Not all the sanctions and penalties are appropriate to every type of qualification or circumstance. The centre denied the allegation and insisted that both candidates and the interlocutor were in the UK at the time of the examination. GCSE Biology The moderator discovered similar and identical passages in the work of two candidates which led him to suspect that candidate A had copied the work of candidate B. However, when malpractice is judged to be the result of a serious management failure within a department or the whole centre, the awarding body may apply sanctions against the whole department or centre. The examinations officer confirmed it contained only music. Sanctions and penalties applied against candidates 25
For example, there is a contradiction in the evidence provided by the candidate and the centre, or the centre is suspected of non-compliance with the regulations. A head of centre once advised by the awarding body should not ordinarily communicate further with the candidate. The individuals involved in malpractice are also varied. The teacher stated that the words said to the candidate should not have been recorded. These papers will be opened and distributed under the supervision of the awarding body officer or appointed agent responsible for the delivery. Alternatively, an action plan will be agreed between the awarding body and the centre, and will need to be implemented as a condition of continuing to accept entries or registrations from the centre.
Candidates had been warned prior to the start of the examination to leave all mobile phones outside the examination room. These can be found on the websites of the respective organisations. Procedures for dealing with allegations of malpractice 3.
The funding agencies will also usually conduct their own investigation if fraud is suspected. Sanctions for centre staff malpractice — centres Sanctions and penalties for centre staff malpractice — individuals 20 When interviewed, both candidates admitted working closely together but with no intention to cheat. He was escorted from the examination room and the unauthorised material was removed from him. When considering the action to be taken, awarding bodies will balance responsibilities towards the rest of the cohort and the individuals caught up in the malpractice incident.
However, in cases of serious malpractice, where the threat to the integrity of the examination or assessment is such as to outweigh a duty of confidentiality, it will normally be necessary for information to be exchanged amongst the regulators and the awarding bodies.
The candidate was disqualified from the Religious Studies Unit penalty 5. Approval of specific assessment tasks A failure in a specific subject or sector area relating to the nature of the assessment tasks chosen.
Regulations and Guidance – JCQ Joint Council for Qualifications
This sanction applies only to NVQs and similarly assessed and verified qualifications. It was, therefore, not possible to determine the identity of the candidates. Candidate B then asked for permission to go to the toilet and was escorted there; by this time the material had been removed. Four days before the deadline, however, he managed to hand in his coursework. Review and report Action plans A breach of procedures or regulations which if left unchecked could result in a threat to the examination or assessment.
The candidate was disqualified from that subject penalty 7. It was alleged that the management within the centre was fully aware of the above practices and bullied their staff to achieve targets. The candidates and the centre denied any malpractice. Candidate B accepted the offer and a further message from Candidate A contained information relating to the examination.
Four other students were involved in the disruption to a lesser extent.
The centre was asked to investigate the case and the teacher made a statement. A section may be part of a component, or a single piece of coursework if this consists of several items.
They did not have a firm grasp of delivery and assessment practices within the centre and the quality assurance system, which had failed to pick up on these issues.
The awarding body decided that the evidence clearly pointed to the fact that copying had taken place between the candidates. The Committee may be assisted by an guidelies body member of staff. The teacher admitted enhancing coursework and awarding high marks to candidates who did not deserve the credit given. The normal penalty for this offence is disqualification from all subjects in this series penalty 9. Improper assistance to candidates: The centre denied the allegation and insisted that both candidates and the interlocutor were in the UK at the time of the examination.
Part 2 Candidate malpractice For example: Accordingly, an awarding body will try to protect the identity of an informant if this is asked for at the time the informant gives information. The following individuals have a right courswwork appeal huidelines decisions of the Malpractice Committee or officers acting on its behalf. Reference should also be made to section 6. GCE A level Mathematics The examiner reported that some answers in the scripts of two candidates were similar.
The centre reported that jqc teacher conducting the test was not a member of staff; the centre had used an agency to employ the teacher solely to conduct the Speaking Test.