CELL AWARDS Malpractice Policy

CELL AWARDS MALPRACTICE PROCEDURE

30/5/11

0f97818af90ef93e203b8f339486de5d.doc 04/04/2018 V1.1 Head of Qualifications, CELL Updated 04/07/2013 2nd Floor | 33 Queen Street | London | EC4R 1AP

Email: [email protected] CELL AWARDS MALPRACTICE PROCEDURE

Malpractice is defined as actions that may threaten the integrity of CELL Awards or its qualifications.

Any allegation of malpractice must be reported to CELL Awards immediately. Failure to do so is itself malpractice

1. PROCEDURES FOR DEALING WITH MALPRACTICE IN CELL AWARDS APPROVED CENTRES

 Qualifications will not be processed until the matter has been investigated.  If the integrity of the certificates is threatened CELL Awards will firstly inform the regulatory authorities (Ofqual, DCELLS, CCEA) of any suspected malpractice.  In the event of it being necessary for CELL Awards to inform the regulatory authorities of suspected malpractice, CELL Awards will liaise with them to determine what future action should be taken.  When the alleged malpractice involves candidates only or a single member of staff any further action will normally be in the form of a detailed investigation and report from the centre implemented by the Head of the Department or the Head of the Centre. The report should contain the following: - A statement of the circumstances and facts surrounding investigation. - Written statements from all staff concerned. - Any extenuating circumstances e.g. medical reports. - Details of the centre’s procedure for informing candidates of CELL Awards’ regulations. - Any unauthorised materials found during the examination or assessment. - Any work of candidates and other assessment material relevant to the investigation. - Copies of relevant registers or other records of attendance. - Copies of relevant schemes of work.  CELL Awards reserves the right to conduct an investigation itself, check the accuracy and validity of information and instigate further investigation when and where necessary.  Each case of suspected malpractice will be considered on an individual basis by the CELL Awards Quality Assurance Group chaired by the Managing Director of CELL Awards this will incorporate at least one external member.

The primary aims are:  To establish whether the integrity of the examination and certification process has been compromised.  To evaluate CELL Awards procedures to try and ensure that there is no repetition and that nothing can be gained from abusing CELL Awards regulations and procedures.

Page 2 of 8 Examples of Malpractice might include:

 Allowing candidates access to previous CELL Awards examination papers or assessments without CELL Awards approval.  Photocopying CELL Awards examination papers or assessments without CELL Awards approval.  Changing the date of a CELL Awards examination or assessment without CELL Awards approval.  Obtaining unauthorised access to assessment material prior to the examination or assessment taking place.  Assisting or prompting students with answers.  Failure to keep completed examination scripts and assessment secure.  Failure to send completed examination scripts and assessments to CELL Awards on the prescribed day.  Failure to supply an invigilator with no knowledge of the subject being examined or assessed.  Failure to complete internal assessment, record the results in the way determined by CELL Awards and/or return the completed work as required by CELL Awards regulations.  Failure to conduct internal assessment using the agreed assessment criteria.  Failure to comply with CELL Awards minimum Guided Learning Hours.  Failure to comply with any CELL Awards examination or assessment regulations, procedures or guidance documents.

Sanctions that might be imposed as a result of centre/staff malpractice.

 Where a centre fails to co-operate with CELL Awards’ malpractice policy, certificates will not be issued and future entries and/or registrations not accepted.  Where an investigation establishes malpractice by a centre or member of staff, CELL Awards reserves the right to impose special sanctions on any future involvement of the centre, member of staff or both.  Where an investigation establishes malpractice by a centre, CELL Awards will consider the status of the centre. This might result in CELL Awards suspending its approval and refusing to accept further entries for its qualifications.  Where an investigation establishes malpractice of a member of staff CELL Awards can refuse to have that member of staff involved in the delivery or assessment of CELL Awards qualifications in future.

The Decision

CELL Awards will communicate the outcome of any alleged malpractice investigations as soon as possible after the decisions have been made. It is the responsibility of the centre to communicate those decisions to staff, candidates and any other individuals affected by the decision.

Page 3 of 8 Appeals Centres may appeal against a decision or penalties imposed by CELL Awards using the CELL Awards Appeals procedure.

Page 4 of 8 2. Procedure for dealing with suspected malpractice by a candidate.

 The Head of Department or Head of Centre should submit a full written report of the case with supporting evidence CELL Awards.  The accused candidates should be made fully aware of any breach of CELL Awards regulations in writing as soon as possible along with the possible consequences of their alleged actions.  Candidates accused of malpractice must be given the opportunity to respond to the accusation in writing.  Candidates should be made aware of the enquiries and the appeals process if malpractice is established.  If an interview with the candidate is required it must only be conducted in the presence of the Head of Centre or another senior member of staff. The Centre should ensure that two people are present and that an accurate record of the meeting is made and forwarded to CELL Awards as part of the supporting evidence. The candidate must be given the opportunity to be accompanied by one person of their choice and should sign the record to indicate that it is accurate.  Any further action would normally be in the form of a detailed investigation and report from the centre, implemented by the Head of Centre or Head of Department. The report should contain the following: . A statement of the circumstances and facts surrounding investigation. . Written statements from all staff concerned. . A written statement from the candidate(s) concerned. . Any extenuating circumstances e.g. medical reports. . Details of the centre’s procedure for informing candidates of CELL Awards’ regulations. . Any unauthorised materials found during the examination or assessment. . Any work of candidates and other assessment material relevant to the investigation. . Copies of relevant registers or other records of attendance. . Copies of relevant schemes of work. . A written record of any interviews that have taken place.

 Each case of suspected malpractice will be considered on an individual basis by the CELL Awards Quality Assurance Group chaired by the CELL Awards Managing Director and incorporating at least one external member.

Page 5 of 8 Examples of candidate malpractice might include:

 Obtaining, receiving, exchanging, or passing on information which could be related to an examination or assessment which is taking place by talking, written paper or notes or any information passed on by any electronic means.  Unauthorised access to any CELL Awards examination or assessment paper.  Copying from another candidate.  Presenting another candidates work as their own. (Plagiarism)  Impersonation. Pretending to be somebody else, allowing somebody else to impersonate you or colluding in the act of impersonation.  Failing to follow the instructions of the invigilator.  Claiming false accreditation of prior learning.

Possible sanctions that may be imposed as a result of candidate malpractice

 The candidate may be issued with a warning.  The candidate may lose all marks related to that particular assessment.  The candidate may lose all marks related to that particular unit.  The candidate may be disqualified from the whole qualification.  The candidate may be barred from entering CELL Awards qualifications for a set period of time  The candidate may be banned permanently from entering CELL Awards qualifications.  In the case of significant malpractice CELL Awards reserve the right to report the incident to other awarding bodies, Ofqual and/or the police.

The Decision

Appeals

Appeals against a decision or penalty imposed by CELL Awards will only be accepted from the Head of The Centre on behalf of the candidate.

Page 6 of 8 3. Procedure for the investigation of malpractice by an employee of CELL Awards

 If the integrity of the certificates is threatened, CELL AWARDS will inform the regulatory authority (Ofqual) of any suspected malpractice by anybody employed by CELL Awards.  If the integrity of the certificates is threatened, CELL AWARDS will liaise with Ofqual to establish what further action may need to be taken.  CELL Awards will produce a detailed report which will report findings and recommend what action should be taken. The findings and recommendations of the report will be implemented by the Managing Director and/or the Head of Qualifications depending on the circumstances. The report should contain the following: - A statement of the circumstances and facts surrounding the investigation and the conclusion drawn. - The origin of the complaint or mode of discovery of the alleged irregularity. - The investigation carried out. - The conclusion. - Recommendations for action and resolution of the issue. - Written statements from any staff concerned. - Any extenuating circumstances e.g. medical report. - Details of CELL Awards’ procedures for informing all CELL Awards staff of its regulations and procedures. - Any unauthorised material found during the conduct of the investigation. - Any work of CELL Awards staff and other materials relevant to the investigation.  Each case of suspected malpractice will be considered on an individual basis by the CELL Awards Quality Assurance Group chaired by the Managing Director of CELL Awards.

Page 7 of 8 Examples of malpractice of CELL Awards staff might include:

 Assisting or prompting students with answers.  General failure to comply with CELL Awards regulations and procedures.  Failure to keep the contents of CELL Awards examination papers and assessments secure.  Failure to keep the contents of the CELL Awards database secure as related to the Data Protection Act.  Failure to send results and other paperwork within the time scales specified by CELL Awards’ policies and procedures.  Failure to keep assessment records, scripts and other materials secure and in good order.  Failure to send papers and other assessments to markers in the timescale laid down by CELL Awards policies and procedures.  Failure of examiners/assessors/verifiers to retain, provide and return documents to and for CELL Awards in compliance with CELL Awards policies and procedures.  Failure to attend to CELL Awards operations within the timescales laid down in the various CELL Awards policies and procedures.  Consistent lack of punctuality.  Inappropriate correspondence with CELL Awards Centres and prospective centres.

Possible sanctions that may be imposed as a result of malpractice

 Where an investigation establishes malpractice by a CELL Awards employee, CELL Awards reserves the right to impose special sanctions on any future involvement of that member of staff in future CELL Awards examinations and other assessments.  Where an investigation establishes malpractice by a CELL Awards employee, CELL Awards will consider the status of that member of staff and may decide not to use that member of staff in any part of the CELL Awards examination or assessment system.  CELL Awards may remove the member of staff who has committed the malpractice from its employment.

The Decision

CELL Awards will communicate the outcome of the alleged malpractice investigation as soon as possible after the decision has been made. It is the responsibility of CELL Awards to communicate the decisions taken to CELL Awards staff where it is appropriate.

Page 8 of 8