CILEx Procedures for Dealing with Cases of Suspected Student Malpractice CILEx Level 3 and 6 Professional qualifications CILEx Level 3 and 4 Legal Services qualifications Issued July 2014 Page 1 of 11
Contents 1. Introduction 3 2. Examples of student malpractice 3 3. Allegations of suspected student malpractice 4 4. CILEx investigations into suspected student malpractice 4 5. Rights of students accused of malpractice 5 6. The decision: Qualifications Malpractice Committee 5 7. Penalties 6 8. Role and remit of CILEx Regulation 8 9. Appeals 8 10. CILEx certificates 9 11. Retention of materials 9 12. Reporting cases of proven student malpractice 9 13. CILEx contacts for information regarding CILEx malpractice procedures or malpractice queries 10 Page 2 of 11
1. Introduction CILEx is a Professional and Awarding Organisation recognised by Ofqual. CILEx is required to comply with General Conditions of Recognition, Ofqual, and the Regulatory arrangements for the Qualifications and Credit Framework, Ofqual. This document sets out CILEx policy and procedures for dealing with suspected cases of malpractice by students studying the CILEx Level 3 and Level 6 Professional qualifications and CILEx Level 3 and Level 4 Legal Services qualifications including breaches of the Examination Regulations, breaches of Professional Skills Assessment Regulations and breaches of the Regulations for Competence Qualifications. The action a student should take if accused of malpractice is set out along with the appeals policy and the penalties which may be imposed if allegations of malpractice are proven. Student malpractice is a sensitive issue for all awarding organisations particularly for those with a professional body role. The vast majority of CILEx students abide by CILEx regulations and work hard to ensure their assessment performance reflects their ability, knowledge and competence. It is important that CILEx supports this majority of hardworking students by being vigilant and identifying and disciplining students who do not adhere to the regulations which govern the CILEx qualifications. Therefore, CILEx takes appropriate action in respect of cases of malpractice to preserve the integrity of CILEx qualifications. Students are also advised to familiarise themselves with CILEx Procedures for dealing with Cases of Suspected Accredited Centre Malpractice or Maladministration. The most recent version of this document is posted on the CILEx website (www.cilex.org.uk). 2. Examples of student malpractice Students taking Law and Practice units for the Level 3 and Level 6 Professional qualifications and the Level 3 and Level 4 Legal Services Knowledge qualifications are required to comply with the CILEx Examination Regulations. Students taking the Level 3 or Level 6 Professional Skills assessments (including students taking the Level 3 Professional Skills assessments towards the Level 3 or Level 4 Legal Services Knowledge qualifications) are required to comply with the CILEx Professional Skills Assessment Regulations. Students taking the Level 3 or Level 4 Legal Services Competence qualifications are required to comply with the CILEx Regulations for Competence Qualifications. Student malpractice may include: Taking unauthorised materials into an examination room (it is acceptable to leave text books etc. at the front/side/back of the room in accordance with the Invigilator s instructions). This could include notes written on a piece of paper/back of the student s exam permit/ruler/ student s arm/ back of hand etc. Communicating with another student during the examination. Using a mobile telephone/ pocket computer/ programmable calculator/ personal stereo or other communication device during the examination. Page 3 of 11
Non-compliance with instructions or advice of an invigilator in relation to the Examination Regulations. Disruptive behaviour during an examination. Impersonating another student or arranging to be impersonated, for example arranging for another person to take an examination or complete an assessment on one s behalf. Plagiarism: reproducing work from a published source (including the internet) and presenting it as one s own work. Copying the work of another student or allowing one s own work to be copied by another student. Falsifying evidence to demonstrate competence in relation to assessment criteria. Misleading assessors with regard to a student s competence against CILEx assessment criteria. The above list of examples of malpractice is not an exhaustive list and reports of other student malpractice will be fully investigated by CILEx. 3. Allegations of suspected student malpractice Allegations of suspected student malpractice may be made by an accredited centre or accredited centre contractors (for example invigilators, assessors, internal verifiers), CILEx assessors, External Verifiers and invigilators, students, CILEx officers and others involved in the delivery, examination and assessment of CILEx qualifications. CILEx normally requests that all allegations are made in writing. In some cases an allegation of student malpractice may be made anonymously. All allegations of suspected malpractice are evaluated by CILEx to determine the potential gravity of the malpractice, the risk to the CILEx qualifications and the appropriate course of action and nature of any investigation by CILEx which may be necessary. 4. CILEx investigations into suspected student malpractice All allegations of suspected student malpractice are investigated by the Qualifications team. The scope and activities undertaken as part of each malpractice investigation will depend on the nature of suspected malpractice. In each case investigations will involve the gathering of evidence relating to the suspected malpractice which may include but not be limited to requesting that the accredited centre conducts a full investigation, contacting potential witnesses and collecting witness reports, conducting interviews with witnesses, reviews of student work, consideration of other work the student has undertaken with a centre, consideration of the work (examination scripts/assessments/portfolios) produced by other students at the examination or accredited centre. CILEx reserves the right to withhold a student s examination/assessment results until the investigation has been concluded and subject to the Qualifications Malpractice Committee s decision. Page 4 of 11
As part of the investigation the student accused of malpractice will be contacted and advised that an investigation is being undertaken and provided with the opportunity to provide a response. 5. Rights of students accused of malpractice Following the investigation into a case of student malpractice, the student will be sent written confirmation of the allegation as follows: Details of the allegation Evidence relating to the allegation (including witness reports if provided) A copy of the CILEx Procedures for Dealing with Cases of Suspected Student Malpractice which sets out the penalties and appeals policy, an overview of the Qualifications Malpractice Committee s remit and advice about the possible referral of the matter to CILEx Regulation, if the allegation is upheld. All students accused of malpractice are invited to provide a written response to the allegation and evidence presented. Students will normally be given 14 days from the date of the CILEx letter setting out the allegation and evidence to provide their written response. If no response is received within 21 days then the matter will be referred to the Qualifications Malpractice Committee. Students are able to contact the Quality Assurance Manager or the Quality Assurance Officer if further guidance is required. (The relevant contact details appear in Section 13.) 6. The decision: Qualifications Malpractice Committee Investigations into student malpractice are reported to the Qualifications Malpractice Committee. The Qualifications Malpractice Committee is provided with the following information in respect of each case of student malpractice: Report from CILEx officers Report from the centre (including the invigilator s report/centre assessor/internal verifier report), if applicable Evidence in support of the allegation The student s written response/s to the allegation. The Qualifications Malpractice Committee considers all the information and evidence relating to the investigation which has been presented to the Committee. The Committee must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities in order to decide that malpractice has been proven. The Committee provides reasons for its decision in respect of each case of malpractice considered. In the event that the Qualifications Malpractice Committee determines that malpractice is proven, it determines the penalty to be applied in accordance with the criteria in Section 7 Penalties. It also sets out any action to be taken to protect the integrity of the examination/ assessment/qualification. Page 5 of 11
Students accused of malpractice are not permitted to attend the meeting/s of the Qualifications Malpractice Committee. The work of the Committee is confidential. Malpractice cases which result in the student s examination/assessment result being voided (or a Professional Skills task being voided) in accordance with the criteria for penalties (Section 7) are referred to CILEx Regulation which considers the conduct of CILEx members. The Qualifications Malpractice Committee can also make a discretionary decision to refer other cases of student malpractice (which did not lead to the voiding of a student s examination or assessment result) to CILEx Regulation. CILEx officers will write to students accused of malpractice within 5 working days of the Qualifications Malpractice Committee meeting to confirm the decision of the Committee and any penalties imposed. 7. Penalties CILEx may impose penalties on a student in the event that malpractice is proven. The Qualifications Malpractice Committee determines the penalties to be imposed which must be commensurate with the gravity of the malpractice which is proven. The following criteria inform the level of penalty imposed on a student. The criteria are not exhaustive but provide a benchmark against which individual cases are considered. Penalty Written warning One assessment task for a Professional Skills assessment declared void Criteria Minor breach of the regulations which does not affect the integrity of the examination / assessment, for example: Mobile telephone makes noise for a short period during an examination but is not in candidate s possession. Tearing out pages from answer booklet. Bringing in pre-released case study materials which are not annotated into the examination and which are removed during the reading time of a practice examination. Minor refusal to adhere to invigilator s instructions which does not disrupt other candidates. Unauthorised materials in possession during the examination which did not give candidate an advantage over other candidates, including an annotated statute book. Plagiarism a limited amount of material from a published source not referenced in a Professional Skills assessment but which does not call into question the student s achievement of the assessment requirements. Failure to use scheme documentation in the way indicated in the Qualifications Handbook, which does not affect the integrity of the assessment. Significant breach of the Professional Skills Assessment Regulations which affects the integrity of the assessment for one task only, for example: Drafts or final versions for one Professional Skills task shared with another student. Copying another student s work for one Professional Skills task only. Working together with another student (or other students) to Page 6 of 11
produce the response for one Professional Skills task only. Student work for one Professional Skills task only is not individual and original. Plagiarism a substantial amount of material from a published work (including the internet) not referenced for one task only. Examination or assessment result declared void Significant breach of the regulations which affects the integrity of the examination or Professional Skills assessment, for example: Refusal to comply with Invigilator s instructions which compromises the integrity of the examination. Severely disruptive behaviour during an examination. Unauthorised materials found on the candidate during an examination which would have given candidate an advantage over other candidates. An annotated statute book found in the candidate s possession during an examination which would have given candidate an advantage over other candidates. Candidate in possession of an unauthorised device (e.g. mobile phone, personal stereo, MP3 player, e-reader, PDA or similar communication/ recording/storage/listening devices). Security breach of an examination paper with evidence that student has accessed secure examination materials. Refusal to handover suspected unauthorised materials or device when asked or refusal to demonstrate that any suspected materials or device is not in student s possession. Arranging to be impersonated by another individual in an examination. Using programmable calculator in an examination. Attempting to communicate or communicating with other candidates during an examination. Attempting to copy of copying the work of another candidate during an examination. Leaving the examination during the first 45 minutes or last 15 minutes or leaving the examination room without the permission of the Invigilator unless there are justifiable mitigating circumstances (for example, serious illness, fire alarm). Removing question papers from the examination room. Sitting an examination at an alternative time to the CILEx examination timetable having not been supervised when the examination was scheduled to take place (according to the CILEx examination schedule). Drafts or final versions for more than one Professional Skills task shared with another candidate. Copying another student s work for more than one Professional Skills task. Working together with another student (or other students) to produce the response for more than one Professional Skills task. Student work for more than one Professional Skills task is not individual and original. Plagiarism a substantial amount of material from a published work (including the internet) not referenced for more than one Professional Skills task. Engaging in activities which undermine the integrity of the CILEx competence qualifications. Falsifying evidence of competence against the CILEx assessment criteria. Failure to disclose that work undertaken to demonstrate competence was undertaken collaboratively with one or more parties. Page 7 of 11
Misleading accredited centre staff or CILEx representatives regarding competence against the CILEX assessment criteria. Altering or interfering with CILEx student assessment documentation for example, examination permits, results notifications or certificates. 8. Role and remit of CILEx Regulation The Qualifications Malpractice Committee refers proven cases of student malpractice to CILEx Regulation (see Section 6 Qualifications Malpractice Committee). The following information is made available to CILEx Regulation, where appropriate: o Relevant marked script/s or assessments o Copies of any unauthorised materials or other documentation removed from the student. o Details of the allegation o Reports from Invigilators/Centre Assessors/Internal Verifiers o Witness reports and other evidence collecting in the investigation o The student s written response to the allegation o The relevant minute of the Qualifications Malpractice Committee meeting relating to the allegation. CILEx Regulation may conduct a further investigation and determine what action to take against the student s membership of CILEx.CILEx Regulation may: Accept a person s response and take no further action; reprimand or warn a member; require a member to give an Undertaking as to his/her future conduct; impose conditions on a member in respect of their conduct or in relation to their employment; if it is a serious matter refer it to the Disciplinary Tribunal which can, additionally, impose a fine on a member or exclude them from membership of CILEx. CILEx Regulation will also notify the Qualifications team of the CILEx Regulation Professional Conduct Panel s decision. 9. Appeals Students are entitled to appeal against student malpractice decisions. Students must make a written request for an appeal within 20 working days of the date of the correspondence from CILEx confirming the decision and penalties to be applied. The deadline for requesting an appeal is set out in the CILEx letter confirming the decision of the Qualifications Malpractice Committee. Students must provide a reason for requesting an appeal and pay the relevant fee. The current fees are provided on the CILEx website. Requests for appeals are acknowledged by CILEx and are considered by the Qualifications Appeals Committee. Appeals are considered by the Committee at its next meeting which will normally be within 60 working days. Page 8 of 11
The only evidence that the Qualifications Appeals Committee shall take into account in determining an appeal shall be the material before the Qualifications Malpractice Committee. Where a student appealing the decision of the Qualifications Malpractice Committee wishes to put before the Qualifications Appeals Committee evidence that (i) (ii) (iii) could not reasonably have been produced to the Qualifications Malpractice Committee, would have been capable of affecting the decision of the Qualifications Malpractice Committee, and is credible, the Qualifications Appeals Committee may take that evidence into account. In determining an appeal, the Qualifications Appeals Committee may: (i) (ii) (iii) confirm the decision of the Qualifications Malpractice Committee; vary the decision of the Qualifications Malpractice Committee; or order the Qualifications Malpractice Committee to reconsider the case. The student will be notified of the Qualifications Appeals Committee s decision within 5 working days of the meeting. 10. CILEx Certificates In the event that CILEx has awarded a certificate (credit certificate or qualification certificate) to a student who is subsequently found to have committed malpractice for the unit or qualification for which the certificate/s has/have been awarded, CILEx will revoke the relevant certificate/s. 11. Retention of materials CILEx retains all documentation and records in relation to a malpractice investigation which resulted in penalties being imposed on a student for five years following the decision and confirmation of penalties. 12. Reporting cases of proven student malpractice CILEx notifies Ofqual of all cases of student malpractice which could either invalidate the award of a CILEx qualification or could affect another awarding organisation. In such cases CILEx will agree appropriate action with Ofqual. CILEx will report cases of student malpractice to the relevant authorities if proven malpractice involves a criminal act. CILEx reserves the right to report cases of student malpractice to the student s accredited centre. Page 9 of 11
All cases of proven student malpractice are reported to the Quality Assurance and Compliance Committee and CILEx Regulation. Page 10 of 11
13. CILEx contacts for information regarding CILEx malpractice procedures or malpractice queries Amanda Pipe Quality Assurance Manager T: 01234 845758 E: apipe@cilex.org.uk Susan Jayes Quality Assurance Officer T: 01234 845757 E: sjayes@cilex.org.uk Vicky Purtill E: vpurtill@cilex.org.uk Head of Qualifications CILEx, Kempston Manor, Kempston, Bedford, MK42 7AB Page 11 of 11