188体育

Guidance on Condition A1

Examples of 鈥榩ositive indicators鈥� that would suggest an awarding organisation is likely to comply

The awarding organisation:

• is clear about which acts or omissions will have, or are likely to have, an Adverse Effect, and is aware of the type of actions and behaviours that could cause it to happen;
• makes sure all relevant staff understand which acts or omissions will have, or are likely to have, an Adverse Effect;
• has considered the behaviours that might be unsuitable for its Senior Officers, taking into account the market in which it operates and the qualifications it provides;
• uses appropriate information and evidence to make a judgement when it checks the suitability of its Senior Officers, both at the time of appointment and at regular intervals when in post 鈥� for example as a result of up-to-date voluntary disclosure or other appropriate checks.

Examples of 鈥榥egative indicators鈥� that would suggest an awarding organisation is not likely to comply

The awarding organisation:

• appoints a Senior Officer without knowing, or despite knowing, they were unsuitable for the post;
• does not ensure that its Senior Officers understand, at the time of appointment and once in post, what is expected of them in order to be suitable;
• does not identify or address its Senior Officers鈥� behaviours that make them unsuitable for the role;
• does not act promptly and appropriately when a Senior Officer becomes unsuitable for the role.

There is currently no guidance on complying with this Condition

There is currently no guidance on complying with these Conditions

Guidance on Conflicts of Interest (including personal interest)

What is a Conflict of Interest?

In general terms, a conflict of interest exists when an organisation or an individual has competing interests, which might impair its or their ability to make objective, unbiased decisions.

Conflicts of interest can arise in a variety of contexts. Our Conditions cover conflicts of interest that affect (or could affect) an awarding organisation鈥檚 ability to develop, deliver and award regulated qualifications in a way that complies with its Conditions of Recognition. We define the term 鈥�Conflict of Interest鈥� in Condition J1 accordingly:

A Conflict of Interest exists in relation to an awarding organisation where 鈥�
(a) its interests in any activity undertaken by it, on its behalf, or by a member of its Group have the potential to lead it to act contrary to its interests in the development, delivery and award of qualifications in a way that complies with its Conditions of Recognition,
(b) a person who is connected to the development, delivery or award of qualifications by the awarding organisation has interests in any other activity which have the potential to lead that person to act contrary to his or her interests in that development, delivery or award in a way that complies with the awarding organisation鈥檚 Conditions of Recognition, or
(c) an informed and reasonable observer would conclude that either of these situations was the case.

The three parts of this definition are interrelated.

Part (a) covers Conflicts of Interest that relate to the awarding organisation. That is, situations where activities carried out by the awarding organisation itself (or on its behalf, or by a related company) might impair its ability to make objective, unbiased decisions about how best to develop, deliver or award its qualifications.

Similarly, part (b) covers Conflicts of Interest that relate to the individuals connected to any part of the development, delivery or award of its qualifications. That is, situations where a particular individual鈥檚 interests might impair their ability to make the objective, unbiased decisions that are necessary to ensure the awarding organisation can develop, deliver and award its qualifications in line with the Conditions.

Part (c) extends our definition of Conflict of Interest to also include situations where an observer would perceive that an awarding organisation or individual has such a competing interest.

What requirements must an awarding organisation meet?

Condition A4 imposes a number of obligations on awarding organisations in relation to Conflicts of Interest. Awarding organisations must:

• identify and monitor all Conflicts of Interest which relate to it, as well as any scenario in which it is reasonably foreseeable that any such Conflict of Interest will arise in the future (Condition A4.1),
• establish and maintain an up to date record of all Conflicts of Interest which relate to it (Condition A4.2),
• take all reasonable steps to ensure no Conflict of Interest which relates to it has an Adverse Effect (Condition A4.3),
• in any case where a Conflict of Interest nonetheless results in an Adverse Effect, take all reasonable steps to mitigate the Adverse Effect as far as possible and correct it (Condition A4.4), and
• establish, maintain and comply with a written conflict of interest policy (Condition A4.7).

The Conditions do not impose a general prohibition on an awarding organisation operating when Conflicts of Interest exist. Rather, they require awarding organisations to identify, monitor and manage those Conflicts of Interest with a view to preventing any Adverse Effect that might arise from them, and to minimise any Adverse Effect should one nonetheless occur.

However, some of the Conditions do prohibit certain Conflicts of Interest in specific circumstances:

• Condition A8.3 prohibits anyone with a personal interest in the outcome of an investigation into potential malpractice from carrying out investigations of suspected or alleged malpractice
• Condition G4.6 prohibits anyone with a personal interest in the outcome of the investigation into potential breaches of confidentiality from carrying out investigations of suspected or alleged breaches of confidentiality
• Condition I1.2 prohibits anyone with a personal interest in the decision being appealed from taking decisions on that appeal.

In addition, Conditions A4.5 and A4.6 require awarding organisations to take all reasonable steps to avoid Learners being assessed by anyone with a personal interest in the outcome of the assessment, and 鈥� where it is unavoidable 鈥� to ensure any part of the assessment they do conduct is scrutinised by someone else who does not have such an interest.

What is a personal interest?

A personal interest is a Conflict of Interest that relates to a particular individual. All Conflicts of Interest that fall under part (b) of our definition are personal interests, as are any perceived Conflicts of Interest under part (c) that relate to individuals, rather than to the awarding organisation itself.

A personal interest can be financial or non-financial in nature.

In the situations covered by Conditions A4.5-A4.6, A8.3, G4.6 and I1.2, the relevant questions to ask are:

• Does the individual carrying out the assessment, investigation or appeal have any reason or incentive to make anything other than a decision in line with the relevant Conditions?
• Would an informed and reasonable observer conclude that such a reason or incentive exists?

Examples of situations where Conflicts of Interest and personal interests exist (or could be perceived to exist)

Example 1

An awarding organisation produces equipment or materials (such as textbooks) used in the teaching or assessment of its qualifications. A Conflict of Interest arises here because the awarding organisation鈥檚 decisions and actions in relation to its qualifications might also affect those other activities. For example, a decision to revise the content of the qualification might also create a commercial opportunity for the awarding organisation to sell new equipment or materials to Centres offering its qualifications. In turn, consideration of these other commercial interests could impair 鈥� or be perceived to impair 鈥� the awarding organisation鈥檚 ability to make objective, unbiased decisions about how best to develop, deliver or award its qualifications.

Example 2

An awarding organisation is part of a Group, and another company within Group operates a number of Centres delivering its qualifications. A Conflict of Interest arises here because the awarding organisation鈥檚 decisions and actions in relation to its qualifications will also affect that sister company 鈥� for example, by imposing costs or administrative burden. In turn, consideration of the interests of this related company could impair 鈥� or be perceived to impair 鈥� the awarding organisation鈥檚 ability to make objective, unbiased decisions about how best to develop, deliver or award its qualifications. In particular, the awarding organisation might have 鈥� or be perceived to have 鈥� an incentive not to uphold qualification standards if that would advance the commercial interests of the other Group company.

Example 3

Centre staff carry out assessment on behalf of an awarding organisation. The Centre鈥檚 main source of income is payments based on the number of students who pass the qualification. The pay and reward of Centre staff is directly linked to the Centre鈥檚 overall income. A Conflict of Interest arises here because an individual Assessor has a financial incentive to ensure that as many students as possible pass the qualification, as this will maximise both the Centre鈥檚 and their own income. That incentive could impair 鈥� or be perceived to impair 鈥� an Assessor鈥檚 ability to make unbiased judgements about the extent to which a student has demonstrated the required knowledge, skills and understanding. In turn, that makes it less likely that an Assessor will in fact make an objective and unbiased decision. Indeed, in this case Centre staff would most likely have a personal interest in the outcome of assessments for any students at their Centre, and Condition A4.5 would require the awarding organisation to take all reasonable steps to avoid using them as Assessors for those students. If this were unavoidable, Condition A4.6 would require any such assessment to be scrutinised by another person.

Example 4
An awarding organisation has received an allegation of malpractice, and is deciding who should investigate it. Condition A8.3(b) requires investigators to be 鈥榩ersons of appropriate competence鈥�. In this case, one individual who meets that requirement is the Head of Centre. Condition A8.3(b) also requires investigations to be undertaken by 鈥榩ersons 鈥� who have no personal interest in their outcome鈥�. Whether or not the Head of Centre has such a personal interest here will depend on the facts of the case. It will be a matter of judgement for the awarding organisation. Examples of situations where a Head of Centre has a clear personal interest in the outcome of an investigation would include cases where: 鈥� the Head of Centre is accused of, or potentially implicated in, the alleged malpractice, 鈥� the Head of Centre is related to, or has a close personal relationship with, any of the individuals accused of malpractice, and 鈥� a finding of malpractice would have direct financial consequences for the Head of Centre (for example, if it would place a performance-related bonus, or their job, at risk). Other cases will be less clear-cut, and awarding organisations may need to consider factors such as the nature, scale and scope of alleged or suspected malpractice when deciding whether or not the Head of Centre can conduct the investigation. In broad terms, a Head of Centre is more likely to have (or be perceived to have) a personal interest in the outcome of an investigation where the alleged malpractice is more cultural or systemic. Another factor awarding organisations may need to consider is the potential consequences of a finding of malpractice for the Centre (and, by extension, the Head of Centre). Such findings can affect the outcomes achieved by Learners, and the Centre鈥檚 results in Government performance tables. They can also result in disciplinary action against Centre staff, which might disrupt the running of the Centre 鈥� significantly so if multiple staff members were implicated in the malpractice. The greater the potential impact on the Centre, the more likely it is that the Head of Centre will have (or be perceived to have) a personal interest in the outcome of a particular investigation.
There will also be situations where a member of the Centre鈥檚 staff who is not a Head of Centre could conduct an investigation. They must also meet the requirements of Condition A8.3(b). Many of the factors outlined above in respect of whether Heads of Centre have a personal interest in the outcome of an investigation may similarly be relevant for other Centre staff. Whether or not an individual has (or would be perceived to have) a personal interest will be a matter of judgement for the awarding organisation.

Example 5

An awarding organisation uses a large pool of markers for its assessments. Some of the more experienced markers also act as members of a panel which determines appeals. One appeal involves a Learner whose work was originally marked by one of the panel members. A Conflict of Interest arises here in relation to that panel member 鈥� because it is their own marking decisions that are being scrutinised on appeal. That also means the panel member would have a personal interest in the decisions being appealed, because the appeal would determine whether or not those marking decisions were appropriate. As a result, Condition I1.2(b) would prohibit that panel member from taking decisions on this appeal. They would, however, be permitted to adjudicate appeals for other Learners whose work they had not marked. In order to comply with Condition I1.2(c), the appeals panel would also need to include at least one decision maker who was not one of the awarding organisation鈥檚 markers (and was not connected to the awarding organisation in some other way).

Example 6

An awarding organisation pays individuals who determine appeals. A Conflict of Interest arises here because the fact that the individual is paid by the awarding organisation (a party to the appeal) creates - or could be perceived to create - an incentive for the individual to make decisions on appeal cases that favour the awarding organisation. In this instance, a degree of Conflict of Interest is largely unavoidable, as it would be unrealistic to expect the awarding organisation to use unpaid volunteers to determine appeals. Our rules reflect this, and Condition I1.2(b) only prohibit individuals from taking decisions on appeals if (as in Example 5) they have a personal interest in the decision being appealed. Rather, Condition A4 requires the awarding organisation to monitor and manage that Conflict of Interest to prevent it having an Adverse Effect, and to mitigate and correct any Adverse Effect that nonetheless occurs.

Guidance on Condition A4

In the guidance below 鈥榗onfidential assessment information鈥� refers to both the contents of assessment materials and information about the assessment in relation to which confidentiality must be maintained under Condition G4.1.

Examples of 鈥榩ositive indicators鈥� that would suggest an awarding organisation is likely to comply

The awarding organisation:

• ensures that its contractual arrangements with staff and third parties who have access to confidential assessment information clearly set out any obligations on those staff and third parties to manage conflicts of interest arising from other activities that they undertake;
• puts in place contractual arrangements which require, at a minimum, staff and third parties who have, or have had, access to confidential assessment information through the assessment development process (including quality assurance) to provide details to the awarding organisation of 鈥�
  • all instances in which such a person is, or has been, a Teacher for the relevant qualification, or is employed by a Centre at which that qualification is taught or delivered (even if that person does not themselves teach or deliver the qualification); and
  • all other conflicts of interest including personal conflicts such as, for example 鈥�
    • where a child, sibling, or other close family member is due to take the assessment in relation to which the person has confidential assessment information, and
    • where a partner or other close family member is teaching, or is due to teach, the relevant qualification;
• requires such details to be provided on an ongoing basis for as long as the relevant assessment information remains confidential;
• maintains records of all conflicts (using one or more documents) and retains relevant entries for as long as the relevant assessment information remains confidential or as long as required to undertake effective monitoring, whichever is later;
• puts in place contractual arrangements requiring staff and third parties who have had access to confidential assessment information to promptly notify it if they have been, or are currently, involved in the preparation of a resource designed to support the preparation of Learners for assessments for that qualification. One example of such a resource would be a textbook for the specification. This does not apply to the preparation of teaching resources or materials by a Teacher exclusively for Learners that he or she teaches (although the awarding organisation may choose to look at such materials in order to deter and detect any breach of confidentiality);
• monitors assessments set by staff and third parties who have been involved in the preparation of a resource designed to support the preparation of Learners for assessments for that qualification, to ensure that the fitness for purpose of those assessments has not been compromised by that resource. One example of such a resource would be a textbook for the specification. This does not apply to the preparation of teaching resources or materials by a Teacher exclusively for Learners that he or she teaches (although the awarding organisation may choose to monitor such materials in order to deter and detect any breach of confidentiality).
• investigates credible concerns which come to its attention in relation to conflicts of interest.

Examples of 鈥榥egative indicators鈥� that would suggest an awarding organisation is not likely to comply

The awarding organisation:

• did not know that the partner of a staff member involved in the development of confidential assessment information was employed at the time as a Teacher for the qualification for which the assessment would be taken;
• did not know that a third party who it contracted to develop or quality assure confidential assessment materials was employed at the time as a Teacher for the qualification for which the assessment would be taken;
• did not know that a third party who it contracted to assist with the development of confidential questions for an assessment 鈥� who did not teach the relevant qualification at the time 鈥� later became a Teacher of that qualification before the assessment was taken;
• did not know that a third party who modified confidential assessment materials worked at the time as a private tutor in respect of the qualification for which the assessment would be taken;
• where a current Teacher holds confidential assessment information, deletes relevant information from its conflicts register where the Teacher stops teaching the relevant qualification before the assessment is taken or before any monitoring takes place

Guidance on Condition A5

Examples of 鈥榩ositive indicators鈥� that would suggest an awarding organisation is likely to comply

The awarding organisation:

• identifies and has in place, the resources it needs to develop, deliver and award its qualifications;
• has a system for reliably forecasting the demand for its qualifications and puts in place resources to meet this demand;
• is sufficiently flexible to act to address changes in its forecasted demand;
• acts quickly to identify and address any shortcomings in its capacity or ability to develop, deliver or award any of its qualifications that it could not reasonably have foreseen;
• collects and retains data that will allow it to meet its Conditions of Recognition, which could include, but not be limited to:
  • evidence of support for its qualifications (Condition E1);
  • qualitative and/or quantitative information from its monitoring of qualifications for features that could disadvantage particular Learners (Condition D2);
  • data that enables it to review the specified levels of attainment previously set for the qualification and similar qualifications it makes available (Condition H3);
  • the outcomes of its monitoring of its financial position and the steps it has taken to address any issues identified.

Examples of 鈥榥egative indicators鈥� that would suggest an awarding organisation is not likely to comply

The awarding organisation:

• does not identify or address inefficiencies in the development, delivery and award of its qualifications;
• cannot cope with demand for its qualifications;
• cannot facilitate demands from the regulator or other agencies, as required;
• fails to make appropriate amendments to the size and competence of its Workforce when it makes significant changes to the qualifications it offers;
• relies on IT systems that are prone to poor performance and/or repeated error;
• cannot access the up-to-date data it needs to be able to meet its Conditions of Recognition.

Guidance on Condition A6

Examples of 鈥榩ositive indicators鈥� that would suggest an awarding organisation is likely to comply

The awarding organisation:

• identifies events that might have an Adverse Effect using risk management approaches;
• knows where ownership for its approach to risk management lies within the organisation;
• reviews and updates its risks using a systematic and consistent approach;
• takes action to prevent or deal with risks that might have an Adverse Effect;
• has a contingency plan that covers:
  • the triggers for implementation of the plan;
  • the impact on other parts of the business of implementing the plan;
  • the minimum requirements to maintain development, delivery and award of its qualifications;
  • communication plans for relevant external parties;
  • what needs to be done to return to business as usual;
• tests its contingency plan to make sure it can mitigate Adverse Effects, covering areas such as key business systems and processes, and makes any necessary changes following the tests.

Examples of 鈥榥egative indicators鈥� that would suggest an awarding organisation is not likely to comply

The awarding organisation:

• does not systematically consider the range and type of risks that may have an impact on its regulated activities;
• has an ad hoc or inconsistent approach to identifying and managing risks that relate to preventing or mitigating Adverse Effects;
• does not actively take steps to mitigate risks it has identified;
• fails to identify a foreseeable risk (where it might be reasonably expected to do so) that could result in an Adverse Effect.

There is currently no guidance on complying with these Conditions

Guidance on malpractice and maladministration

Jump to:

• What is malpractice and maladministration?
• Identifying risk and preventing malpractice and maladministration
• Supporting Centres in their approach to malpractice and maladministration
• Detecting malpractice and maladministration
• Notifying Ofqual
• Investigating malpractice and maladministration
• Taking appropriate action where malpractice or maladministration is suspected or alleged
• Taking appropriate action once malpractice or maladministration is established
• Review of decisions relating to malpractice and maladministration
• What should an awarding organisation do after deciding what action to take?

Introduction

The successful delivery of examinations and assessments relies on the trust, integrity and diligence of exams officers, Teachers, Learners, awarding organisations and their suppliers, and the wider education community 鈥� the vast majority of whom take their responsibilities seriously. Normally the qualifications system functions well, but occasionally things go wrong. When this happens, awarding organisations need to investigate, and 鈥� where appropriate 鈥� take action, to maintain public confidence, secure accurate results for Learners and ensure assessments remain fit for purpose.

This guidance covers malpractice and maladministration. Malpractice and maladministration are specifically dealt with in Condition of Recognition A8. However, because incidents of malpractice and maladministration will often touch upon the fitness for purpose of assessments, or the accuracy of marking or results, other Conditions are often relevant. In this guidance, we explain how an awarding organisation might prevent, detect and investigate malpractice and maladministration, and what action to take as a result, drawing attention to relevant Conditions of Recognition.

This guidance includes some examples to help awarding organisation understand how they might respond to certain situations. However, the examples are illustrative and not exhaustive. Awarding Organisations must prevent, detect and investigate malpractice and maladministration in ways that are appropriate for their qualifications and assessments, and the specific circumstances of any case.

What is malpractice and maladministration?

Malpractice and maladministration are two distinct, but related, concepts.

In broad terms, maladministration generally covers mistakes or poor process where there has been no intention on the part of the person responsible to do any harm. It may involve some degree of incompetence or ineptitude, or may result from carelessness or inexperience. Whilst not an exhaustive list, the following are some examples of maladministration in relation to the design, delivery and awarding of qualifications which an awarding organisation makes available or proposes to make available:

• avoidable delay;
• mistakes arising from inattention;
• faulty procedures;
• failure to follow correct procedures;
• poor record keeping;
• inadvertent failure to take action;
• poor communication; and
• inadvertently giving misleading or inadequate information.

By contrast, malpractice will generally involve some form of intent. It may also include circumstances where an individual has been negligent or reckless as to the consequences of their actions. Malpractice could comprise of a conscious decision to do anything covered in the list above. Bias or discrimination could also lead to malpractice.

Two of the clearest examples of potential malpractice are:

• cheating, or facilitating cheating, in an assessment; and
• attempting intentionally to manipulate a result so that it does not reflect the Learner鈥檚 actual performance in an assessment.

Such action could be taken by the Learner themselves, a Teacher, an exams officer, or any other individual involved in, or with access to, the assessment process. More specific examples of potential malpractice in relation to the design, delivery and awarding of qualifications include:

• revealing the questions on an assessment in advance (where confidentiality is required under Condition G4.1);
• sharing confidential assessment materials ahead of an exam;
• claiming to have and/or offering to share confidential assessment materials and/or presenting hoax materials as confidential assessment materials;
• a Learner breaching the rules of the assessment, for example by taking impermissible materials into the assessment;
• a Learner passing off someone else鈥檚 work as their own;
• a Teacher providing a Learner with answers, providing assistance to Learners beyond what is permitted, or deliberately failing to apply the mark scheme to a Learner鈥檚 answer; and
• a Teacher or Learner falsifying a result.

Although malpractice and maladministration are distinct, the two concepts can be on a spectrum. As such, they will sometimes shade into one another.

For the purpose of an awarding organisation complying with our rules it may not be particularly relevant whether a specific incident is classified as malpractice or maladministration. Regardless of where on the spectrum any incident is, the requirements set out in the Conditions remain the same.

Identifying risk and preventing malpractice and maladministration

(a) Identifying risk

Condition A6.1 requires an awarding organisation to take all reasonable steps to identify the risk of any incidents which could have an Adverse Effect. Where they relate to the integrity of assessments or the accuracy of results, incidents of malpractice and maladministration may almost always have an Adverse Effect. Other forms of malpractice or maladministration may also have an Adverse Effect depending on the circumstances. Adverse Effect is a defined term under Condition J1.8.

An integral part of an awarding organisation鈥檚 compliance with Condition A6.1 will therefore be identifying the risks of malpractice and maladministration. In considering those risks an awarding organisation should take into account the following factors alongside the existing Guidance that currently supports A6.1.

• The types of malpractice or maladministration risk that are relevant to the awarding organisation鈥檚 qualifications. For example, whether confidentiality in assessment questions is required, or whether it would unfairly benefit a Learner to take a particular prohibited item into the assessment. What steps may be necessary to prevent this?
• Any aspects of the qualification鈥檚 design or delivery, or the processes used by the awarding organisation that could increase the likelihood of malpractice or maladministration. For example, whether:
  • Learners have the opportunity to obtain inappropriate assistance from Teachers or others in completing assessments;
  • the delivery of question papers to the awarding organisation is appropriately secure;
  • the security of assessment materials relies on the competence and integrity of Centre staff, such as exams officers; or
  • whether the marking process makes it possible to falsify marks.
• Who might become involved in malpractice or maladministration. For example, whether the risks lie with those designing, printing or delivering assessment materials, Learners, Teachers, administrative staff involved in the delivery of exams, exams officers, or particular Centres or Assessors.
• The likelihood that malpractice or maladministration will take place. For example, the benefit to the perpetrator of engaging in a particular type of malpractice or maladministration, the motivation/ incentive that may exist to engage in such behaviour and the perceived likelihood of being caught and the subsequent consequences.
• Where assessments take place. For example, where qualifications are sat internationally and exam papers need to be transported overseas and go through any customs procedures.
• The likely impact of any malpractice or maladministration on the awarding organisation鈥檚 ability to comply with its Conditions of Recognition. For example, whether the design of a particular assessment means that the leak of a question would require the entire assessment to be substituted for all Learners, and the ease with which that could be accomplished.
• Any data or other intelligence which can be used to identify the risk of malpractice and maladministration occurring. For example, considering, and where appropriate combining, data sets relating to entries, results, malpractice and maladministration, and access arrangements to spot patterns and unusual behaviour and inform the identification of risk.

(b) Preventing malpractice and maladministration

Having identified any risks of malpractice or maladministration, Conditions A6.2 and A8.1 require the awarding organisation to take all reasonable steps to prevent any malpractice or maladministration from occurring.

An awarding organisation should have in place, and adhere to, ways of working that reduce the risk of incidents of malpractice or maladministration, ensuring its Workforce understands and follows the relevant arrangements. As part of an awarding organisation鈥檚 obligations under Condition C1.1, it must ensure that third parties involved in the development, delivery and award of its qualifications understand and routinely follow such ways of working. It must also monitor the work undertaken by third parties under such arrangements.

The arrangements should include coverage of the following, as relevant:

• plagiarism, collusion, tampering, breach of confidentiality of assessment materials; and
• incidents that could occur wherever regulated qualifications are taken.

Compliance with Conditions A6.2 and A8.1 requires that such arrangements are as effective as reasonably possible. It is not enough to have an arrangement in place if it is not appropriate to the risks of malpractice and maladministration to which a particular qualification gives rise.

Depending on the qualification, reasonable steps to prevent malpractice or maladministration may include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Education and information. The awarding organisation should provide appropriate training and/or information on ways of working and arrangements to prevent malpractice and maladministration to, amongst others: their Workforce; Learners; Centres, including specific training and/ or information for key members of staff such as the head of Centre, and exams officers; and Teachers. For example, awarding organisations should consider the level of guidance given to those conducting assessments to ensure they are fully aware of the rules and conditions under which non-exam, work-based, or practical assessments must be conducted. This might include information for Centres on the support and feedback a Teacher may provide. It might also include information for Learners on what constitutes plagiarism and the consequences if they plagiarise.
• Designing out opportunities for malpractice and maladministration. Awarding organisations should design qualifications and processes to reduce, as far as reasonably possible, the opportunity for malpractice and maladministration to occur. For example, requiring a second check on assessment materials before they are handed out, or clearly labelling and promptly removing outdated assessment materials from their website in order to reduce the risk of maladministration.
• Centre checks being undertaken with appropriate regularity and rigour. This is likely to include more regular checks for Centres that may be deemed at higher risk of committing malpractice or maladministration, such as new Centres or those where particular issues have been identified. Awarding organisations might decide not to work with certain Centres where they deem the risks of malpractice and maladministration to be too great.
• Securing the behaviour and action they would expect from third parties and partner organisations. An awarding organisation should seek to support a culture of risk identification, prevention and reporting concerns by, and within, third parties and Centres.
• Any other appropriate safeguards. In line with Condition A8.1, awarding organisations should use appropriate safeguards for the particular qualifications they provide to prevent malpractice and maladministration. Awarding organisations should look to test, evaluate and develop these safeguards over time to ensure they are fit for purpose.

An awarding organisation should take appropriate steps to ensure that its policies and practices are working effectively to prevent malpractice and maladministration as part of their risk management process. Awarding organisations might test the effectiveness of such measures by, for example:

• Monitoring and sampling. An awarding organisation should appropriately monitor and sample areas that might be high risk, focussing its monitoring on qualifications and/ or Centres with a history of malpractice or maladministration and taking into account relevant information provided by another awarding organisation under Condition A8.7 (b). This may also include scrutiny of assessment materials so that malpractice or maladministration can be identified.
• Using data, feedback and internal audits to make sure their processes are working well. The process of preventing, detecting, investigating and sanctioning malpractice and maladministration can be viewed as cyclical. Where, despite measures in place, malpractice or maladministration does occur, an awarding organisation should learn from the occurrence to inform a new risk analysis and to decide how to reduce the risk of reoccurrence, in compliance with Conditions A6.2, A8.1 and D3.

See Example 1 below

Supporting Centres in their approach to malpractice and maladministration

Condition C2.5 requires an awarding organisation to provide effective guidance to their Centres on how the qualifications should be delivered. Under Condition A8.5 awarding organisations must provide any additional, and potentially more focused, guidance on request by the Centre. An awarding organisation must respond to a request from a Centre to provide it with guidance on how best to prevent, investigate and deal with malpractice and maladministration.

However, an awarding organisation might sometimes need to do more than provide guidance to a Centre to discharge its duties under Conditions A6, A7, and A8. For example, where it judges that the Centre cannot manage the issue itself, the awarding organisation might step in, in line with the requirement of Condition A8.1, to take all reasonable steps to prevent malpractice and maladministration.

Detecting malpractice and maladministration

Condition A8.2(a) requires that where malpractice or maladministration is suspected by an awarding organisation or alleged by any other person, and where there are reasonable grounds for that suspicion or allegation, the awarding organisation must, so far as possible, establish whether the malpractice or maladministration has occurred. Indeed, it will sometimes only be through investigation that an awarding organisation can determine the credibility of the allegation and what has occurred.

An awarding organisation should have a consistent, structured approach to dealing with allegations and suspicions. This includes having clear policies and procedures in place to allow information received from individuals and/or organisations to be handled and used effectively

When an allegation or suspicion comes to light, the awarding organisation should act quickly to secure any relevant evidence and information to support its judgements. When deciding whether reasonable grounds for a suspicion or allegation exist, an awarding organisation should consider any relevant factors, including the following:

• the initial information provided with the allegation or other information which gives rise to the suspicion;
• the source of any allegation;
• any evidence that may reduce the credibility of the allegation;
• any previous allegations, suspicions or evidence that may support, or contradict, the facts or information presented; an awarding organisation should cross-reference allegations made against existing records;
• any previous relevant investigations in relation to a Centre, whether or not a finding of malpractice or maladministration was made; this should also include details it holds of any investigations into the Centre by another awarding organisation; and
• the time between the alleged malpractice or maladministration and the date the allegation was made.

Awarding organisations should, in accordance with Condition A5.2 (b), keep a log of all allegations and suspicions of malpractice and maladministration, along with records of investigations, eventual decisions on the existence of malpractice and maladministration and how each decision was reached. Awarding organisations should also consider retaining any additional information to allow them to identify patterns of behaviour relating to malpractice and maladministration over time, in line with the requirement under Condition A6.1 to take all reasonable steps to identify the risk of the occurrence of any incident which could have an鈥�Adverse Effect.

Where the awarding organisation holds information relevant to its compliance with the Conditions it should consider the period for which it should retain this.

See Example 2 below

Notifying Ofqual

An awarding organisation must promptly notify Ofqual when it has cause to believe that an event has occurred, or is likely to occur, which could have an Adverse Effect.

Under Condition B3.2(g) an awarding organisation has a particular obligation to promptly notify Ofqual where it has cause to believe that there has been an incident of malpractice or maladministration, which could either invalidate the award of a qualification which it makes available, or could affect another awarding organisation.
In all cases, Condition B3.1 requires that Ofqual be notified promptly. Under Condition B3.6 the awarding organisation must not wait until it has the full picture before informing Ofqual. Therefore, where an awarding organisation has cause to believe that malpractice or maladministration has, or is likely to, occur, and that this could have an Adverse Effect, it should not wait until it has completed any investigation before notifying Ofqual. Where there is a credible allegation of suspected malpractice or maladministration that could constitute criminal activity, an awarding organisation may wish to consider whether they should notify the police as well as notifying Ofqual under Condition B3.1.

Investigating malpractice and maladministration

Once the awarding organisation has established that there are reasonable grounds for the suspicion or allegation, it must ensure a rigorous and effective investigation is carried out. Usually an investigation will be more effective if it is carried out promptly.

Under Condition A8.3(a) an awarding organisation must establish, maintain and comply with up to date written procedures for investigating such allegations or suspicions.

An awarding organisation should use, and regularly review, its written procedures, which may take the form of a standardised investigations policy and approach, which should address, but is not limited to:

• who investigates concerns about malpractice or maladministration;
• how an investigation is undertaken, including how it will be conducted so as to ensure the preservation and integrity of evidence;
• how whistleblowers will be treated, and how prejudice towards them will be avoided;
• when and how anyone suspected of malpractice or maladministration will be notified about the investigation and given a right to supply evidence and respond to any preliminary findings;
• when and how interested parties will be notified of any issues which may affect them and be given an opportunity to make submissions;
• how any interviews will be conducted;
• how facts will be gathered and evidence found, collated and stored;
• how evidence will be verified;
• how the confidentiality of investigation materials will be ensured;
• how the outcomes of its investigations will be presented and their accuracy assured;
• how and when any visits to鈥�Centres鈥痺ill be announced and undertaken;
• what principles will be followed when it undertakes an investigation with other bodies; and
• any other relevant information as required.

Awarding organisations should not presume that the Centre is always best placed to complete an investigation. Under Condition A8.3(b) an awarding organisation must ensure that investigations are carried out rigorously, effectively, and by persons of appropriate competence who have no personal interest in their outcome.

This will require consideration of a number of issues on a case-by-case basis, including the potential scale and scope of the investigation, and the competence, capacity and personal interest of anyone who will complete any part of the investigation.

(a) Scale and scope of the investigation

The scale and scope of the investigation will have an impact on who is best placed to complete the investigation. Awarding organisations should take into account:

• The nature of the possible malpractice or maladministration, for example, whether the issue relates to a breach of confidentiality in the design stage, cheating in assessments or problems at the marking or any grading stage.
• The number of Learners involved, if any, in the alleged malpractice or maladministration and the number directly advantaged, or disadvantaged, by the alleged malpractice or maladministration.
• The degree of potential advantage or disadvantage to Learners involved in, or affected by, the alleged malpractice or maladministration.
• The extent to which Teachers or other professionals may be involved in the alleged malpractice or maladministration as this will help to determine the degree of any personal interest, as outlined below.
• The extent to which the allegation or suspicion suggests any level of knowledge or awareness of the suspected malpractice or maladministration at Centre level.
• The number of Centres involved.
• The potential impact on public confidence in the qualification, or regulated qualifications more widely, of the suspected issue if confirmed.
• Any potential impact on public confidence if Centre staff have a role in the investigation.
• The degree to which alleged malpractice or maladministration may disadvantage other Learners.
• The number of other Learners that may be affected by the alleged malpractice or maladministration, and the potential impact on them, as this might influence the effect on public confidence.

The extent to which each factor is relevant, and whether any others should be considered, will vary, as will the appropriate weight to be given to any relevant factor.

(b) Competence and capacity

An awarding organisation should make sure its investigators are competent to complete the investigation in line with its potential scale and complexity. It should make sure its investigators have appropriate skills and experience including, as appropriate, in:

• gathering and recording evidence from interviews;
• gathering evidence from minors, vulnerable adults and those with learning difficulties;
• protecting, gathering and retaining evidence from documentation and electronic sources;
• the information that should be given to those suspected of being engaged with malpractice or maladministration;
• when and how to involve other authorities including the police where criminal activity is suspected; and
• safeguarding.

In line with the requirement under Condition A8.3 (b) for an investigation to be both rigorous and effective, where an individual has the appropriate competence, awarding organisations should also consider the capacity of the individual to undertake an investigation. The awarding organisation should consider:

• the capacity of the individual to undertake the investigation promptly; and
• the time required and available capacity of the individual.

Under Condition A5.2(a), an awarding organisation must establish and maintain a Workforce of appropriate size and competence. As a result, awarding organisations should seek to have appropriate and sufficient access to trained investigators so that this resource is available should it be required.

(c) Personal interest

Under Condition A8.3 (b), awarding organisations must ensure that investigations are carried out by individuals with no personal interest in their outcome. The definition of the term Conflict of Interest can be found in Condition J1. A personal interest is a Conflict of Interest that relates to a particular individual. An awarding organisation must ensure that anyone who conducts the investigation has no personal interest in its outcome. Particular care must be taken when judging whether an individual within the Centre is best placed to conduct an investigation given the greater risk of an actual or perceived Conflict of Interest in that context. Further guidance around personal interest, and making a judgement as to whether this exists, can be found in the guidance to Condition A4, including a specific example of where individuals in a Centre may not be well placed to investigate a specific incident.

Awarding organisations should consider the scale and scope of the suspected or alleged malpractice or maladministration, competence, and personal interest when identifying who is best placed to investigate a suspicion or allegation and when deciding who should gather evidence to support an investigation. As judgements about malpractice and maladministration will be based on any evidence gathered, these considerations are as relevant to who collects evidence as they are to who takes decisions based on that evidence.

See Examples 3 and 4 below

Taking appropriate action where malpractice or maladministration is suspected or alleged

(a) Relevant Conditions

Awarding organisations must comply with Conditions H5.1 and H6.1 (d). These Conditions require an awarding organisation to ensure that the result of each assessment reflects the level of attainment demonstrated by a Learner and to issue results which accurately and completely reflect the marking of assessments. The action taken by an awarding organisation in a suspected or alleged case of malpractice or maladministration must be geared towards achieving this so as to fully comply with these Conditions.

In particular:

• Condition A8.2(b) requires awarding organisations to promptly take all reasonable steps to prevent any Adverse Effect to which it may give rise;
• where such an Adverse Effect nonetheless arises, Condition A8.2(b) also requires an awarding organisation to promptly take all reasonable steps to mitigate the Adverse Effect as far as possible and correct it; and
• because cases of suspected or alleged malpractice and maladministration are (necessarily) examples of an incident that could have an Adverse Effect, then Condition A7.1 (b) also requires the awarding organisation to 鈥榞ive priority to the provision of assessments which accurately differentiate between Learners on the basis of the level of attainment they have demonstrated and to the accurate and timely award of qualifications鈥�.

Conditions A7.1(a) and A8.2(b) require an awarding organisation to take all reasonable steps to prevent any Adverse Effect that may result, or where an Adverse Effect occurs, mitigate it as far as possible.

(b) Factors to consider

Where malpractice or maladministration is suspected but no determination has yet been made, an awarding organisation should consider whether to take any precautionary steps to reduce the potential for an Adverse Effect. When deciding what steps might be appropriate it should take into account:

• The intended use of the qualification. For example, for professional qualifications and qualifications which confer a licence to practise, suspected malpractice or maladministration may call into question whether an individual has demonstrated the required level of competence. Where this is the case, the potential Adverse Effect of allowing the individual to practise may outweigh any Adverse Effects on the individual of delaying their entry into their profession or gaining their licence to practise. Any health and safety or safeguarding issues will be relevant in this regard.
• Any time scales involved, for example, where the qualification may be used to apply for or enter higher education.
• The scale and scope of the possible malpractice or maladministration.
• Any potential risk to other qualifications as a result of the possible malpractice or maladministration.
• Whether there are additional risks that might arise as a result of the suspected malpractice or maladministration. For example, where a Teacher is suspected of malpractice or maladministration, whether allowing them to continue to deliver assessments increases the risk of further incidents.
• Any legal implications arising from actions in each case.

Under Condition A7.1(b), where any incident occurs which could have an鈥�Adverse Effect, an awarding organisation must promptly take all reasonable steps to give priority to the provision of assessments which accurately differentiate between鈥�Learners鈥痮n the basis of the level of attainment they have demonstrated and to the accurate and timely award of qualifications. In the case of malpractice or maladministration, this Condition requires the awarding organisation to give priority to ensuring that it provides assessments that are fit for purpose. For example, should a large-scale security breach of assessment materials occur prior to an assessment, an awarding organisation may initially focus on distributing alternative materials where possible, in order to meet this obligation.

In line with the overarching objective outlined above, where malpractice or maladministration is suspected or alleged prior to the issue of results, an awarding organisation must consider whether it should delay the issue of any or all results. In this respect, the absolute obligations to ensure that results are correct in Conditions H5.1 and H6.1 (d) are stronger obligations than the duty to take all reasonable steps to comply with a timescale for issuing results in Condition H6.1 (f). For example, it may not be reasonable to issue a result which is highly likely to be incorrect simply to meet a published date. Likewise, the requirement for the issue of results to be timely under Condition H6.1 (e) means that results should be issued at the earliest appropriate time, not simply as soon as possible. The use to which a qualification is put will be a relevant factor in considering timeliness.

An awarding organisation is under an obligation to issue results for all units and qualifications under Condition H6.1 and this means that it cannot withhold results indefinitely. However, an awarding organisation can conclude that a result should not be issued where the malpractice or maladministration affected the level of attainment demonstrated by the Learner.

We will expect awarding organisations to carefully consider the balance between its obligations when deciding whether to withhold results, using some of the factors highlighted above when making such decisions.

A similar balancing exercise will be required where malpractice or maladministration is alleged or suspected following the issue of results but prior to the issue of certificates.

In accordance with Condition B3.5, the awarding organisation has a continuing obligation to notify Ofqual as soon as possible of any steps that it has taken or intends to take to prevent an Adverse Effect, or to correct or mitigate any Adverse Effect that occurs.

Taking appropriate action once malpractice or maladministration is established

Under Condition A8.6 (b), where malpractice or maladministration is established, an awarding organisation must take all reasonable steps to take action, or seek the cooperation of others in taking such action. Awarding organisations are required to ensure that the action is proportionate to the gravity and scope of the malpractice or maladministration found.

Proportionate action can only be taken once the facts of the case have been established. Awarding organisations should therefore consider all relevant information when determining what action to take on a case-by-case basis. In all cases awarding organisations should consider consequential effects, including the effect of the proposed action on the individual or centre, when judging which action(s) are proportionate. An awarding organisation must balance the consequences for the individual or Centre against the seriousness and effects of the malpractice or maladministration. This does not preclude the use of a sanctions matrix or similar, but does require the consequential factors in each individual case to be considered when judging whether or which sanction(s) are proportionate.

Under Condition H6.3 (b), where an awarding organisation discovers that a result is incorrect, it must consider whether to correct it, having regard to the relevant Guidance.

Under Condition I4.2(c), an awarding organisation must take all reasonable steps to ensure that it revokes any certificate if the result on the certificate is false because of malpractice or maladministration. It should consider how it will contact the Learners involved to notify them of the status of their certificates and of any arrangements for re-assessment and/or certification, as well as their right of appeal.

Review of decisions relating to malpractice and maladministration

Condition I1.1c (alternatively for GCSE, AS/A level and Project qualifications, Qualification Level Condition GCSE18.2(d), GCE18.2(d) and Project12.2(d) respectively) requires an awarding organisation to establish, maintain and comply with an appeals process in relation to its qualifications. This must provide for the appeal of decisions relating to any action to be taken against a鈥�Learner鈥痮r a鈥�Centre鈥痜ollowing an investigation into malpractice or maladministration. Learners should be informed of decisions relating to action to be taken against them following an investigation into malpractice or maladministration, together with the supporting reasons. Where information concerns third parties, awarding organisations should consider what information may be shared lawfully.
The awarding organisation might inform the Learner directly or require the Centre to do so.

Where awarding organisations face difficulties contacting Learners 鈥� once results have been issued, for example, due to Centre closure, or other factors 鈥� awarding organisations should take all reasonable steps to contact them.

Where the awarding organisation finds that a Teacher has committed malpractice the awarding organisation should consider, where appropriate, notifying the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA), or any organisation that carries out the same function in England or another jurisdiction. In considering whether such a referral is appropriate, the awarding organisation should consider any guidance issued by the appropriate regulator and whether:

• the Teacher is subject to professional regulation by the TRA or other teaching regulator; and
• the malpractice is serious based on the facts of the case and the seriousness of the sanction imposed.

If the awarding organisation has evidence that any Centre at which the Teacher is employed has made a referral to the TRA, it does not need to make a referral. Where there is doubt, the awarding organisation should make a referral itself. Where confidential information is disclosed by an individual who is not subject to regulation by the TRA or another teaching regulator, the awarding organisation should notify any other professional regulator to which that person is subject, where appropriate.

What should an awarding organisation do after deciding what action to take?

Condition D3.3 requires that where an event relating to an awarding organisation has had an鈥�Adverse Effect, it must review, and revise where necessary, its approach to the development, delivery and award of qualifications to ensure it remains appropriate. This could include, for example, putting in place new safeguards, changing the design of a qualification, revising how it develops new qualifications and/ or providing further information and/or guidance. The awarding organisation should consider, in particular, if it should improve its controls or approach to malpractice or maladministration. This should be a cyclical process where an awarding organisation uses the incident to inform the identification of future risks under Condition A6.1. In accordance with Condition A6, an awarding organisation should also consider whether to update its contingency plan.

Examples

Example 1

For one of an awarding organisation鈥檚 qualifications, Learners receive training on the job and complete assessments at a Centre. One possible form of malpractice is an individual impersonating the Learner entered for the assessment. The awarding organisation (correctly) considers the risk is greater for this qualification because Learners have no existing relationship with the Centre at which they take the assessment. Reasonable steps the awarding organisation might take to prevent this form of malpractice might include: 鈥� requiring that students show formal identification before they enter the assessment room, and that the relevant identification is checked each time they sit an assessment, 鈥� having procedures where Centres can raise concerns with the Awarding Organisation about the identification presented, which trigger additional checks on identification before the Learner receives a result, 鈥� issuing resources to Centres to display highlighting the penalties for malpractice, 鈥� providing guidance to Centres on verifying a Learner鈥檚 identity, 鈥� regular, effective monitoring of the processes in place at Centres delivering the qualifications to ensure policies and practices in place are functioning as intended, and 鈥� reviewing policies and procedures in the light of any instances of malpractice, or examples of good practice, found during such monitoring. This example relates to a specific risk and a specific qualification. However, the approach of considering the specific risks of malpractice and maladministration, devising policies and procedures to prevent those risks crystallising, reviewing whether those policies and procedures are working, and making relevant changes as appropriate, is equally applicable for other risks and qualifications. Go back

Example 2

A teacher has contacted an awarding organisation to allege that the head teacher of a school is opening exam papers on receipt and using the information to provide revision sessions for students. They provide further information, including detailed timings in relation to the allegation. The allegation was received 6 months after the alleged incident. The awarding organisation reviewed records of previous allegations and discovered two previous allegations of malpractice against the school. The earlier allegations were made by parents of students at the school, and both were in relation to students being given inappropriate help from invigilators in exams. Both claims were investigated by the head of centre and insufficient evidence was found to support either allegation. Although previous investigations of other allegations did not find sufficient evidence to make a finding of malpractice, these had been undertaken by the head of centre who is implicated in the recent allegation. Whilst there has been some delay between the alleged incident and its reporting, both the teacher raising the concern, and the headteacher are still working at the school. On balance, given the level of detail provided by the alleger, the awarding organisation is likely to believe reasonable grounds exist to investigate the allegation. Go back

Example 3

It is reported that a student has been found with a mobile phone in a language speaking exam. There was no suggestion that they intended to use the device. The awarding organisation was notified by the head of centre. Any decision as to who is best placed to investigate should not be made on the basis of who reported the malpractice or maladministration; this does not indicate whether the individual has appropriate competence and no personal interest, which is a requirement of the Conditions. The awarding organisation should consider establishing some initial facts to enable it to consider the question of how such an incident should be approached. There is no suggestion in the allegation that this was anything other than an isolated incident involving one student in the one Centre. There is no personal relationship between the head of centre and the student involved beyond the professional relationship that would be expected in this situation. Whilst there is in such a case the potential for a Conflict of Interest as a result of the potential of a finding of malpractice to impact on the grades achieved in the exam by the student, and as such an impact on the school, the scale and scope of the alleged malpractice in this case lowers this risk. As such, provided that the awarding organisation is confident that the head of centre has the appropriate competence to gather statements appropriately and is independent from the incident to avoid any actual or perceived conflict, it may be appropriate for the head of centre to gather evidence in this case. However, in cases where the incident itself is similar, but for example involves a greater number of students within the school, or implicates staff members, or there may have been repeated incidents of a similar nature, this would change the scale and scope of the investigation and the awarding organisation would need to consider whether the same investigator would be appropriate as this may affect the potential for conflict of interest and a potential need for greater competence. Go back

Example 4

It is alleged that 20 students at a centre have been given extra time in which to complete an exam without there being any evidence they are entitled to a Reasonable Adjustment. The allegation suggests that the same has happened in the last two years and that a total of over 50 students had been involved. The current SENCo, is a member of the senior leadership team, and has been in post for the last three years. Given that the allegation involves staff at the Centre, and could have potential implications for student outcomes should malpractice be proven, there is the potential that any individual staff member within the Centre may have a conflict of interest in this case. Any investigation would need to be carried out by a person familiar with Reasonable Adjustments arrangements so they are competent to undertake such an investigation. As the investigation might involve interviews with SEND students, and potentially vulnerable students, the investigator would need appropriate skills and experience engaging with such students. It is likely that an external investigator would be required, as those within the centre would not be best placed to gather the evidence. Where an awarding organisation does not have appropriate skills and competence within their own workforce, they may consider it necessary to seek support from a third party. Go back