Conflict of Interest Policy
- Must be able to identify any existing or potential conflicts of interest as and when they arise.
- Must manage working arrangements to avoid identified conflicts of interest as much as possible. For example, if a Centre staff member is undertaking assessment at AGWT, an unrelated assessor should carry out the assessment or examination where possible..
- Where the identified conflict of interest is unavoidable, particularly in relation to Learner assessment, it is important to ensure that independent scrutiny occurs to mitigate the conflict e.g. use an independent invigilator to oversee the assessment. The independent Invigilator shall be made aware of the ‘Invigilation Instructions for the Conduct of Examinations’ and sign the course log book to confirm they have read and understood the instructions. The invigilator shall follow the stages indicated in the assessment check list. Copy attached Appendix I
- Where a Centre organises examinations for candidates within their workplace, the Centre must have recorded details that clearly demonstrate the mitigating actions taken to overcome potential conflicts of interest. These details are to be recorded in the course log book.
- Where a conflict of interest arises the RSPH shall be notified by e mail explaining the reason for a conflict of interest and the steps that have been put in place by the Centre to mitigate these. This shall be completed advance of the assessment.
- RSPH – Invigilators should comply with RSPH document ‘Invigilation Instructions for the Conduct of Examinations’
Malpractice and Maladministration Policy
Aly Greenway Workplace Training (AGWT) will take all reasonable steps to prevent the occurrence of any malpractice or maladministration in the development, delivery and award of qualifications which it makes available or proposes to make available.
Malpractice is any activity or practice which deliberately contravenes regulations and compromises the integrity of the assessment process or the validity of certificates.
Malpractice covers any deliberate actions, neglect, default or other practice that compromises, or could compromise the:
• Assessment process
• Integrity of a regulated qualification
• Validity of a result or certificate
• Reputation and credibility of AGWT, Qualsafe Awards or RSPH
• Qualification or the wider qualification community
Malpractice may include a range of issues from the failure to maintain appropriate records or systems, to the deliberate falsification of records in order to claim certificates.
Maladministration is essentially any activity or practice which results in non-compliance with administrative regulations and requirements and includes the application of persistent mistakes or poor administration, in accordance with the awarding bodies’ expectations.
Anyone who identifies or becomes aware of suspected or actual cases of malpractice or maladministration at any time must immediately notify the awarding body (QA/RSPH) in writing/email and enclose any supporting evidence. All notifications must include (if possible):
• Centre’s name, address and number
• Learner’s name
• Centre personnel’s details (name, job role) if they are involved
• Details of the course/qualification affected or nature of the service affected
• Nature of the suspected or actual malpractice/maladministration and associated dates
• Details and outcome of any initial investigation carried out by the AGWT or anybody else involved, including any mitigating circumstances
Malpractice and Maladministration Policy
If AGWT conducts an initial informal investigation prior to formally notifying the awarding body, then AGWT will make sure staff involved in the initial investigation are competent and have no personal interest in the outcome of the investigation. However, it is important to note that in all instances AGWT will immediately notify the awarding body if they suspect malpractice or maladministration as we have a responsibility to the regulatory authorities to make sure all investigations are carried out rigorously and effectively.
In all cases of suspected malpractice/maladministration we
will protect the identity of the informant in accordance with our duty of
confidentiality and any other legal duty.
RSPH may investigate any or all such cases under its own procedures. Should malpractice and/or maladministration be established RSPH may impose sanctions.
Signed: A K Greenway Trainer
Signed: A Parnham IQA
Who do I make the Appeal to?
If you do not think you have received the results you expected, contact Aly Greenway Workplace Training by
E mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Tel: 01949 850831 or Post:
Aly Greenway, Aly Greenway Freelance
Wychwood, Chapel Lane, Aslockton, Notts,NG13 9AR
or contact the RSPH Qualifications directly
RSPH Qualifications Tel: 020 7265 7300
E mail: RSPH Contact Form
John Snow House, 59 Mansell Street, London E1 8AN
If you have contacted Aly Greenway Workplace Training (the centre) we will contact the Awarding Body (RSPH) and notify them of a possible error and request a recheck of the exam paper.
When do I do this?
If you are concerned about your result then you should contact us, the centre, as soon as possible. For the centre to make an appeal on your behalf the appeal must be made to either the centre or the Awarding Body within 20 working days of the date the results were received. If you are contacting the RSPH directly you will need to contact the RSPH directly to ensure you are making the application on the appropriate form.
If the Awarding Body identifies just cause for an appeal, you will be contacted within 20 working days of the appeal being received. You should note that a recheck could identify that the results remain the same, be better or worse.
Who can make an Appeal?
An appeal would only be made if you seriously believe an error has been made in relation to scoring of the exam or you believe there should be a reassessment.
For full details of the RSPH Appeals Procedure refer to Appendix 1
Signed: A K Greenway Trainer
Signed: A Parnham IQA
Dated: 04/9/2017 Review Date: 04/09/2018
Issue 2: September 2017 1 of 7
RSPH Appeals and Enquiries about Results
1.1 Candidates or their tutors (‘enquirers’) may request a clerical check or
re-assessment of a result or appeal against a result.
1.2 Enquiries concerning results (including appeals against assessment decisions) must be made on the appropriate form and must be received by RSPH Qualifications within 20 working days of the declaration of the results. The relevant certificate must also be enclosed if it has already been dispatched. In order to meet the costs of the enquiry or appeal process a fee will be charged from an approved scale in accordance with the nature of the enquiry.
1.3 RSPH Qualifications will not normally accept applications for more than one enquiry service at a time from the same candidate for the same qualification.
1.4 If, following the receipt of the results of their enquiry, an enquirer wishes to make a further enquiry concerning the same issue they must do so on the appropriate form within fifteen working days of the provision by RSPH Qualifications of the result of the earlier enquiry.
1.5 RSPH Qualifications will not provide a specific enquiry service more than once on the result of a candidate.
1.6 Enquiries must be submitted via the head of the centre through which the candidate registered for the assessment. Independent candidates who did not register for assessment though a centre may submit their enquiry directly to RSPH Qualifications on the appropriate form. Candidates may not enquire about the result for another person. RSPH Qualifications will not release the results of an enquiry to anybody other than the candidate or the head of centre.
1.7 In the event that an enquiry causes the result of a candidate to be amended the fee charged for that candidate’s enquiry will be refunded.
1.8 The original result of a candidate may be downgraded as a consequence of an enquiry if the reconsideration of the result reveals that the original assessment had been a serious misrepresentation of the candidate’s ability.
1.9 RSPH Qualifications will always record and report the most accurate result of a candidate. In the event that a candidate’s result is down-graded the candidate will not be allowed to make use of their earlier result. Where a result is downgraded any relevant certificates must be immediately returned to RSPH
2.0 Clerical Check
2.1 Enquirers should use this service when they wish to check that their marks have been correctly totalled and recorded and that the grade appropriate to these marks has been awarded. A breakdown of the total mark by component will be provided for written examinations.
2.2 Enquirers may request:
(i) a clerical check on the result of a single candidate;
(ii) a clerical check on the result of the qualification of a cohort of
candidates (available only to heads of centre). Enquirers must ensure that all of the candidates are aware that they are requesting this check and that there is a possibility that their result could be amended.
3.0 Outcome of a Clerical Check
3.1 RSPH Qualifications will carry out the requested check and report the outcome to the enquirer within twenty working days of the receipt of a properly constituted enquiry on the appropriate form.
3.2 The outcome of a clerical check will be one of:
(i) the clerical check confirms the candidate’s original result;
(ii) the clerical check indicates that the candidate’s mark should be modified but the modified mark remains within the original result band. The candidate’s original result is confirmed;
(iii) the clerical check indicates that the candidate’s result should be modified, the candidate’s result is amended accordingly.
3.3 In the case of 3.2 (ii) and 3.2 (iii), the results for the other members of the cohort will be checked immediately. Any errors revealed by this check will be immediately rectified.
4.1 Enquirers should use this service when they wish to have the work of a candidate or group of candidates reassessed. Candidates will not be asked to provide any more work, neither will they have the opportunity to complete further work.
4.2 The standards applied to reassessment and the level of attention given to reassessment do not differ from those given to normal assessment.
4.3 Enquirers may request:
(i) reassessment of the work of one specific candidate;
(ii) reassessment of the work of a specific group of candidates (available only to heads of centre). Enquirers must ensure that all of the candidates are aware that this check is being requested and that there is a possibility that their result could be amended;
(iii) reassessment of the work of one candidate and the production of a report for the candidate and their centre;
(iv) reassessment of the work of a group of candidates and the production of a report for the centre, this report will not provide details of individual candidates, this is available only to heads of centre. Enquirers must ensure that the candidates are aware that this check is being requested and that there is a possibility that their result could be amended.
4.4 When a reassessment is undertaken, all the assessment materials for the candidate will be considered.
4.5 The assessor who considers the work of the candidates will have had no previous involvement with the assessment or teaching of these candidates.
5.0 Outcome of reassessment
5.1 RSPH Qualifications will carry out the requested reassessment and report the outcome to the enquirer within 30 working days of the receipt of a properly constituted enquiry on the appropriate form.
5.2 The outcome of a reassessment will be one of:
(i) the reassessment confirms the candidate’s original result,
(ii) the reassessment indicates that the candidate’s mark should be modified but the modified mark remains within the original result band. The candidate’s original result is confirmed;
(iii) the reassessment indicates that the candidate’s result should be modified, the candidate’s result is amended accordingly.
5.3 In the case of 5.2 (ii) and 5.2 (iii) where only specific candidates have been reassessed, the results for the other members of the cohort will be reassessed immediately. Any errors revealed by this reassessment will be immediately rectified.
6.1 Enquirers may:
(i) appeal against the candidate’s result on the grounds that at the time
when the candidate was assessed there were factors unknown to RSPH Qualifications which adversely affected the candidate’s performance;
(ii) appeal against the candidate’s result on one of the grounds provided in
6.2 Appeals do not normally involve re-assessment of candidate’s work.
6.3 In the case of 6.1(i), the appellant will be required to present the facts relevant to the consideration of their performance that were not available to RSPH Qualifications at the time that the result was determined. The appellant must also provide an explanation of why this information was not available earlier.
It is strongly recommended that possible appellants refer to RSPH Qualification’s Procedures for Special Consideration before submitting an appeal.
6.4 In the case of 6.1 (ii), the appellant will be required to produce evidence to justify their belief that an error or irregularity in the assessment process affected their result. This evidence must be verifiable and relevant.
6.5 Within 30 working days of receipt of a valid submission from an appellant the Head of Qualifications at RSPH Qualifications will convene an Appeals Panel to consider the submission. Membership of the Appeals Panel shall consist of the Head of Qualifications (in the Chair), an examiner who has not previously been concerned with the processing of the candidate’s result and an independent member who is not, and has not been at any time during the past seven years, a member of RSPH Qualification’s board or committees, or an employee or examiner of the awarding body. A secretary will be in attendance to take notes of the proceedings. The appellant will not be invited to attend the proceedings of the Panel. The Panel will consider whether the information supplied by the appellant provides sufficient grounds for the result to be modified.
7.0 Outcome of an Appeal
7.1 The decision of the panel will be one of:
(i) the information provided by the appellant does not constitute sufficient grounds for the result to be modified or the information is not relevant to the case, the appeal is turned down;
(ii) the information provided by the appellant is relevant to the case but does not provide sufficient reason for the result to be modified, the appeal is turned down;
(iii) the information provided by the appellant provides sufficient reason for the candidate’s mark to be modified but the modified mark remains within the original result band; the appeal is turned down;.
(iv) the information provided by the appellant provides sufficient reason for the candidate’s result to be modified; the appeal is upheld and the candidate’s result is amended accordingly.
7.2 In the case of 7.1 (iii) and 7.1(iv) the Panel must further consider whether the proceedings indicate the need for the results for other candidates to be reviewed. If in the view of the Panel this would be appropriate, the Qualifications Department will take immediate steps to carry out such a review and to notify any candidate whose result is amended as a consequence.
7.3 Matters concerning the appeal shall be decided by, and the discretion of, the Appeals Panel.
7.4 Appellants whose appeal is turned down may apply for an independent review.
7.5 Procedures for independent review are outline in Section 9.
8.0 Possible Grounds for an Appeal
8.1 This list is not exhaustive but possible grounds for an appeal include:
(i) elements of the assessment process did not relate to the syllabus;
(ii) elements of the assessment process were ambiguous or insufficiently clear;
(iii) there was an irregularity in the conduct of the assessment;
(iv) the standard set by the assessor was inappropriate for the qualification;.
(v) the assessment procedures were inadequate.
9.0 Independent Review
9.1 An independent review is available to appellants who are dissatisfied with the outcome of their appeal. The application must be made via the Head of Centre
9.2 The purpose of the independent review is to determine whether or not the appeals process was conducted appropriately by RSPH Qualifications.
9.3 The appellant must apply for an independent review via the Head of Centre within 15 working days of receipt of the outcome of the appeal.
9.4 The appellant will be required to produce evidence to justify their belief that the appeals process was not conducted appropriately.
9.5 Within 30 working days of a valid submission from an appellant the Head of Qualifications will appoint an individual to be the Head of the Review Panel. This individual will not be, and will not have been at any time during the past seven years, a member of RSPH Qualifications’ board or committees, or an employee or examiner of the awarding body. The Head of the Review Panel will have had relevant experience of appeals panels.
9.6 The Head of the Review Panel, in consultation with the Head of Qualifications, will appoint two further members to the Review Panel. These members will not be, and have not been at any time during the past seven years, a member of RSPH Qualifications’ board or committees, or an employee or examiner of the awarding body.
9.7 The Head of Qualifications will not be a member of the Review Panel.
9.8 The Review Panel will consider the evidence presented by the appellant and will interview the Head of Qualifications regarding the appeals process. The Review Panel may also, at their discretion, interview other members of the appeal panel.
10.0 Outcome of the Independent Review
10.1 The decision of the Review Panel will be one of:
(i) the information provided by the appellant does not constitute sufficient grounds for the original appeal decision to be modified, or the information is not relevant to the conduct of the appeals panel. The original Appeal decision is upheld.
(ii) the information provided by the appellant is relevant to the case but does not provide sufficient reason for the appeal decision to be modified. The original Appeal decision is upheld.
(iii) the information provided by the appellant provides sufficient reason for the independent review panel to consider the original Appeal decision unsafe.
10.2.1 In the case of 10.1 (ii) the Review Panel must further consider whether the review indicates the need for RSPH Qualifications to modify its appeals procedures.
10.2.2 In the case of 10.1 (iii) the Review Panel is empowered to direct RSPH Qualifications to reconsider the case and one of the panel members will be appointed to monitor this.
10.3 The decision of the Review Panel will be communicated to all parties within five working days of the review. The reasons for the decision will be communicated to all parties within 15 working days of the review.
10.4 The decision of the Review Panel is final.
11.0 Assessment Process Review
11.1 Should either the original appeal or the independent review lead to the discovery of a
failure in the assessment process then RSPH Qualifications shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the failure does not recur in the future.
|12.0 Procedure for an Enquiry Action||Time Scale|
|Candidate or Head of Centre contacts RSPH Qualifications to obtain details of procedure and forms.||RSPH Qualifications despatches the appropriate information and forms to enquirers within five working days of the enquiry.|
|Completed form is returned to RSPH Qualifications with appropriate fee||Within twenty working days of declaration of the results by RSPH Qualifications.|
|RSPH Qualifications acknowledges receipt of the enquiry form and fee.||Within five working days of receipt|
|RSPH Qualifications process the enquiry and sends the results of the enquiry to the Head of Centre or candidate.||For Clerical Check, within twenty working days of receipt of application. For a reassessment, within thirty working days of receipt of application. For an Appeal within thirty working days of receipt of application.|
|Candidates or Head of Centre submits a new enquiry on the same issue on the appropriate form.||Within fifteen working days of the dispatch from RSPH Qualifications of the decision from the earlier enquiry.|