy response.

NB: Responses that consider only intolerance, or only other problems, cannot be placed above Level 3. Responses that give a list of 1920s events with no link to 'seriousness' cannot be placed above Level 2.

Indicative content (agree): Ku Klux Klan revival, intimidation and lynching; Jim Crow and denial of voting rights; Red Scare, Palmer Raids; Sacco and Vanzetti; Emergency Quota Act 1921 and 1924 Immigration Act; discrimination faced by African Americans who migrated north; responses by the NAACP and UNIA.

Indicative content (disagree): uneven prosperity (farmers, coal and textile workers, unskilled workers); Prohibition, bootlegging, organised crime and corruption; clash between traditional and modern values; limited government action under Republican policy.

Award credit for a judgement of either kind provided it is supported by criteria and evidence. Nutshell for the whole question: weigh intolerance against other problems and reach a supported verdict.

Candidates should identify two distinct examples of baronial challenge to royal power in 1215-1265 and support each with specific detail. Example 1: Magna Carta, 1215. Baronial anger at John's heavy taxation, loss of Normandy and arbitrary justice led rebels to capture London and force John to agree to Magna Carta at Runnymede. It included the clause that the king should not raise certain taxes without the common counsel of the kingdom, and a council of 25 barons was set up to enforce it. Example 2: the Provisions of Oxford, 1258. Angry at Henry III's costly foreign ventures and his favouring of foreign relatives, barons forced him to accept a council of fifteen to control government, with regular parliaments. Example 3: Simon de Montfort's rebellion. After Henry rejected the Provisions, de Montfort led a rebel army to victory at Lewes (1264), captured the king and ruled in his name, calling a parliament in 1265 that included knights from the shires and burgesses from towns.

Indicative content only; any other historically valid content is acceptable. Points marking: 2 examples x 2 marks = 4 marks. For each example: 1 mark for a valid identification or description of a way the barons challenged royal power; a second mark for specific supporting detail (names, dates, terms, events). Maximum 2 marks per example. Max 2 marks if only one example is given in a fully developed way, or if two examples are the same point repeated. NB: do not credit events outside 1215-1265 unless the example is clearly linked to the period (e.g. later reissues of Magna Carta need not be credited). Accept: Magna Carta/Runnymede 1215 (1) + clause on taxation, a council of 25 barons, or lawful judgement (1); Provisions of Oxford 1258 (1) + council of 15 or regular parliaments (1); Simon de Montfort's defeat of Henry III at Lewes 1264 (1) + captured the king/summoned the 1265 parliament with knights and burgesses (1). Reject vague statements such as 'the barons did not like the king' without detail. AO1 = 4 marks.

A strong answer links several causes and judges their importance. Long-term cause: Henry III's reliance on foreign favourites (such as his Poitevin and Savoyard relatives) angered English barons who felt excluded from patronage and office. Financial cause: Henry demanded heavy taxes to pay for his ambition to win the Sicilian crown for his son; when barons refused further money without reform, bad harvests and famine in 1257-58 made the burden worse. This produced the crisis of 1258 and the Provisions of Oxford, which set up a council of fifteen to advise the king and required regular meetings of Parliament, so barons were claiming a share of power. Trigger: Henry obtained papal release from his oath to the Provisions and tried to rule alone again, so the barons rebelled. Individual: Simon de Montfort, Henry's brother-in-law, had quarrelled with the king, supported reform and led the rebels; he won at Lewes in 1264, captured the king, and in 1265 summoned a Parliament including knights and burgesses to broaden his support. Overall judgement: the barons challenged the king mainly because his misgovernment and broken promises convinced them royal power had to be limited, with de Montfort turning discontent into open rebellion.

AO1 4 marks, AO2 4 marks. Indicative content only; any other historically valid content is acceptable.

Level 4 (7-8 marks): Developed explanation of several causes, with accurate and detailed knowledge, and a sustained line of reasoning that links causes and/or judges their relative importance. Nutshell: 'a developed, linked explanation'. Top of level: explicit judgement or a clear link between causes (e.g. 'Taxation alone would not have led to rebellion, but combined with Henry's broken promises over the Provisions it convinced barons that only force could limit his power').

Level 3 (5-6 marks): Explains at least two causes with accurate supporting knowledge; some links but limited analysis or judgement. Nutshell: 'two or more explained causes'. Example: 'Henry taxed heavily to pay for the Sicilian venture, so barons forced him to accept the Provisions of Oxford in 1258 to control his spending (threshold response).'

Level 2 (3-4 marks): Explains one cause with support, or identifies several causes with limited development. Nutshell: 'one explained cause or several simple ones'.

Level 1 (1-2 marks): General or limited statements about the barons or Henry III with little relevant knowledge, e.g. 'The barons did not like the king.' Nutshell: 'simple, general statements'.

0 marks: no creditworthy response.

Within a level: bottom = partial achievement of the descriptor; middle = secure; top = fully meets it. NB: Using the stimulus points without own knowledge cannot score above Level 3. NB: Description of events 1258-65 without explaining why the barons acted caps at Level 2. Indicative content: foreign favourites; taxation and the Sicilian affair; famine 1257-58; Provisions of Oxford; Henry's repudiation of the Provisions; Simon de Montfort's leadership; Lewes 1264; 1265 Parliament. Or: reference to Magna Carta as precedent for limiting royal power.

Model approach (indicative content only).

Significance of 1688: James II was seen to rule without Parliament's consent (suspending laws, a Catholic-led army, promoting Catholics). Parliamentary leaders invited William of Orange and Mary to take the throne, so Parliament effectively decided who was monarch, ending any claim that kings ruled by divine right alone. The Bill of Rights (1689) forbade suspending or dispensing with laws, taxation without Parliament's agreement and a peacetime standing army without consent; it guaranteed free elections and freedom of speech in Parliament and the right to petition. The need for money for war with France under William III and Anne meant Parliament met every year, and the Bank of England (1694) tied finance to Parliament.

Limits and other factors: Tudor monarchs (e.g. Henry VIII's Reformation Parliament, Elizabeth's need for taxes) used Parliament to make laws seem legitimate, raising its status, but Parliament met only when summoned and the monarch controlled the agenda. The Stuarts' conflict (Charles I's Personal Rule, Civil Wars, 1649 execution, Restoration 1660) had already shown Parliament's strength and the dangers of ruling without it. After 1689 monarchs still chose ministers, could veto bills (Anne last used it in 1708) and influenced elections through patronage; the growth of the Prime Minister and Cabinet came gradually in the 18th century. Parliament was also not democratic: it represented a small landowning elite.

Judgement: the Glorious Revolution was highly significant as the point at which the monarch's dependence on Parliament was settled in law, but it built on earlier conflict and its effect was completed gradually over the 18th century.

Indicative content only; any other historically valid content is acceptable. AO1 (6 marks) and AO2 (8 marks): second-order concept is significance.

Level 4 (11-14 marks): Sustained analysis of the significance of the Glorious Revolution, set against other factors and the long-term picture, with accurate and detailed knowledge and a supported, reasoned judgement. Nutshell: sustained, balanced evaluation reaching a judgement. Bottom 11: judgement present but thinly supported; middle 12-13; top 14: judgement fully sustained throughout, linked to the c.1485-c.1800 span.

Level 3 (8-10 marks): Developed analysis of significance with accurate knowledge; some consideration of the extent of the change, but the judgement is partial or not fully supported. Nutshell: developed explanation, limited evaluation.

Level 2 (4-7 marks): Some explanation of significance with some relevant knowledge; mainly descriptive or one-sided, little reference to the period c.1485-c.1800. Nutshell: some explanation.

Level 1 (1-3 marks): Generalised or simple statements about 1688 or Parliament with limited relevant knowledge. Nutshell: simple statements.

0 marks: no creditworthy response.

Exemplar (threshold, L2): 'The Glorious Revolution was significant because James II was replaced and the Bill of Rights said the monarch could not tax without Parliament.' Exemplar (L4, top): 'The Glorious Revolution was highly significant because for the first time Parliament chose the monarch and set legal limits in the Bill of Rights, yet its importance should not be exaggerated, because the Tudors had already raised Parliament's status and the Civil Wars had shown its strength; monarchs still chose ministers, so the change was one stage in a gradual shift.' (H+W)

NB: Responses using only the stimulus bullets without development cannot go beyond Level 2. Responses that discuss only the period before 1688 or only after cannot go beyond Level 3.

Model approach: Argue that the statement is partly valid. For: Simon de Montfort's 1265 Parliament and Edward I's Model Parliament 1295 gave a regular body that could grant or refuse taxes; Charles I's Personal Rule ended in 1640 because he needed money, the Long Parliament attacked his ministers (Laud, Strafford), and Parliament fought the Civil Wars and executed him in 1649; the 1688 Glorious Revolution and Bill of Rights 1689 made monarchs dependent on Parliament, and under William III and Anne Parliament met every year. Against: in c.1000-1485 the main challenges came from barons (the 1215 Magna Carta forced on John was a baronial revolt, not a parliamentary act), rival claimants (Wars of the Roses) and Richard II's deposition by Henry Bolingbroke; Henry VIII/Tudor monarchs worked with Parliament, which strengthened rather than challenged royal power; the Restoration 1660 returned the monarchy; after c.1800 the main pressure came from the people and extra-parliamentary groups: the 1832, 1867 and 1884 Reform Acts, the Chartists, trade unions and Labour Party, the 1918 suffrage extension, so power shifted to the electorate and to the Prime Minister and government rather than being 'challenged' by Parliament against a monarch. Conclusion should weigh the periods: Parliament was the key challenger c.1215-1689, but not before or after, so the statement is only partly convincing.

Indicative content only; any other historically valid content is acceptable. AO1 (8 marks) and AO2 (16 marks): knowledge and understanding of the period, and analysis of change, continuity, cause and significance across the c.1000-2014 sweep. Level of response.

Level 5 (21-24 marks): Sustained, analytical response addressing the whole time span with a clear line of argument and an evaluated, supported judgement about how far Parliament was the main challenge compared with other challenges (barons, rival claimants, the people, political groups). Knowledge is accurate, detailed and well selected. Nutshell: developed, balanced and judged across the whole period.
Level 4 (16-20): Analytical with some balance; both sides supported with accurate knowledge across at least two eras; judgement is reached but may be less well supported or less sustained. Nutshell: balanced, but uneven in range or evaluation.
Level 3 (11-15): Some analysis; explains challenges on one or both sides with relevant knowledge, but coverage is narrow (e.g. one or two eras) or judgement is asserted. Nutshell: explanation with limited range.
Level 2 (6-10): Describes some relevant events with limited links to the question; mostly one-sided; generic or partly accurate knowledge. Nutshell: description with limited analysis.
Level 1 (1-5): Simple, general statements or isolated facts with little link to the question. Nutshell: basic.
0: No creditable response.

Within a level: bottom = meets descriptor minimally; middle = secure; top = fully meets and approaches the next level.
Caps: answers covering only one era cannot exceed Level 3 (maximum 15).

Indicative content - agree: Montfort's Parliament 1265 and Edward I's Parliaments; Parliament's control of taxation; Charles I's Personal Rule and the Long Parliament; Civil Wars and execution 1649; 1688 Glorious Revolution and Bill of Rights; annual meetings under William III and Anne.
Indicative content - disagree/other challenges: barons and Magna Carta 1215 (a baronial rebellion against John); Wars of the Roses and Richard II's deposition (rival claimants); Tudor cooperation with Parliament; after 1800 the Reform Acts 1832, 1867, 1884, trade unions and the Labour Party, women's suffrage 1918, shifting power to the electorate and government.
NB: Magna Carta used as a Parliament challenge should be credited only if its link is explained (e.g. later influence on Parliament); do not penalise a candidate for treating it as a baronial challenge.
NB: The stimulus bullet points are optional prompts; candidates need not use them.

Model answer: One reason for growing criticism was the Church's wealth. Around 1520 it owned perhaps a quarter of the land in England, and many monasteries and bishops lived in great comfort. Ordinary people resented paying tithes, mortuary fees and probate charges to a Church that seemed rich, so complaints against the clergy became common, especially in towns such as London.

A second reason was the behaviour and quality of some clergy. Some priests held several benefices (pluralism) or did not live in their parishes (absenteeism), and some were poorly educated. Church courts could appear to protect their own, and this fed anticlericalism.

A third reason was new religious ideas. Lollard beliefs, which had survived in parts of England, attacked the power of priests and the wealth of the Church. From the 1520s Luther's writings and English translations of the Bible spread through merchants and scholars and questioned the Mass, the role of priests and the need for pilgrimages and indulgences. These gave critics a religious argument as well as a practical grievance.

Finally, the Reformation Parliament that met from 1529 allowed MPs to voice complaints and attack clerical privileges, such as fees and the power of Church courts, which made criticism public and respectable.

Judgement: Wealth and fees gave most people a reason to complain, but the new ideas were what turned complaint into a challenge to the Church's authority. These factors were linked: criticism grew most where resentment about money met Lutheran or Lollard teaching.

(Note: Henry VIII's break with Rome is background only and is not required.)

AO1 (5) and AO2 (5). Level of response. Indicative content only; any other historically valid content is acceptable.

Level 4 (9-10 marks) - AO1: Wide-ranging, accurate and detailed knowledge and understanding of the period. AO2: Sustained analysis of causes, explaining how factors link together and reaching a supported judgement on relative importance. Nutshell: a well-developed, connected explanation of several reasons. (Bottom: several reasons explained with a limited link or judgement; Middle: clear links between reasons; Top: sustained, supported judgement.)

Level 3 (6-8 marks) - AO1: Accurate and detailed knowledge. AO2: Explains at least two reasons with developed analysis, but links or judgement are limited. Nutshell: two or more reasons explained in detail.

Level 2 (3-5 marks) - AO1: Some accurate knowledge. AO2: Identifies reasons with some explanation; answer may be descriptive or explain only one reason well. Nutshell: a reason with some development.

Level 1 (1-2 marks) - AO1: Limited knowledge. AO2: Simple, generalised statements, with little or no explanation of why criticism grew. Nutshell: basic statements.

0 marks: no creditworthy response.

Indicative content: (1) Church wealth: land, tithes, mortuary fees, probate charges, rich monasteries and bishops (H+W: threshold response - 'the Church was rich so people disliked it'). (2) Clerical abuses: pluralism, absenteeism, poorly educated priests, Church courts. (3) Lollard survival and Lutheran ideas: English Bibles, criticism of the Mass, priestly authority and pilgrimages. (4) Reformation Parliament 1529 onwards: public voice for anticlerical complaints. (5) Links between factors and judgement.

NB: Both stimulus points need not be used; credit own knowledge equally. Detailed discussion of the annulment or break with Rome earns credit only where it is linked to criticism of the Church, as it is background knowledge. Caps: an answer that only describes the Church's wealth or beliefs without explaining why they caused criticism is capped at Level 2.

Source A: supports the view. The churchwarden reports no open opposition to the removal of images, welcome among the young and a willingness to listen to English readings. Provenance: a churchwarden was responsible for enforcing orders, so he may play down opposition to avoid blame; the letter is to a gentleman, who would be pleased by compliance. The two old women who weep and the phrase 'keep their counsel' show silent unhappiness, so acceptance may be reluctant. Context: Edward VI's Council ordered the removal of images in 1547-48 and the movement of reform in the south-west was soon to explode.

Source B: challenges the view. The Cornish demands during the 1549 Prayer Book Rebellion reject the new English service, calling it 'a Christmas game', and demand the Latin Mass and traditional practices such as holy bread, holy water, palms and ashes. The language barrier is a distinctive local factor (Cornish speakers). Provenance: written by rebels, so it is deliberately forceful and represents the demands of a particular region, but it shows real depth of attachment to traditional worship. Own knowledge: the 1549 Book of Common Prayer introduced a single English service by Act of Uniformity; the rebellion was crushed by force with several thousand killed; the Lincolnshire Rising and Pilgrimage of Grace in 1536-37 had earlier shown resistance to Henry VIII's changes.

Source C: mixed. An official sees obedience to the order for the English Bible (1538 injunctions repeated in 1547) and interest in reading it, supporting acceptance, but the hidden plate and vestments show parishes hedging their bets and fearing the changes might be reversed or goods seized (as happened later in Edward's reign). Provenance: an official wants to report success but is also an alert observer, adding credibility to the doubt he records.

Own knowledge for balance: some parishes had Lollard or evangelical sympathies and welcomed reform, especially in London and the south-east; many conformed because of enforcement through royal injunctions and visitations; the Bible in English was popular with the literate; resistance was geographically patchy, with most parishes not rebelling.

Judgement: the sources show acceptance on the surface (A, C) but strong, sometimes violent, opposition (B) and covert reluctance (A, C). The view is therefore only partly supported: compliance was widespread, but it was often pragmatic rather than enthusiastic and was not universal.

Indicative content only; any other historically valid content is acceptable. Total 25 marks: 20 for content (AO1 5, AO2 5, AO3 10) plus 5 SPaG.

Level 5 (17-20): Sustained, balanced evaluation of all three sources in context, using provenance as well as content, with own knowledge used to test and develop the sources (e.g. Prayer Book Rebellion, Act of Uniformity 1549, 1538 and 1547 injunctions, Pilgrimage of Grace). Reaches a supported, reasoned judgement on 'how far'. Nutshell: sources used as evidence, tested by knowledge, with a convincing overall judgement. Bottom/middle/top by the consistency of source evaluation and strength of the judgement.

Level 4 (13-16): Evaluates sources for how far they support or challenge, with some use of provenance and accurate own knowledge; judgement is reached but may be less well supported. Nutshell: good evaluation, judgement present.

Level 3 (9-12): Uses sources to support and challenge the view, with some relevant knowledge, but evaluation is partial or unevenly applied across the sources; judgement is asserted. Nutshell: source content used for both sides, little testing.

Level 2 (5-8): Describes source content and/or gives general knowledge, with limited link to the question. May address only one side. Nutshell: description of sources.

Level 1 (1-4): Simple, undeveloped comments on source content or general assertions. Nutshell: basic.

Level 0 (0): no creditable response.

Indicative content (examples of exemplar sentences): 'Source A supports the view because the churchwarden reports no open opposition to the removal of images (threshold response), but he is responsible for enforcement and may hide discontent.' 'Source B challenges the view: Cornish parishioners reject the English service, which fits the 1549 Prayer Book Rebellion (H+W).' 'Source C shows obedience but the hidden plate suggests parishes expected the changes to be reversed.'

NB: Responses that use only own knowledge without the sources cannot go beyond Level 2. Responses that treat the sources as contemporary evidence of a single parish only, without reference to regional variation or enforcement, are capped at Level 3. A response that misreads Source B as support for the view cannot go beyond Level 2.

SPaG (5 marks, assessed separately): High performance (4-5): spelling and punctuation consistently accurate, grammar controlled, wide and accurate use of specialist terms (e.g. injunctions, Prayer Book, conformity, rebellion). Intermediate performance (2-3): spelling and punctuation reasonably accurate, some control of grammar, adequate use of specialist terms. Threshold performance (1): spelling and punctuation occasionally accurate, some errors in grammar, limited use of specialist terms. No marks (0): writing too weak or not related to the history question.

Assessment objectives: AO3 and AO1/AO2 knowledge in support of the judgement, as set out in the level descriptors (20 marks) plus SPaG (5 marks).

Model answer. Around 1120 Geoffrey de Clinton built a stone keep on a defensible site, serving as a lordly dwelling and a base for controlling the area for the king. Under King John in the early 1200s the castle became a royal fortress: the outer curtain wall was added and the Great Mere created, forming a water barrier that made assault very difficult. The layout therefore changed from a small core to a large, layered defensive complex, shown in the 1266 siege, which lasted about six months. In the late 1300s John of Gaunt, one of the most powerful men in England, rebuilt the inner court with a grand Great Hall and new state apartments. Windows, large chambers and a more comfortable layout show that the castle's function was shifting from defence to display and residence. Later Tudor owners continued this: Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, in the 1570s built Leicester's Building, a new gatehouse, stables and a formal garden, to impress Elizabeth I, who visited in 1575. Defence was now secondary to comfort and prestige. After the Civil War, Parliament ordered the castle slighted so it could not be used again: walls and the keep were breached, the Great Hall damaged, and the Mere drained. Change occurred because of different owners' needs, new building technology and ideas, and political events.

Indicative content only; any other historically valid content is acceptable. AO1 (5) + AO2 (5). Level-of-response.

Level 4 (9-10 marks): AO2 - sustained, well-supported explanation of how change occurred, analysing causes and the nature of change across the period, with a clear overall line of argument. AO1 - accurate, detailed and wide-ranging knowledge of several phases of the castle. Nutshell: a developed explanation of change that links several phases with specific detail and causes.
Level 3 (6-8 marks): AO2 - explanation of change with some analysis of why it happened, covering more than one phase. AO1 - accurate and relevant knowledge, mostly specific. Nutshell: explained change in two or more phases, but with uneven detail or linkage.
Level 2 (3-5 marks): AO2 - some explanation of change/causes, mostly descriptive or one-phase. AO1 - some accurate knowledge, partly general. Nutshell: describes changes with limited explanation.
Level 1 (1-2 marks): AO2 - simple statements about the castle with little explanation. AO1 - limited, generalised knowledge. Nutshell: a few basic statements.
0 marks: no creditable response.

Within a level: bottom = meets the descriptor only partly; middle = secure; top = fully meets, close to the next level.

Indicative content (examples only): Geoffrey de Clinton's early 1120s stone keep (H+W: conquest, control of the region); King John's outer curtain wall, strengthening and the Great Mere, tested in the 1266 siege (defence); John of Gaunt's Great Hall and state apartments in the late 1300s (shift to display and comfortable royal dwelling); Henry V's Pleasance; Tudor/Dudley additions such as Leicester's Building, gatehouse, stables and garden for Elizabeth I's 1575 visit; Civil War slighting by Parliament in the 1640s-50s, drained Mere, damaged keep and hall, later partial use as a farm/residence by Colonel Hawkesworth. Higher levels link changes to causes: owners' status, changes in warfare and function, and political events.

NB: Responses that only describe the stimulus points with no explanation of change are capped at Level 2. Responses covering only one period are capped at Level 3. Answers without own knowledge beyond the bullet points cannot exceed Level 3.

Model answer. Source A shows Kenilworth in 1575 as a lavish residence and stage for display rather than a fortress. Its content (new glazed lodgings, the garden, the Mere used for entertainments, hundreds of liveried servants) fits what we know of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, who modernised the castle to impress Elizabeth I. This shows a function of displaying power through hospitality, with the castle as a political tool for winning royal favour. However, the author is a courtier-guest who is probably flattering his host, and the letter does not mention defence, estate administration or the earlier military role, so it covers only one moment and one function.

Source B shows the castle in 1650 after the Civil War. Its content (roof stripped, walls broken, Mere drained, land let, a few soldiers in the gatehouse) shows that the castle had been slighted so it could not be held again, and was now valued for its materials and its land. It is reliable on the end of the castle's defensive function because the commissioners were official surveyors with a purpose of recording its state for Parliament, and the damage matches the slighting after the war. Its limit is that it says little about what the castle had been before, and it describes only damage.

Judgement: for a question about how the function changed, neither source alone shows change, but together they contrast a castle built for display and dwelling with a ruined one. Source B is slightly more useful because it records the decisive end of the castle's military and residential role and reveals the state's attitude to castles after 1642-51, whereas Source A shows only a high point. (Equally, a well-supported case for Source A is creditable.) Own knowledge that can be used: Norman and Plantagenet royal fortress; the siege of 1266; Lancastrian palace-building by John of Gaunt; Tudor Dudley additions; Parliamentary garrison and slighting.

Indicative content only; any other historically valid content is acceptable. AO3 (10 marks). Level of response.

Level 4 (8-10): Evaluates both sources in relation to the question (how function changed), using content, provenance (author, date, purpose) and own knowledge to test usefulness, and reaches a sustained, supported judgement on which is more useful. Nutshell: a balanced, reasoned judgement. Top of level: judgement is fully justified and compares the sources directly; bottom: judgement present but less developed.

Level 3 (5-7): Analyses both sources, with some use of provenance or own knowledge, but evaluation is uneven or the judgement is asserted or only partly supported. Nutshell: both sources used with some evaluation.

Level 2 (3-4): Identifies what the sources show or comments on provenance for one or both, with limited link to the question or to knowledge. Generic comment on reliability earns no more than the middle of this level. Nutshell: describes the sources.

Level 1 (1-2): Basic, undeveloped comments, mostly paraphrase of the sources. Nutshell: simple statements.

0: No creditworthy response.

Indicative content: Source A - 1575, Dudley, a residence and showpiece; glass windows, garden, Mere, liveried household; biased towards flattering the host; shows only display function. Source B - 1650, official survey, slighting after the Civil War; roof stripped, walls breached, Mere drained, land let; reliable on the end of military function; shows only decline. Own knowledge: Norman royal castle, 1266 siege, Gaunt's great hall, Tudor and Dudley rebuilding, Parliamentary garrison.

NB: Responses that only discuss reliability without linking to usefulness for the stated enquiry cannot exceed Level 2. Responses that use no own knowledge or provenance cannot exceed Level 3. Either source may be argued as more useful if supported.