The candidate admitted the offence. The only exception to this is malpractice discovered in controlled assessments or coursework before the authentication forms have been signed by the candidate see section 4. In instances where the box is blank the penalty may be used. This controlled assessment is set at a high level of control. Where there is an established, clearly evidenced, repeated pattern of behaviour this may be taken into consideration when determining whether a sanction should be applied.

If a candidate has not requested aggregation the option is penalty 6. At the time of withdrawal of centre recognition a centre will be informed of the earliest date at which it can reapply for registration and any measures it will need to take prior to this application. The invigilator was upset and unable to continue with her normal duties. Examples of candidate malpractice are set out in Appendix 2, Part 2. Procedures for dealing with allegations of malpractice 7 4.

Candidate A had been sitting next to B. GCSE English Literature A single re-sit candidate convinced a new invigilator that they were allowed their own annotated copy of a text book. It came to light that a candidate had removed his own sketchbook without permission after the deadline for completion.

These can be found on the websites of the respective organisations. Sanctions for centre staff malpractice — centres He was disqualified from the qualification penalty 7. Breakdown in management and quality assurance arrangements for some or all accredited qualifications offered by the centre.

Candidate A admitted that the notes were his but did not know how they had got into the toilet and he denied using them. The candidates and the centre denied any malpractice. The regulators and other awarding bodies will be informed of this action. When interviewed, both candidates admitted working closely together but with no intention to cheat. Therefore the candidates were required to retake the assignments.


Sanctions and penalties for centre staff malpractice — individuals Individuals involved may be requested to provide a written statement. As a result, Candidate A was disqualified from all qualifications taken in that series penalty 8.

She then spoke quietly to several candidates individually, telling them to read through their work and reminding them that they could use their own opinion in their answers.

jcq coursework guidelines 2013

This penalty is applied in conjunction with any of the other penalties above, if the circumstances warrant it. The candidates had been placed in the same room as those who had approved access arrangements. This penalty usually allows the candidate to aggregate or request certification in that series, albeit with a reduced mark or grade. GCSE English Literature The centre reported that three candidates had taken their study guides into the examination room in place of the permitted texts.

This penalty is only available if the qualification is unitised.

Regulations and Guidance – JCQ Joint Council for Qualifications

The candidate refused and became abusive, confrontational, and threatening towards the invigilator. 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.

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. A head of centre once advised by the awarding body should not ordinarily communicate further with the candidate. Alternatively, this function may be allocated to a named member or members of staff.


Calaméo – Exam Malpractice Guide

A failure to co-operate with awarding body requests to investigate thoroughly suspected malpractice. The deception was not carried out and the original work of the candidate was submitted for assessment.

jcq coursework guidelines 2013

GCSE Mathematics An invigilator suspected that a candidate had a mobile phone on their person which they denied. An awarding body will not be liable for any professional fees incurred. The evidence clearly indicated that there was a case of tuidelines on the part of the lead invigilator.

Regulations and Guidance

During the Unit 5 examination the candidate was again observed referring to study notes. When the matter was investigated by the centre, however, she admitted she courxework stolen it from candidate B.

On investigation by the awarding body, more than one candidate confirmed that such information guidelinss been given to them by the head of centre. 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.