The next date for review of this policy is September 2017
Staff Malpractice Policy
This policy sets out to define the procedures to be followed in the event of any dispute or allegation regarding staff malpractice in the assessment of internally marked qualifications (such as ASDAN CoPE) and also regarding examinations invigilated by staff at the school and marked externally.
Examples of Malpractice
Attempted or actual malpractice activity will not be tolerated. The following are examples of malpractice by staff with regards to portfolio-based qualifications. This list is not exhaustive:
• Tampering with candidates work prior to external moderation/verification
• Assisting candidates with the production of work outside of the awarding body guidance
• Fabricating assessment and/or internal verification records or authentication statements
The following are examples of malpractice by staff with regard to examinations
• Assisting candidates with exam questions outside of the awarding body guidance
• Allowing candidates to talk, use a mobile phone or go to the toilet unsupervised
• Tampering with scripts prior to external marking taking place.
Staff Malpractice Procedure
Investigations into allegations will be coordinated by Vannessa Birchenall who will ensure the initial investigation is carried out within ten working days. The person responsible for coordinating the investigation will depend on the qualification being investigated. The investigation will involve establishing the full facts and circumstances of any alleged malpractice. It should not be assumed that because an allegation has been made, it is true. Where appropriate, the staff member concerned and any potential witnesses will be interviewed and their version of events recorded on paper.
The member of staff will be:
• informed in writing of the allegation made against him or her
• informed what evidence there is to support the allegation
• informed of the possible consequences, should malpractice be proven
• given the opportunity to consider their response to the allegations
• given the opportunity to submit a written statement
• given the opportunity to seek advice (as necessary) and to provide a supplementary statement (if required)
• informed of the applicable appeals procedure, should a decision be made against him/her
• informed of the possibility that information relating to a serious case of malpractice will be shared with the relevant awarding body and may be shared with other awarding bodies, the regulators Ofqual, the police and/or professional bodies including the GTC
If work is submitted for moderation/verification or for marking which is not the candidate’s own work, the awarding body may not be able to give that candidate a result.
Staff Malpractice Sanctions
Where a member of staff is found guilty of malpractice, Respect4usmay impose the following sanctions:
1) Written warning: Issue the member of staff with a written warning stating that if the offence is repeated within a set period of time, further specified sanctions will be applied
2) Training: Require the member of staff, as a condition of future involvement in both internal and external assessments to undertake specific training or mentoring, within a particular period of time, including a review process at the end of the training
3) Special conditions: Impose special conditions on the future involvement in assessments by the member of staff
4) Suspension: Bar the member of staff in all involvement in the administration of assessments for a set period of time
5) Dismissal: Should the degree of malpractice be deemed gross professional misconduct, the member of staff could face dismissal from his/her post
The member of staff may appeal against sanctions imposed on them. Appeals will be conducted in line with the organisations Appeals Policy.
Candidate Malpractice Policy
This policy sets out to define the procedures to be followed in the event of any dispute or allegation regarding candidate malpractice in the assessment of internally marked qualifications (such as ASDAN CoPE) and also regarding examinations marked externally.
Examples of Malpractice
Attempted or actual malpractice activity will not be tolerated. The following are examples of malpractice by candidates with regards to portfolio-based qualifications. This list is not exhaustive:
• Plagiarism: the copying and passing of as the candidate’s own work, the whole or part of another person’s work
• Collusion: working collaboratively with other learners to produce work that is submitted as the candidate’s only
• Failing to abide by the instructions of an assessor – This may refer to the use of resources which the candidate has been specifically told not to use
• The alteration of any results document
If a teacher suspects a candidate of malpractice, the candidate will be informed and the allegations will be explained. The candidate will have the opportunity to give their side of the story before any final decision is made. If the candidate accepts that malpractice has occurred, he/she will be given the opportunity to repeat the assignment. If found guilty of malpractice following an investigation, the teacher may decide to re-mark previous assignments and these could also be rejected if similar concerns are identified.
The following are examples of malpractice by candidates with regards to examinations. This list is not exhaustive:
• Talking during an examination
• Taking a mobile phone into an examination
• Taking any item other than those accepted by the Awarding Body into the examination, such as a book or notes
• Leaving the examination room without permission
• Passing notes or papers or accepting notes to, or accepting notes or papers from another candidate
If a teacher suspects a candidate of malpractice during an examination, the candidate will be informed and the allegations will be explained. The candidate will have the opportunity to give their side of the story before any final decision is made. If the candidate is found guilty of malpractice, the Awarding Body will be informed and the candidate’s examination paper with be withdrawn. It is unlikely that the candidate will have the opportunity to repeat the examination.
In the event that a malpractice decision is made, which the candidate feels is unfair, the candidate has the right to appeal in line the Appeals Policy.