Policy

ICOPD believes strongly in the importance of academic integrity and supports the development of good academic practice. As such it takes breaches of academic conduct very seriously and all allegations of academic malpractice or maladministration will be investigated according to this policy. These are applied with full regard to the principles of equity and fairness.

Scope

The policy applies to all qualifications, at all levels through all awarding bodies offered by the College,

Different Types of Academic Malpractice or Maladministration, Procedures & Penalties

Malpractice’ covers any deliberate actions, neglect, default or other practice that compromises, or could compromise:  the assessment process; the integrity of a qualification; the validity of a result or certificate; the reputation and credibility of an awarding organisation. 

Malpractice may include a range of issues from failure to maintain appropriate records or systems to the deliberate falsification of records in order to claim certificates. 

Examples of malpractice include: 

• Failure to comply with requirements for accurate and safe retention of candidate evidence, assessment and internal verification records. 
• Failure to comply with established procedures for managing and transferring accurate candidate data. 
• Excessive direction from assessors to candidates on how to meet assessment requirements. 
• Deliberate falsification of records in order to claim certificates. 
• A breach of security (e.g. failure to keep examination or assessment material secure). 
• Deception (e.g. manufacturing evidence of competence, fabricating assessment or internal verification records). 
• Failure to adhere to regulations/stated requirements.
• Failure by a centre to deal with an identified issue and/or carry out a rigorous investigation as required by the awarding organisation.

Centre maladministration is any activity, neglect or other practice that leads to the failure of a centre or a centre’s students to comply with awarding organisation regulations, policies, procedures and requirements governing qualification delivery and assessment. The activity, neglect or other practice may not be deliberate.

Allegations of suspected malpractice/maladministration

Allegations of suspected centre malpractice or maladministration or student malpractice may be made by centre staff and centre contractors (for example invigilators), Assessors, students, others involved in the delivery, examination and assessment of qualifications or others not directly connected with the delivery of qualifications.

The College will request that allegations are made in writing. All allegations of suspected malpractice or maladministration are evaluated by the college to determine the potential gravity of the malpractice, the risk to the qualifications and the appropriate course of action and nature of any investigation which may be necessary. In some cases, allegations of centre malpractice or maladministration may be made by someone who wishes to remain anonymous.

Reporting suspected malpractice/maladministration

The College is required to report any suspected cases of centre malpractice/ maladministration to the awarding organisation. It is expected that the Director of Studies will be informed about any suspected cases of centre malpractice/maladministration and will liaise with the awarding organisation.  The College will provide the awarding organisation with details of the allegation which has been made.  

The College may request guidance from the awarding organisation regarding how to investigate and deal with malpractice and maladministration and to prevent future recurrences of malpractice and/or maladministration.

College internal investigation process

The Director of Studies will carry out an investigation into the suspected malpractice/maladministration which has been reported, depending on the nature of the allegation. These investigations should comply with the following criteria: 

Investigations must be fair and free from bias concentrating on the collection of evidence which can be evaluated to determine whether malpractice/ maladministration has taken place. 

The objective of the investigation is: 

• To establish the facts relating to the allegation/s to determine whether the allegation of malpractice/maladministration can be substantiated.
• To identify the cause of any irregularities and the extent of the involvement of College staff. 
• To establish the scale of any irregularities.
• To identify any evidence in support of the allegation.
• To identify any evidence which suggests the allegation is unfounded.

The Director of Studies should ensure that a written report of the investigation is available addressing the criteria above. The report must set out a statement of the facts, a detailed account of the circumstances of the alleged malpractice and details of the College’s investigations. All evidence related to the investigation should accompany the report. Evidence may include written statements from centre staff and students who have been interviewed as part of the investigation, candidate work, internal assessment or verification records relevant to the investigation, minutes of meetings and any other evidence which has been collected as part of the centre’s investigations.

Normally investigations should be concluded and a report made to the awarding organisation within 28 days.

In some cases, for example, where there is a suspected breach of security (the content of examination materials has been made available to students in advance of examination), the awarding organisation may not require the College to carry out an investigation and instead will carry out its own investigation.

The College will cooperate fully with any investigations into centre malpractice/maladministration or student malpractice irrespective of whether the centre identified and reported suspicions or the allegation was made by another party, for example, a student, Assessor etc.

Objectives of the investigation

• To establish the facts relating to the allegation in order to determine whether the allegation of malpractice/maladministration can be substantiated.
• To identify any irregularities which occurred, the centre staff and/or students involved and the extent of their involvement. 
• To establish the scale of any irregularities.
• To evaluate any action already taken.
• To determine whether remedial action is required to reduce the risk to current students and to preserve the integrity of the qualification/s.
• To determine whether any action is required in respect of results and/or certificates already issued. 
• To obtain evidence to support any sanctions to be applied to members of staff and/or students. 
• To identify any patterns or trends.
• To identify any changes to policy or procedure that needs to be made by the College.

Rights of individuals accused of malpractice/maladministration

The College will advise anyone accused of malpractice/maladministration of the details of the allegation in writing. Evidence supporting the allegation will also be made available to anyone accused of malpractice/maladministration. In such cases, a person accused of malpractice/maladministration will be invited to provide their own written report in response to the allegation and the evidence supporting the allegation which has been made available to them.

All written responses to malpractice/maladministration allegations are fully considered before decisions are reached.

The decision:

Investigations into significant cases of malpractice/maladministration which identify threats to the integrity of any qualification, the validity of certification, significant breaches of examination paper security, possible criminal activity and other issues of similar gravity are reported to the Director of Studies.

The Director of Studies is provided with the following information in respect of each significant case of malpractice/maladministration: 

• Evidence in support of the allegation
• The written response/s to the allegation, if provided.

The Director of Studies supported by the Academic Board considers the information and evidence relating to the investigation which has been presented.

The Committee must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities in order to decide that malpractice/maladministration has been proven.

The Committee provides reasons for its decision in respect of each case considered. In the event that the Committee determines that malpractice/maladministration is proven, it will recommend disciplinary procedures to be applied.  It may also recommend action to be taken to protect the integrity of the examination or assessment.

Individuals accused of malpractice/maladministration are not permitted to attend the meeting/s of the Committee. The work of the Committee is confidential.

For suspected cases of malpractice/maladministration of a more minor nature which do not affect the integrity of qualifications, the validity of certification, or involve significant breaches of examination paper security and possible criminal activity, the reports on malpractice/maladministration investigations are considered solely by the Head of Academics.

Disciplinary Procedure

The objective of the disciplinary procedure is to help and encourage all staff to achieve and maintain a high standard of conduct, attendance and best job performance.

All employees will have the opportunity to exercise their fundamental rights using the disciplinary procedure:

• The right to be represented at a disciplinary hearing by a colleague from ICOPD
• The right to a full and fair hearing at which employees have the opportunity to state their case.
• The right to appeal against disciplinary warnings or dismissal

All employees will be given a minimum of forty-eight hours’ notice of any disciplinary meetings and will be provided with documentary evidence that will be used at the hearing.  At every stage in the procedure a member of staff will be advised of the nature of the complaint and given every opportunity to state their case before a decision is made.

ICOPD may, in appropriate circumstances, place a member of staff on any stage of the Disciplinary Procedure.

Disciplinary Stages

Stage 1 – Verbal Warning

A member of the Management team will conduct an interview with the employee and inform him/her of the expected standards, explain how and to what extent they are falling short, and the period in which you are expected in achieve them.

A record of the warning will normally be retained in the employee’s personnel file for six months

Stage 2 – Written Warning

If the unsatisfactory conduct persists, a member of the Management Team will interview the employee, and advise him/her, in writing, how and to what extent their performance is falling short. Again, the period of time for them to achieve the required standards will be clearly stated.

A record of the warning will normally be retained in the employee’s personnel file for twelve months

Stage 3 – Final Written Warning

The warning letter will clearly state the consequences of failure to achieve the standards required. A record of the warning will normally be retained in the employee’s personnel file for twelve months

Stage 4 – Dismissal