As a consequence of the significant faults found in the quality assurance of assessments in a number of qualifications, and the inability of the centre to provide sufficient candidate evidence, the awarding body decided to withdraw centre approval for all qualifications. This incident potentially constituted maladministration: 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. The awarding body agreed that there was doubt about the validity of candidate certificates previously issued via Direct Claims Status DCS and so recalled and invalidated all DCS certificates claimed since the last external verifier visits. 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 centre was reminded that when work is stolen the correct procedure is to apply for special consideration for the candidate affected.
The appropriate warning notices had been displayed and candidates had been advised of the examination regulations prior to the start of the examination. While in isolation Candidate A used a mobile telephone to contact Candidate B, who had yet to sit the examination, and offered exam related information via text message. It was concluded that the work did not exist and the assessment was fictitious. In such cases communications will be with such other person nominated to investigate the matter by the relevant awarding body, such as the Chair of Governors. The centre was asked to investigate the case and the teacher made a statement.
These measures may be applied for selected subjects or all subjects. A candidate may not enter as both a private candidate and as an internal candidate at the same centre in the same examination series.
In instances where the box is blank the penalty may be used. The candidate lost all his marks for the component guidelones 3. Candidate A admitted that the work he handed in xoursework not his.
The candidates claimed that they took the incorrect book in, thinking that it was permitted.
Exams Office – JCQ Joint Council for Qualifications
The centre was given the following guidance: Candidate A was disqualified from the whole qualification penalty 7. The teacher denied providing any material help to the candidates.
Where an allegation of malpractice is made against a head of centre, the responsibilities set out in this document as applying to the head of centre shall be read as applying to such other person nominated to investigate the matter by the relevant awarding body, such as the Chair of Governors.
This penalty usually allows the candidate to aggregate or request certification in that series, albeit with a reduced mark or grade.
Regulations and Guidance – JCQ Joint Council for Qualifications
A list of the documents which contain the regulations can be found in Appendix 1. In this document the Committee or awarding body personnel responsible for making decisions in malpractice cases is referred to as the “Malpractice Committee”.
The candidate lost all of the marks gained for the component penalty 3. This discovery was made before any certification claims for the candidate had been made. These will usually be the candidate s or the responsible members of staff. The awarding body decided that the evidence clearly pointed to the fact that copying had taken place between the candidates.
Guideliens publications Share Embed Add to favorites Comments. The appropriate warning notices had been displayed and coyrsework had been advised of the examination regulations prior to the start of the examination. GCE A Level Media Studies A candidate who had been permitted to complete her Media Studies examination after the scheduled time, because of a timetable clash, broke the supervision arrangements before the examination.
The JCQ website contains advice on the recommended procedures for appeals against internal assessment decisions. The centre held no records of candidate contact details. It came to light that a candidate had removed his own sketchbook without permission after the deadline for completion. The regulators and other awarding bodies will be informed of this action.
GCE A level Mathematics The examiner guideines that some answers in the scripts of two candidates were similar.
At this point a temporary suspension was imposed on entries for this Certificate. Other awarding bodies and the regulators will be informed when a suspension is imposed.
However, the candidate had signed the NVQ unit declaration of authenticity. No supporting evidence was provided by the college. 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. 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.
The Joint Council for Qualifications has written this document for centres. The candidate was very obviously turning round and gesturing to a friend who was ignoring her. GCE A Level Physical Education A moderator reported that two candidates submitted coursework assignments which contained an identical essay on information processing, the only difference being the order of two paragraphs. The centre was reminded that any consequences for the candidate arising from the submission of a plagiarised piece of coursework before it was authenticated are an internal disciplinary matter.
The centre was asked to investigate the case and the teacher made a statement. This will include details of the action taken by the head of centre, the governing body or the responsible employer.