Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
A8 1 Malpractice and Maladministration Policy Fv 08.06.12

A8 1 Malpractice and Maladministration Policy Fv 08.06.12

Ratings: (0)|Views: 57|Likes:
Published by Shane Mpofu

More info:

Published by: Shane Mpofu on Jun 24, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less





Malpractice & Maladministration Policy and Procedure A8.1 May 2012
Leading global excellence in procurement and supply
Malpractice and Maladministration Policy and Procedure
Chartered Institute of Purchasing & Supply (CIPS) is an Awarding Body regulated by Ofqual, the qualificationregulator for England and Northern Ireland. The Awarding Body is committed to high levels of qualityassurance and policies that are open, transparent and free from bias.
CIPS Members
All members registering with CIPS must agree to sign and be bound by the institute’s Ethical Code. A copy of 
the Ethical Code can be found on the CIPS website or requested by contacting the Customer Response Centreon +44 (0)8458801188 orcrc@cips.org.The Code is regularly reviewed and updated to ensure that it embodies and protects the very highest standard of professional conduct.
The Institute’s Royal Charter sets out a disciplinary procedure that enables its governing body to investigate
complaints against members and, if it is found that the Ethical Code has been breached, to take appropriateaction.CIPS is not a regulatory body required by statute to police the professional conduct of its members, but itdoes have obligations under the Royal Charter to ensure its members uphold ethical standards and treatscomplaints against members with the utmost seriousness.
Awarding Body
The Awarding Body strives to prevent the occurrence of malpractice or maladministration in thedevelopment, delivery and award of its qualifications, in order to safeguard the consistency and integrity of allassessments.CIPS works with consultants, advisers, external assessors and moderators, study and examination centres tomaintain rigorous quality assurance and control arrangements in relation to its qualifications. Thesearrangements, combined with internal and external assessment administrative procedures, ensure theaccuracy and consistency of assessment decisions in
qualifications.Where malpractice or maladministration is suspected, or is alleged, and where there are reasonable groundsfor that suspicion or allegation, the Awarding Body will promptly take all reasonable steps to establishwhether or not malpractice or maladministration did occur, and to prevent any adverse effect. Should anysuch adverse effect be unpreventable, the Awarding Body will mitigate it as far as possible and correct it.Malpractice is deemed to be those deliberate actions and practices that threaten the integrity of any CIPSqualification. Maladministration can be deliberate or accidental, but has the same effect.
Malpractice & Maladministration Policy and Procedure A8.1 May 2012
Leading global excellence in procurement and supply
The following are examples of malpractice by exam centre staff:moving the time or date of fixed assessments without permission from the Awarding Bodyfailing to keep assessment materials secureobtaining unauthorised access to assessment materials prior to an assessmentassisting or prompting candidates with the production of answers.The following are examples of candidate malpractice:misuse of assessment materialintroduction of unauthorised material into the exam room, for example notes, study guides, ownblank paper, personal stereos, mobile phones and other similar electronic devisesobtaining, receiving, exchanging or passing on information which could be examination related (orthe attempt to) by means of talking or using written papers /notescopying from another candidatecollusion - working collaboratively with other candidatesdisruptive behaviour including the use of offensive languagefailing to abide by the instructions or advice of an invigilator, supervisor, or CIPS in relation to theassessment rules and regulations
impersonation -
pretending to be someone else or arranging for another to take one’s place in an
plagiarism - the attempt to present ideas, research, theories, or words of others as one's own.
Procedure for dealing with malpractice and/or maladministration.
All incidents of malpractice or maladministration, irrespective of the nature of the incident, must be reportedto the Head of Awarding Body (via the Assessment Services team; assessment.team@cips.org)who is independent of the management of normal working relationships with centres. Incidents may be reported bya study or exam centre, an invigilator or any other person present at the time the alleged malpractice tookplace. Anonymous reports of malpractice will be acted upon only if there is supporting evidence, or if thenature of the report warrants it.1.
A malpractice allegation is received by the Assessment Services Team and escalated to the Head of Awarding Body.2.
The Head of Awarding Body will seek to establish the full facts and circumstances of the alleged
malpractice and, where appropriate, the candidate’s conduct in other assessments before deciding to
initiate an investigation.3.
A report from the candidate’s college or study centre (
if appropriate) may be required but aninvestigation will only be initiated if 
suspicion of genuine and deliberate malpractice exists.4.
If the investigation includes alleged centre malpractice/maladministration the centre may besuspended from making any claims for registration or certification in the assessment concerned untilthe issue is resolved.
Malpractice & Maladministration Policy and Procedure A8.1 May 2012
Leading global excellence in procurement and supply
Candidates or centre staff accused of malpractice will be made fully aware in writing at the earliestopportunity of the nature of the alleged malpractice and of the possible consequences shouldmalpractice be proven.6.
Each case of suspected malpractice will be considered on an individual basis in the light of the all theinformation available.7.
Centres should ensure that all actions taken as part of the investigation are fully documented.8.
The Head of Awarding Body will determine:whether the regulations have been adhered towhere the culpability lies for the breach in regulationsappropriate measures to be taken to protect the integrity of the award and to prevent futurebreaches as well as mitigate against any adverse effectthe nature of any penalty to be applied.9.
A record outlining all stages of the above process will be kept on file. The report will include asummary of the origin of the complaint or mode of discovery of the alleged irregularity, theinvestigations carried out, the evidence secured, the conclusions drawn and the decision reached,including any recommendations for action.10.
Penalties will be based only on the evidence presented, and must be justifiable, reasonable in scale,and consistent with previous decisions in similar circumstances.11.
Candidates will be notified of all decisions in writing to their home or main address.12.
All parties will be given the opportunity to seek a review of the decision should a judgement be madeagainst them.13.
Study centres, other awarding bodies, and/or qualifications regulators will be notified if an issue of malpractice or maladministration is likely to have an adverse effect on other candidates or providersinvolved in CIPS
The Head of Awarding Body may require actions
to be taken to prevent similar incidents of 
Where any further action is required at a study centre, the NetworkManager will establish an action plan with the centre.
Review and AppealStage 1
Candidates or centres may request a review of the decision made following the above process. The review isconducted by a panel consisting of representative(s) of the Assessment Quality Board (AQB), who have had noinvolvement in the original decision process and have no personal interest in the decisions underconsideration. The panel will consider the report made at the initial stage (step 9 above), as well as any newinformation or evidence subsequently provided by other relevant parties. Following a review, the initialdecision may be upheld or overturned, or upheld but with a change to the penalties originally imposed.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->