VERSION CONTROL VERSION AUTHOR
DATE
COMMENTS
1.0
Head of Quality
08/2022 Proposed new procedure.
1.1
Head of Quality
11/2022
Included link for the appeals form.
1.2
Head of Quality
09/2023 Annual review and minor updates.
1.3
Head of Quality
08/2024 Annual review and updated wording.
1.4
Head of Quality
10/2024
Updated to meet JCQ expectations.
Version control is to be employed for any amendments to the content which result in substantive changes to the meaning, intent or outcome of the policy or process described within and must be approved by the Executive Committee. Spelling mistakes or other typographical errors are not required to be subject to Version Control.
POLICY OWNER POLICY OWNER
ACCOUNTABLE EXECUTIVE
Director of Quality
Chief Education Officer
APPROVAL CONTROL Approval of this Policy and subsequent amendments is by the Board DATE APPROVED APPROVED REQUIRED BY July 24 Quality Governance Board
POLICY REVIEWER
DATE OF NEXT REVIEW
ACCOUNTABLE EXECUTIVE
Director of Quality
July 25
Chief Education Officer
Quality Governance Board
July 25
Chief Education Officer
CONTENTS
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 4
Purpose ............................................................................................................................ 4
Scope ............................................................................................................................... 4
Appeals relating to Internal Assessment Decisions (Centre Assessed Marks) ...................... 5
Process ............................................................................................................................. 7 Stage 1 - Learner (Informal) ............................................................................................................................ 7 Stage 2 – Teacher / Trainer (First Formal) ...................................................................................................... 7 Stage 3 - Lead IQA (Second Formal) ............................................................................................................... 8 Stage 4 - Head of Quality (HOQ)/National Quality Manager (NQM) (Final Formal) ....................................... 8
Appeals Against Malpractice Decisions ............................................................................. 9
Appeals Against Centre Decisions ..................................................................................... 9 Reviews of Results (RoRs): ............................................................................................................................ 10 Access to Scripts (ATS): ................................................................................................................................. 10 Centre actions in the event of a disagreement (dispute) ............................................................................. 12
The internal appeals policy is designed to provide information to learners, parents/carers and Teachers/Trainers on the appeals process and procedures. It recognises that learners seeking qualifications that are internally assessed have a right to seek a review of decisions that affect them. This policy will be reviewed and updated annually to ensure that appeals against internal assessment decisions within SCL Group are compliant with current requirements and regulations set by JCQ’s General Regulations for Approved Centres.
The purpose of this policy is to confirm the arrangements set by SCL Group for dealing with learner appeals relating to internal assessment decisions. It serves as a commitment to ensuring that whenever Teachers/Trainers mark learner work, that this is done fairly, consistently and in accordance with the awarding organisation’s specification and subject-specific associated documents. This policy ensures compliance with regulations which state that centres must: • have in place and be available for inspection purposes, a written internal appeals procedure relating to internal assessment decisions and to ensure that details of this procedure are communicated, made widely available and accessible to all learners. • before submitting marks to the awarding organisation inform learners of their centre assessed marks and allow a learner to request a review of the centre’s marking.
This policy applies to all learners studying within SCL Group. It underpins SCL Group’s core values and will be used objectively and free from discrimination in accordance with the Equality and Diversity policy.
Certain qualifications contain components/units of non-examination assessment, controlled assessment and/or coursework which are internally assessed (marked) by centres and internally standardised. The marks awarded (the internal assessment decisions) which contribute to the final grade of the qualification are then submitted by the deadline set by the awarding organisation for external moderation/external quality assurance. SCL Group is committed to ensuring that whenever its staff mark learners’ work this is done fairly, consistently and in accordance with the awarding organisation’s specification and subject-specific associated documents. SCL Group ensures that all centre staff follow a robust policy regarding the management of non-examination assessments including controlled assessments and coursework. This policy details the procedures relating to non-examination assessments, controlled assessments and/or coursework, including the marking and quality assurance/internal standardisation processes which relevant teaching staff are required to follow. Learner work will be marked by Teachers/Trainers who have appropriate knowledge, understanding and skill, and who have been trained in this activity and do not have any potential conflicts of interest. If AI tools have been used to assist in the marking of learner work, they will not be the sole marker. SCL Group is committed to ensuring that work produced by learners is authenticated in line with the requirements of the awarding organisation. Where more than one subject teacher/trainer is involved in marking learner work, internal moderation and standardisation will ensure consistency of marking. On being informed of their centre assessed marks, if a learner believes that the above procedures were not followed in relation to the marking of their work, or that the Teacher/Trainer has not properly applied the marking standards to the assessment, then the learner may make use of the appeals procedure below to consider whether to request a review of the centre’s marking. SCL Group will: 1. ensure that learners are informed of their centre assessed marks so that they may request a review of the centre’s marking before marks are submitted to the awarding organisation. 2. inform learners that they will need to explain on what grounds they wish to request a review of an internally assessed mark as a review will only focus on the quality of work submitted.
3. inform learners that they may request copies of materials (generally as a minimum, a copy of the marked assessment material (work) and the mark scheme or assessment criteria plus additional materials which may vary from subject to subject) to assist them in considering whether to request a review of the centre’s marking of the assessment. 4. having received a request for copies of materials, promptly make them available to the learner within 10 working days. (This will either be the originals viewed under supervised conditions or copies) 5. inform learners they will not be allowed access to original physical assessment material, including artefacts, unless supervised. 6. provide learners with sufficient time, normally at least 5 working days, to allow them to review copies of materials and reach a decision informing learners that if their decision is to request a review, they will need to explain what they believe the issue to be. 7. provide a clear deadline for learner to submit a request for a review of the centre’s marking. Requests will not be accepted after this deadline. Requests must be made via email directly with the Teacher/Trainer in the first instance (Informal Review), within 30 calendar days of receiving the assessment grade. Learners must explain on what grounds they wish to request a review. 8. ensure that the review of marking is conducted by a Teacher/Trainer who has appropriate competence, has had no previous involvement in the assessment of that learner for the component in question and has no personal interest in the outcome of the review. 9. instruct the reviewer to ensure that the learner’s mark is consistent with the standard set by the centre. 10. inform the learner in writing of the outcome of the review of the centre’s marking. The outcome of the review of the centre’s marking will be made known to the Head of Quality (HOQ) who will have the final decision if there is any disagreement on the mark to be submitted to the awarding organisation. A written record of the review will be kept and made available to the awarding organisation upon request. The awarding organisation will be informed if the centre does not accept the outcome of a review. The moderation process carried out by the awarding organisation may result in a mark change, either upwards or downwards, even after an internal review. The internal review process is in place to ensure consistency of marking within the centre, whereas moderation by the awarding organisation ensures that centre marking is in line with national standards. The mark submitted to the awarding organisation is subject to change and should therefore be considered provisional.
The information provided in this section clearly details the process and procedure of an internal appeal at SCL Group. Where a learner is appealing an internal assessment or grading decision, they must make their appeal within 30 calendar days of receiving their assessment decision. Any appeal made after this will only be taken into consideration for extenuating circumstances. Learners must follow the four stages of the appeals procedure outlined below to lodge a successful appeal: Stage 1 - Learner (Informal) The learner must contact the Teacher/Trainer and ask for clarification on the mark or grade given. The learner will be given clarification on their grades within 10 working days. The learner will have at least 5 working days, to review to review the outcome and decisions made by the Teacher/Trainer. If the learner is unsatisfied and an agreement cannot be met, the learner must proceed to Stage 2 and put the appeal in writing, by completing the ‘Assessment Appeals form’ and explaining the reasons for the appeal. Stage 2 – Teacher / Trainer (First Formal) Once a learner has submitted a formal appeal using the ‘Assessment Appeals form’, and provided a valid explanation for the reasoning of the appeal, the Internal Verifier of that assessment will be required to review the mark or grade given. If the appeal is related to a marked piece of work, the work must be remarked and feedback against each criterion given to the learner. In the case of a practical assessment the Internal Verifier will revisit the evidence submitted and subsequent notes and provide feedback against each criterion that could be awarded. The Teacher/Trainer responsible for internally verifying that assessment will provide a response within 10 working days which must be: a) a clear explanation backed up with a written statement regarding the assessment decision; and, b) a new decision or confirmation of the original decision. If the learner agrees with the Internal Verifier’s decision, then the appeal stops at this point. If the learner remains unsatisfied with the outcome, the appeal may proceed to Stage 3 at the learner’s request. Upon confirmation from the learner that they wish to proceed to Stage 3, the Teacher/Trainer must refer the appeal to the Lead IQA.
The Teacher/Trainer must provide the Lead IQA with the following information: a) the original assessment record and the learner’s evidence where appropriate; and, b) the written statement provided by the Internal Verifier explaining the assessment decision. Stage 3 - Lead IQA (Second Formal) The Lead IQA will reconsider the assessment decision, taking into account the following information: a) the learner’s reason for appeal. b) the learner’s evidence and associated assessment records. c) the Teacher/Trainer’s reason for the decision. d) the written statement and subsequent grades provided by the Internal Verifier. e) any supporting records produced during the internal quality assurance process. The Lead IQA will review the evidence and produce a reconsidered decision in writing to the Teacher/Trainer and learner within 10 working days of receiving the appeal. If the learner agrees with the Lead IQA’s response, then the appeal stops at this point. If the learner remains unsatisfied with the outcome, the appeal may proceed to Stage 4 at the learner’s request. The Lead IQA will provide the Head of Quality (HOQ)/National Quality Manager (NQM) with a written summary of the assessment decisions within 2 working days. Any comments from the previous stages of the appeal must be presented along with an explanation and confirmation of the mark or grade. Stage 4 - Head of Quality (HOQ)/National Quality Manager (NQM) (Final Formal) The learner will be advised that Stage 4 is the final stage of the internal appeals process. The Teacher/Trainer who made the original decision, the Internally Verifier and the Lead IQA will be required to attend a meeting with the HOQ/NQM to analyse the evidence in its entirety and make a final decision on the matter. Evidence will be recorded and kept with all documents relating to the appeal. The decision of the HOQ/NQM is final and there is no further right of appeal beyond this stage. The result will be confirmed in writing to the learner within 10 working days of the decision being finalised. All records relating to the appeal and subsequent decision will be retained and made available to appropriate AOs where required.
For appeals against decisions to reject learner work on the grounds of malpractice: The Awarding Organisations and JCQ Information for learners’ documents (Coursework, Non-examination assessments, Social media) which are distributed to all learners prior to relevant assessments taking place, inform learners of the things they must and must not do when they are completing their work. SCL Group ensures that those members of staff involved in the direct supervision of learners producing work for assessments are aware of the potential for malpractice. Malpractice by a learner discovered in a controlled assessment, coursework or non- examination assessment component prior to the learner signing the declaration of authentication does not need to be reported to the awarding organisation but will be dealt with in accordance with the centre’s internal procedures. The only exception to this is where the awarding organisation’s confidential assessment material has potentially been breached. The breach will be reported to the awarding organisation immediately. If there are doubts about the authenticity of the work of a learner or irregularities are identified in a learner’s work before the learner has signed the declaration of authentication/authentication statement (where required) and malpractice is suspected, SCL Group will deal with the matter in accordance with its Malpractice Policy. If a learner who is the subject of a malpractice claim disagrees with the decision, they must complete the ‘Assessment Appeals form’ and make their appeal within 30 calendar days, providing a valid explanation for the reason of their appeal.
For appeals relating to centre decisions not to support an application for a clerical re- check, a review of marking, a review of moderation or an appeal: This procedure confirms SCL Group’s compliance with JCQ’s General Regulations for Approved Centres that the centre will: • have available for inspection purposes and draw to the attention of learners and their parents/carers, a written internal appeals procedure to manage disputes when a learner disagrees with a centre decision not to support an application for a clerical re-check, a review of marking, a review of moderation or an appeal
Following the issue of results, awarding bodies make post-results services available. Full details of these services, internal deadlines for requesting a service and fees charged are provided in the candidate handbook and can be applied for by emailing the exams team (exams@wearescl.co.uk). Learners are informed of the arrangements for post-results services prior to the issue of results and the periods during which senior members of centre staff will be available/accessible immediately after the publication of results, so that results may be discussed, and decisions made on the submission of reviews of marking. Learners are informed through internal communication channels. If the centre or a learner (or their parent/carer) has a concern and believes a result may not be accurate, post-results services may be considered. The JCQ post-results services currently available are detailed below. Reviews of Results (RoRs): • Service 1 (Clerical re-check) o This is the only service that can be requested for objective tests (multiple choice tests) • Service 2 / Priority Service 2 (Review of marking) o This service is available for externally assessed components of both unitised and linear GCE A-level specifications (an individual awarding organisation may also offer this priority service for other qualifications). It is also available for Level 3 Vocational and Technical qualifications. • Service 3 (Review of moderation)
o This service is not available to an individual learner.
Access to Scripts (ATS): •
Copies of scripts to support reviews of marking.
• Copies of scripts to support teaching and learning. Where a concern is expressed that a particular result may not be accurate, the centre will look at the marks awarded for each component part of the qualification alongside any mark schemes, relevant result reports, grade boundary information, etc. when made available by the awarding organisation to determine if the centre supports any concerns. For written components that contributed to the final result, the centre will: 1. Where a place a university or college is at risk, consider supporting a request for a Priority Service 2 review of marking (where the qualification concerned is eligible for this service) 2. In all other instances, consider accessing the script by:
a)
requesting a priority copy of the learner’s script to support a review of marking by the awarding organisation deadline, or (where the option is made available by the awarding organisation) viewing the learner’s marked script online to consider if requesting a review of marking is appropriate.
b)
3. Collect informed written consent/permission from the learner to access their script. 4. On access to the script, consider if it is felt that the agreed mark scheme has been applied correctly in the original marking and if the centre considers there are any errors in the marking. 5. Support a request for the appropriate RoR service (clerical re-check or review of marking) if any error is identified. 6. Collect informed written consent from the learner to request the RoR service before the request is submitted. 7. Where relevant, advise an affected learner to inform any third party (such as a university or college) that a review of marking has been submitted to an awarding organisation. Written learner consent (informed consent via learner email is acceptable) is required in all cases before a request for a RoR service 1 or 2 (including priority service 2) is submitted to the awarding organisation. Consent is required to confirm the learner understands that the final subject grade and/or mark awarded following a clerical re-check or a review of marking, and any subsequent appeal, may be lower than, higher than, or the same as the result which was originally awarded. Learner consent must only be collected after the publication of results. For any moderated components that contributed to the final result, the centre will: • Confirm that a review of moderation cannot be undertaken on the work of an individual learner or the work of learners not in the original sample submitted for moderation. • Consult any moderator report/feedback to identify any issues raised. • Determine if the centre’s internally assessed marks have been accepted without change by the awarding organisation – if this is the case, a RoR service 3 (Review of moderation) will not be available. • Determine if there are any grounds to submit a request for a review of moderation for the work of all learners in the original sample.
Centre actions in the event of a disagreement (dispute) Where a learner disagrees with a centre decision not to support a clerical re-check, a review of marking or a review of moderation, the centre will: • For a review of marking, advise the learner they may request the review by providing informed written consent (and the required fee) for this service to the centre by the deadline set by the centre. • Inform the learner that a review of moderation (RoR service 3) cannot be requested for the work of an individual learner or the work of a learner not in the original sample. If the learner (or their parent/carer) believes there are grounds to appeal against the centre’s decision not to support a review of results, an internal appeal can be submitted to the centre by completing the ‘Assessment Appeals form’ at least 30 calendar days prior to the internal deadline for submitting a request for a review of results. The appellant will be informed of the outcome of the appeal once the centre has been informed by the awarding organisation. Where the head of centre is satisfied after receiving the RoR outcome, but the learner (or their parent/carer) believes there are grounds for a preliminary appeal to the awarding organisation, a further internal appeal may be made to the Director of Quality. Following this, the Director of Quality’s decision as to whether to proceed with a preliminary appeal will be based upon the acceptable grounds as detailed in the JCQ Appeals Booklet. Learners or parents/carers are not permitted to make direct representations to an awarding organisation.
Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13Made with FlippingBook Annual report maker