Scope
This policy applies to training programmes based on CAA syllabuses. It should be read in conjunction with all other policies in this Quality Manual, particularly:

• Assessment policy
• Equality and Diversity Policy
• Data Protection Policy
• Appeals Policy
• Complaints and Whistleblowing Policy

Our commitment
Valid and reliable assessment occurs when trainees present authentic current evidence of their knowledge, understanding and skills which are assessed by assessors against specific standards.
The purpose of this policy is to limit the threat to the integrity of those assessment decisions.

Our procedures
• We will inform trainees and employees what constitutes malpractice.
• We will inform trainees and employees of the implications of malpractice.
• We will regularly review our procedures and documentation to minimise the risk of malpractice.
• We will ask our trainees to confirm the authenticity of all evidence submitted for assessment by signing an authenticity statement.
• Where malpractice is suspected, a formal procedure is to be followed.

Malpractice procedures

• Trainees will be provided with examples of malpractice during induction
• Trainee will be provided with information to support their use of appropriate referencing of sources
• Instructors/assessors will be trained on how to identify malpractice
• Team meetings will be used to assess the risk of malpractice through the design of summative assessments activities
• Trainees will sign a declaration of authenticity when any evidence is submitted for summative assessment.

A standard, time limited, sequenced and documented process for centre and trainee to follow when malpractice is suspected.
Where malpractice from a trainee is suspected:

Stage 1

• 1. The individual will be notified of the issues and possible consequences. This will be added to the assessment feedback sheet. The trainee will have the opportunity to present a case to Mr C West.
• 2. C West will be notified of the issues. C West investigates by
• a. Scrutinising evidence
• b. Discussing with the instructor/assessor
• c. Discussing with the trainee
• 3. C West makes a decision and informs both the trainee and instructor/assessor and a sanction. Sanctions include:
• a. A warning
• b. A Fail grade given to the summative assessment with no opportunity for resubmission
• c. A fail grade given to the summative assessment with an opportunity for resubmission
• d. Exclusion from programme
• 4. A record of the process, the evidence and the conclusion will be maintained and contribute to the Programme Review and Evaluation.

Stage 2

• 1. If the trainee disagrees with the outcome of the investigation by C West and/or the sanction to be applied, they must submit an appeal to the Directors
• 2. The Directors review will include
• a. A scrutiny of all documentation
• b. An interview with the trainee
• c. An interview with the instructor/assessor
• d. An interview with the IQA
• 3. The nominated Director makes a decision and informs the trainee, instructor/assessor and C West
• 4. A record of the process, the evidence and conclusion will be maintained and contribute to the Programme Review and Evaluation.

Stage 3
Where the trainee disagrees with the outcome of the investigation, they must notify J Pike Managing Director. J Pike will refer the issue to the CAA.