A head of centre once advised by the awarding body should not ordinarily communicate further with the candidate. This penalty can only be applied to qualifications which are unitised. The funding agencies will also usually conduct their own investigation if fraud is suspected. Interviews may also be conducted over the telephone. 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. This penalty is only available if the qualification is unitised.
He picked up his walkman and pushed violently past the invigilator. Appendix 4 Table of offences graded according to levels of seriousness and showing appropriate ranges of penalties applied to candidates NOTE: Some other candidates who were not part of the sample had been given far higher marks than the coursework justified. Candidates had been warned prior to the start of the examination to leave all mobile phones outside the examination room. The candidate was disqualified from the Religious Studies Unit penalty 5.
The candidate admitted breaching examination rules. The Committee may be assisted by an awarding body member of staff.
Regulations and Guidance – JCQ Joint Council for Qualifications
Candidate observations had been fabricated. Definitions In this document the expressions used have the following meanings: In this document the Committee or awarding body personnel responsible for making decisions in malpractice cases is referred to as the “Malpractice Committee”.
Three of the four candidates continued to disrupt the examination despite being warned by an invigilator. The candidate lost all of the marks gained for the component penalty 3. GCE A Level English Literature The moderator reported that the candidate had copied extracts from a website into one of her two pieces of work, and had not acknowledged this in the bibliography. Candidate A admitted that this was the case. The Report 14 8. Sanctions and penalties 9.
The normal penalty for this offence is disqualification from all subjects in this series penalty 9. A head of centre once advised by the awarding body should not ordinarily communicate further with the candidate.
Other awarding bodies and the regulators will be informed when a suspension is imposed. Any material or evidence not provided guideines 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. When the matter was investigated by the centre, however, she admitted she had stolen it from candidate B.
No marks were given for any work which displayed similarities with that from other candidates, as there was a suspicion that it was not the sole work of the candidate concerned. Investigations into allegations of malpractice or irregularities against the head of the centre or the management of the centre may be carried out by: Procedures for dealing with allegations of malpractice 7 4.
GCSE Business Studies Before the end of the examination the candidate took out his mobile phone and started to use it.
A compliance visit took place and the following irregularities were found: The table in Appendix 4 shows how the sanctions and jvq might be applied.
The candidate misunderstood the instructions provided by the centre and left the room unsupervised. The candidates and the centre denied any malpractice.
These measures may be applied for selected subjects or all subjects. These examples are not an exhaustive list and as such do not limit the scope of the definitions set out in this document. Awarding bodies recognise that employers may take a different view of an allegation to that determined by the awarding body or its Malpractice Committee. When interviewed, both candidates admitted working closely together but with no intention to cheat.
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. He picked up his walkman and pushed violently past the invigilator.
It should not be assumed that because an allegation has been made, it is true. In this case, however, there was evidence that the candidate had done some work of his own. Therefore the candidates were required to retake the assignments. The candidate admitted the offence. Candidate A had coursewor sitting next to B.