The candidate admitted the offence. Alternatively, the JCQ Centre Inspection Service may be notified of the breach of regulations and may randomly, without prior warning, inspect the centre over and above the normal schedule for inspections. The candidate was very obviously turning round and gesturing to a friend who was ignoring her. The deception was not carried out and the original work of the candidate was submitted for assessment. She briefly spoke to another candidate who had just completed the Media Studies examination.
It is the responsibility of the head of centre to communicate the decision to the individuals concerned, and to pass on warnings in cases where this is indicated. Sanctions for centre staff malpractice — centres 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. The candidate was disqualified from the whole qualification penalty 7 , and barred from sitting any examinations with the awarding body for one year penalty 9. Other awarding bodies will also be informed. The centre reported that the 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. Reflecting on the available information, the awarding body judged that the advice given to the candidates was specific in nature and would have assisted them.
The disclosure took place prior to the date on which the material was due to be made available to teachers.
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. These examples are not an exhaustive list and as such do not limit the scope of the definitions set out in this document.
The table in Appendix 4 shows how the sanctions and penalties might be applied. The candidate denied this and claimed he was just turning the phone off when it was discovered. After investigation, a warning was issued to the examinations officer. The centre was reminded that when work is stolen the correct procedure is to apply for special consideration for the candidate affected.
Calaméo – Exam Malpractice Guide
In this document the Committee or awarding body personnel responsible for making decisions in malpractice cases is referred to as the “Malpractice Committee”. This is not an exhaustive list and as such does not limit the scope of the definitions set out earlier in this document.
The candidates claimed that they took the incorrect book in, thinking that it guidelunes permitted. As a result, Candidate A was disqualified from all qualifications taken in that series penalty 8.
A list of the documents which contain the regulations can be found in Appendix 1.
Exams Office – JCQ Joint Council for Qualifications
Awarding bodies reserve the right to inform the head of centre to which the staff member is moving to as to the nature of, and the reason for, the sanction. GCSE History The invigilator reported that the candidate had been in possession of a mobile phone during the examination, and it contained information which was relevant to the examination.
It was concluded that whilst the centre had conducted the candidate observations, they had fabricated the subsequent requested evidence including signatures and dates. When the head of centre or management is under investigation, communication will be with the Chair of Governors, Local Authority officials or other appropriate governance authorities, as deemed appropriate.
When interviewed, both candidates admitted working closely together but with no intention to cheat. Audio forensic testing of examination recordings proved that the interlocutor and candidates were in different locations at the time of the examination. The agreed level of sanction or penalty for a particular offence is set out in Appendices 3 and 4. It may also be used with linear qualifications. This resulted in her being pushed over a desk and falling to the floor, injuring her head and elbow in the process.
Regulations and Guidance
Candidate observations had been fabricated. Individual responsibilities 5 3. Centre staff malpractice 31 Part 2: A candidate may not enter as both a private candidate and as an internal candidate at the same centre in the same examination series. The awarding body may consider, at its discretion, mitigating factors supported by appropriate evidence. The candidate claimed not to know the rule forbidding the use of such equipment.
The candidate was disqualified from the qualification as he had failed to abide by the conditions of supervision penalty 7. Restrictions on examination cooursework assessment materials A 203 to maintain the security of examination or assessment materials. GCE Design and Technology The head of a centre reported that it had been discovered that a teacher had enhanced the coursework of some candidates in the moderation sample.
The decision The Malpractice Committee 8. Any material or evidence not provided to the head of centre will not be provided to a Malpractice Committee and will not be considered when deciding whether an allegation of malpractice is proven or not. However, because it was impossible to determine the extent to which this advice had helped the candidates, and because they were not responsible for this intervention, the awarding body took steps to protect the interests of the candidates.
Investigations into allegations of malpractice or irregularities against the head of the centre or the management of the centre may guodelines carried out by: Not all the sanctions and penalties are appropriate to every type of qualification or circumstance.
The allegation Suspected malpractice identified by examiners, moderators and external verifiers 4.