Learner Appeals Policy

Control of document Adult Community Learning Senior Leadership Team

This policy is issued, controlled, and may only be modified by the designated policy group member after proposed amendments have been presented to the Quality Improvement Group

 

The latest version of the policy will be maintained by the Adult Community Learning Service (ACL) and updates sent to all Managers.  It is important that the latest version of the policy is used at all times.

Policy Aims & Intention

The purpose of this policy, as defined by JCQ (Joint Council for Qualifications), is to:

 

  • Cover procedures for planning and managing non-examination assessments (NEA)
  • Define staff roles and responsibilities with respect to NEAs
  • Manage risks associated with NEAs

 

Responsibility SLT, Curriculum Co-ordinator, Exams Leads and Exams Officers
Date of acceptance
Last Review Date August 2023
Next Review Date September 2024
Audience All Strategic, Curriculum and Operational Managers, academic staff, support staff, volunteers, learners and other service users

 

 

Task setting

Subject teacher

  • Makes candidates aware of the criteria used to assess their work

Issuing of tasks

Subject teacher

  • Determines when set tasks are issued by the awarding body
  • Identifies date(s) when tasks should be taken by candidates
  • Accesses set tasks in sufficient time to allow planning, resourcing and teaching and ensures that materials are stored securely at all times

Task taking

Supervision

Subject teacher

  • Checks the awarding body’s subject-specific requirements ensuring candidates take tasks under the required conditions and supervision arrangements
  • Ensures there is sufficient supervision to enable the work of a candidate to be authenticated
  • Ensures there is sufficient supervision to ensure the work a candidate submits is their own
  • Ensures candidates are aware of the current JCQ documents Information for candidates – non-examination assessments
  • Ensures candidates understand and comply with the regulations in relevant JCQ documents Information for candidates
  • Ensures candidates:
  • understand that information from all sources must be referenced
  • receive guidance on setting out references
  • are aware that they must not plagiarise other material

 

Advice and feedback

Subject teacher

  • As relevant to the subject/component, advises candidates on relevant aspects before candidates begin working on a task
  • Will not provide candidates with model answers or outlines/headings specific to the task
  • When reviewing candidates’ work, unless prohibited by the specification, provides oral and written advice at a general level to candidates
  • Ensures when work has been assessed, candidates are not allowed to revise it

 

 

Resources

Subject teacher

  • Refers to the awarding body’s specification and/or associated documentation to determine if candidates have restricted/unrestricted access to resources including the internet and AI when planning and researching their tasks
  • Refers to the JCQ document AI Use in Assessments: Protecting the Integrity of Qualifications (http://www.jcq.org.uk/exams-office/malpractice ) as well as the awarding body’s specification and/or associated documentation published by the awarding bodies and the regulator
    • By referencing this document, makes candidates aware of the appropriate and inappropriate use of AI, the risks of using AI, and the possible consequences of using AI inappropriately in a qualification assessment
  • Ensures conditions for any formally supervised sessions are known and put in place
  • Ensures appropriate arrangements are in place to keep the work to be assessed, and any preparatory work, secure between any formally supervised sessions, including work that is stored electronically
  • Ensures conditions for any formally supervised sessions are understood and followed by candidates
  • Ensures candidates understand that they are not allowed to introduce augmented notes or new resources between formally supervised sessions
  • Ensures that where appropriate to include references, candidates keep a detailed record of their own research, planning, resources etc.

Time limits

Subject teacher

  • Refers to the awarding body’s specification to determine where time limits apply/are mandatory

Authentication procedures

Subject teacher

  • Where required by the awarding body’s specification
  • signs the teacher declaration of authentication confirming the requirements have been met

Presentation of work

Subject teacher

  • Instructs candidates to present work as detailed in NEA unless the awarding body’s specification gives different subject-specific instructions

Keeping materials secure

Subject teacher

  • When work is submitted by candidates for final assessment, ensures work is securely stored
  • Follows secure storage instructions as defined in NEA8
  • Takes sensible precautions when work is taken home for marking
  • Stores internally assessed work, including the sample returned after awarding body moderation, securely until the closing date for reviews of results or until the outcome of a review or any subsequent appeal has been completed

 

 

Task marking – internally assessed components

Marking and annotation

Head of centre

  • Ensures where a teacher teaches his/her own child, a conflict of interest is declared to the awarding body and the marked work of the child submitted for moderation, whether it is part of the moderation sample or not

Subject head/lead

  • Sets timescales for teachers to inform candidates of their centre-assessed marks that will allow sufficient time for a candidate to appeal an internal assessment decision/request a review of the centre’s marking prior to the marks being submitted to the awarding body external deadline

Subject teacher

  • Attends awarding body training as required to ensure familiarity with the mark scheme/marking process
  • Marks candidates’ work in accordance with the marking criteria provided by the awarding body
  • Annotates candidates’ work as required to facilitate internal standardisation of marking and enable external moderation to check that marking is in line with the assessment criteria
  • Informs candidates of their marks which could be subject to change by the awarding body moderation process
  • Ensures candidates are informed to the timescale set by the subject lead or as indicated in the centre’s internal appeals procedure to enable an internal appeal/request for a review of marking to be submitted by a candidate and the outcome known before final marks are submitted to the awarding body

Internal standardisation

Quality assurance (QA) lead/Lead internal verifier

  • Ensures that internal standardisation of marks across assessors and teaching groups takes place as required and to sequence
  • Supports staff not familiar with the mark scheme (e.g. NQTs, supply staff etc.)
  • Ensures accurate internal standardisation – for example by
  • obtaining reference materials at an early stage in the course
  • holding a preliminary trial marking session prior to marking
  • carrying out further trial marking at appropriate points during the marking period
  • after most marking has been completed, holds a further meeting to make final adjustments
  • making final adjustments to marks prior to submission
  • retaining work and evidence of standardisation
  • Retains evidence that internal standardisation has been carried out

Subject teacher

  • Marks to common standards
  • Keeps candidates work secure until after the closing date for review of results for the series concerned or until any appeal, malpractice or other results enquiry has been completed, whichever is later

Submission of marks and work for moderation

Subject teacher

  • keeping a record of the marks awarded, to the external deadline/Provides marks to the exams officer to the internal deadline
  • Submits the requested samples of candidates’ work to the awarding body moderator by the external deadline, keeping a record of the work submitted/Provides the moderation sample to the exams officer to the internal deadline
  • Ensures the moderator is provided with authentication of candidates’ work, confirmation that internal standardisation has been undertaken and any other subject-specific information where this may be required

Exams officer

  • Inputs and submits marks online, via the awarding body secure extranet site, keeping a record of the marks submitted, to the external deadline/Confirms with subject teachers that marks have been submitted to the awarding body deadline
  • Where responsible for marks input, ensures checks are made that marks for any additional candidates are submitted and ensures mark input is checked before submission to avoid transcription errors
  • Submits the requested samples of candidates’ work to the moderator by the awarding body deadline, keeping a record of the work submitted/Confirms with Subject teacher that the moderation sample has been submitted to the awarding body deadline
  • Ensures that for postal moderation
    • work is dispatched in packaging provided by the awarding body
    • moderator label(s) provided by the awarding body are affixed to the packaging
    • proof of dispatch is obtained and kept on file until the successful issue of final results
  • Through the subject teacher, ensures the moderator is provided with authentication of candidates’ work, confirmation that internal standardisation has been undertaken and any other subject-specific information where this may be required

Storage and retention of work after submission of marks

Subject teacher

  • Keeps a record of names and candidate numbers for candidates whose work was included in the moderation sample
  • Retains all marked candidates’ work (including any sample returned after moderation) under secure conditions for the required retention period
  • Takes steps to protect any work stored electronically from corruption and has a back-up procedure in place

External moderation – the process

Subject teacher

  • Ensures that awarding body or its moderator receive the correct samples of candidates’ work

External moderation – feedback

Subject head/lead

  • Checks the final moderated marks when issued to the centre when the results are published
  • Checks moderator reports and ensures that any remedial action, if necessary, is undertaken before the next exam series

Exams officer

  • Accesses or signposts moderator reports to relevant staff
  • Takes remedial action, if necessary, where feedback may relate to centre administration

Access arrangements

Subject teacher

  • Works with the SENCo to ensure any access arrangements for eligible candidates are applied to assessments

Special educational needs coordinator (SENCo)

  • Follows the regulations and guidance in the JCQ publication Access Arrangements and Reasonable Adjustments in relation to non-examination assessments
  • Where arrangements do not undermine the integrity of the qualification and is the candidate’s normal way of working, will ensure access arrangements are in place and awarding body approval, where required, has been obtained prior to assessments taking place
  • Makes subject teachers aware of any access arrangements for eligible candidates which need to be applied to assessments
  • Works with subject teachers to ensure requirements for access arrangement candidates requiring the support of a facilitator in assessments are met
  • Ensures that staff acting as an access arrangement facilitator are fully trained in their role

Special consideration and loss of work

Subject teacher

  • Understands that a candidate may be eligible for special consideration in assessments in certain situations where a candidate is absent and/or produces a reduced quantity of work
  • Liaises with the exams officer when special consideration may need to be applied for a candidate taking assessments
  • Liaises with the exams officer to report loss of work to the awarding body

Exams officer

Malpractice

Head of centre

  • Understands the responsibility to immediately report to the relevant awarding body any alleged, suspected or actual incidents of malpractice involving candidates, teachers, invigilators or other administrative staff
  • Is familiar with the JCQ publication Suspected Malpractice in Examinations and Assessments: Policies and Procedures
  • Ensures that those members of teaching staff involved in the direct supervision of candidates producing non-examination assessment are aware of the potential for malpractice and ensures that teaching staff are reminded that failure to report allegations of malpractice or suspected malpractice constitutes malpractice in itself

Subject teacher

Exams officer

Post-results services

Head of centre

  • Is familiar with the JCQ publication Post-Results Services
  • Ensures the centre’s internal appeals procedures clearly detail the procedure to be followed by candidates appealing against a centre decision not to support a review of results or an appeal

Subject head/lead

  • Provides relevant support to subject teachers making decisions about reviews of results

Subject teacher

  • Provides advice and guidance to candidates on their results and the post-results services available
  • Provides the exams officer with the original sample or relevant sample of candidates’ work that may be required for a review of moderation to the internal deadline
  • Supports the exams officer in collecting candidate consent where required

Exams officer

  • Is aware of the individual post-results services available for externally assessed and internally assessed components of non-examination assessments as detailed in the JCQ publication Post-Results Services (Information and guidance to centres…)
  • Provides/signposts relevant centre staff and candidates to post-results services information
  • Ensures any requests for post-results services that are available to non-examination assessments are submitted online via the awarding body secure extranet site to deadline
  • Collects candidate consent where required
  • outcome

Spoken Language Endorsement for GCSE English Language specifications designed for use in England

Head of centre

  • Provides a signed declaration as part of the National Centre Number Register Annual Update, that all reasonable steps have been or will be taken to ensure that all candidates at the centre have had, or will have, the opportunity to undertake the Spoken Language endorsement

Quality assurance (QA) lead/Lead internal verifier

  • Ensures the appropriate arrangements are in place for internal standardisation of assessments

Subject head/lead

  • Confirms understanding of the Spoken Language Endorsement for GCSE English Language specifications designed for use in England and ensures any relevant JCQ/awarding body instructions are followed
  • Ensures the required task setting and task taking instructions are followed by subject teachers
  • Ensures subject teachers assess candidates, either live or from recordings, using the common assessment criteria
  • Ensures for monitoring purposes, audio-visual recordings of the presentations of a sample of candidates are provided

Subject teacher

  • Ensures all the requirements in relation to the endorsement are known and understood
  • Follows the required task setting and task taking instructions
  • Assesses candidates, either live or from recordings, using the common assessment criteria
  • Provides audio-visual recordings of the presentations of a sample of candidates for monitoring purposes
  • Follows the awarding body’s instructions for the submission of grades (Pass, Merit, Distinction or Not Classified) and the storage and submission of recordings

Exams officer                                                                               

  • Follows the awarding body’s instructions for the submission of grades and recordings

 

 

 

Management of issues and potential risks associated with non-examination assessments

Issue/Risk Centre actions to manage issue/mitigate risk Action by
Centre staff malpractice Records confirm that relevant centre staff are familiar with and follow:

·       the current JCQ publication Instructions for conducting non-examination assessments

·       the JCQ document Notice to Centres – Sharing NEA material and candidates’ work – www.jcq.org.uk/exams-office/non-examination-assessments
Candidate malpractice Records confirm that candidates are informed and understand they must not:

·       submit work which is not their own

·       make available their work to other candidates through any medium

·       allow other candidates to have access to their own independently sourced material

·       assist other candidates to produce work

·       use books, the internet, AI or other sources without acknowledgement or attribution

·       submit work that has been word processed by a third party without acknowledgement

·       include inappropriate, offensive or obscene material

Records confirm that candidates have been made aware of the JCQ documents Information for candidates – non-examination assessments and Information for candidates – Social Media – www.jcq.org.uk/exams-office/information-for-candidates-documents  and understand they must not post their work on social media
Task setting
Awarding body set task: IT failure/corruption of task details where set task details accessed from the awarding body online Awarding body key date for accessing/downloading set task noted prior to start of course

IT systems checked prior to key date

Alternative IT system used to gain access

Awarding body contacted to request direct email of task details

  

 

 

 

 
Centre set task: Subject teacher fails to meet the assessment criteria as detailed in the specification Ensures that subject teachers access awarding body training information, practice materials etc.

Records confirmation that subject teachers understand the task setting arrangements as defined in the awarding body’s specification

Samples assessment criteria in the centre set task
Candidates do not understand the marking criteria and what they need to do to gain credit A simplified version of the awarding body’s marking criteria described in the specification that is not specific to the work of an individual candidate or group of candidates is produced for candidates

Records confirm all candidates understand the marking criteria

Candidates confirm/record they understand the marking criteria
Subject teacher long term absence during the task setting stage See centre’s exam contingency plan – Teaching staff extended absence at key points in the exam cycle
Issuing of tasks
Task for legacy specification given to candidates undertaking new specification Ensures subject teachers take care to distinguish between requirements/tasks for legacy specifications and requirements/tasks for new specifications

Awarding body guidance sought where this issue remains unresolved

  

 

 

 
Awarding body set task not issued to candidates on time Awarding body key date for accessing set task as detailed in the specification noted prior to start of course

Course information issued to candidates contains details when set task will be issued and needs to be completed by

Set task accessed well in advance to allow time for planning, resourcing and teaching
The wrong task is given to candidates

 

 Ensures course planning and information taken from the awarding body’s specification confirms the correct task will be issued to candidates

Awarding body guidance sought where this issue remains unresolved

  

 

 

 
Subject teacher long term absence during the issuing of tasks stage See centre’s exam contingency plan – Teaching staff extended absence at key points in the exam cycle
A candidate (or parent/carer) expresses concern about safeguarding, confidentiality or faith in undertaking a task such as a presentation that may be  recorded Ensures the candidate’s presentation does not form part of the sample which will be recorded

Contacts the awarding body at the earliest opportunity where unable to record the required number of candidates for the monitoring sample

 
Task taking
Supervision
Planned assessments clash with other centre or candidate activities Assessment plan identified for the start of the course

Assessment dates/periods included in centre wide calendar
Rooms or facilities inadequate for candidates to take tasks under appropriate supervision Timetabling organised to allocate appropriate rooms and IT facilities for the start of the course

Staggered sessions arranged where IT facilities insufficient for number of candidates

Whole cohort to undertake written task in large exam venue at the same time (exam conditions do not apply)

  

 

 

 

 
Insufficient supervision of candidates to enable work to be authenticated Confirm subject teachers are aware of and follow the current JCQ publication Instructions for conducting non-examination assessments and any other specific instructions detailed in the awarding body’s specification in relation to the supervision of candidates

Confirm subject teachers understand their role and responsibilities as detailed in the centre’s non-examination assessment policy
A candidate is suspected of malpractice prior to submitting their work for assessment Instructions and processes in the current JCQ publication Instructions for conducting non-examination assessments (section 9 Malpractice) are followed

An internal investigation and where appropriate internal disciplinary procedures are followed
Access arrangements were not put in place for an assessment where a candidate is approved for arrangements Relevant staff are signposted to the JCQ publication A guide to the special consideration process (section 2), to determine the process to be followed to apply for special consideration for the candidate
Advice and feedback
Candidate claims appropriate advice and feedback not given by subject teacher prior to starting on their work Ensures a centre-wide process is in place for subject teachers to record all information provided to candidates before work begins as part of the centre’s quality assurance procedures

Regular monitoring of subject teacher completed records and sign-off to confirm monitoring activity

Full records kept detailing all information and advice given to candidates prior to starting on their work as appropriate to the subject and component

Candidate confirms/records advice and feedback given prior to starting on their work

  

 
Candidate claims no advice and feedback given by subject teacher during the task-taking stage Ensures a centre-wide process is in place for subject teachers to record all advice and feedback provided to candidates during the task-taking stage as part of the centre’s quality assurance procedures

Regular monitoring of subject teacher completed records and sign-off to confirm monitoring activity

Full records kept detailing all advice and feedback given to candidates during the task-taking stage as appropriate to the subject and component

Candidate confirms/records advice and feedback given during the task-taking stage
A third party claims that assistance was given to candidates by the subject teacher over and above that allowed in the regulations and specification An investigation is conducted; candidates and subject teacher are interviewed and statements recorded where relevant

Records as detailed above are provided to confirm all assistance given

Where appropriate, a suspected malpractice report is submitted to the awarding body

  

 
Candidate does not reference information from published source Candidate is advised at a general level to reference information before work is submitted for formal assessment

Candidate is again referred to the JCQ document Information for candidates: non-examination assessments

Candidate’s detailed record of his/her own research, planning, resources etc. is regularly checked to ensure continued completion 

Candidate does not set out references as required Candidate is advised at a general level to review and re-draft the set out of references before work is submitted for formal assessment

Candidate is again referred to the JCQ document Information for candidates: non-examination assessments

Candidate’s detailed record of his/her own research, planning, resources etc. is regularly checked to ensure continued completion 

Candidate joins the course late after formally supervised task taking has started A separate supervised session(s) is arranged for the candidate to catch up
Candidate moves to another centre during the course Awarding body guidance is sought to determine what can be done depending on the stage at which the move takes place
An excluded pupil wants to complete his/her non-examination assessment(s) The awarding body specification is checked to determine if the specification is available to a candidate outside mainstream education

If so, arrangements for supervision, authentication and marking are made separately for the candidate

Resources
A candidate augments notes and resources between formally supervised sessions Preparatory notes and the work to be assessed are collected in and kept secure between formally supervised sessions

Where memory sticks are used by candidates, these are collected in and kept secure between formally supervised sessions

Where work is stored on the centre’s network, access for candidates is restricted between formally supervised sessions
A candidate fails to acknowledge sources on work that is submitted for assessment Candidate’s detailed record of his/her own research, planning, resources etc. is checked to confirm all the sources used, including books, websites and audio/visual resources

Awarding body guidance is sought on whether the work of the candidate should be marked where candidate’s detailed records acknowledges sources appropriately

Where confirmation is unavailable from candidate’s records, awarding body guidance is sought and/or a mark of zero is submitted to the awarding body for the candidate

  

 

 

 

 

 
Word and time limits
A candidate is penalised by the awarding body for exceeding word or time limits Records confirm the awarding body specification has been checked to determine if word or time limits are mandatory

Where limits are for guidance only, candidates are discouraged from exceeding them

Candidates confirm/record any information provided to them on word or time limits is known and understood
Collaboration and group work
Candidates have worked in groups where the awarding body specification states this is not permitted Records confirm the awarding body specification has been checked to determine if group work is permitted

Awarding body guidance sought where this issue remains unresolved

  

 

 
Authentication procedures
A teacher has doubts about the authenticity of the work submitted by a candidate for internal assessment

 

Candidate plagiarises other material

 

 

 

 Records confirm subject staff have been made aware of the JCQ document Teachers sharing assessment material and candidates’ work

Records confirm that candidates have been issued with the current JCQ document Information for candidates: non-examination assessments

Candidates confirm/record that they understand what they need to do to comply with the regulations for non-examination assessments as outlined in the JCQ document Information for candidates: non-examination assessments

The candidate’s work is not accepted for assessment

A mark of zero is recorded and submitted to the awarding body

  

 
Candidate does not sign their authentication statement/declaration Records confirm that candidates have been issued with the current JCQ document Information for candidates: non-examination assessments

Candidates confirm/record they understand what they need to do to comply with the regulations as outlined in the JCQ document Information for candidates: non-examination assessments

Declaration is checked for signature before accepting the work of a candidate for formal assessment
Subject teacher not available to sign authentication forms Ensures a centre-wide process is in place for subject teachers to sign authentication forms at the point of marking candidates work as part of the centre’s quality assurance procedures
Presentation of work
Candidate does not fully complete the awarding body’s cover sheet that is attached to their worked submitted for formal assessment Cover sheet is checked to ensure it is fully completed before accepting the work of a candidate for formal assessment
Keeping materials secure
Candidates work between formal supervised sessions is not securely stored Records confirm subject teachers are aware of and follow current JCQ publication Instructions for conducting non-examination assessments

Regular monitoring/internal audit ensures subject teacher use of appropriate secure storage
Adequate secure storage not available to subject teacher Records confirm adequate/sufficient secure storage is available to subject teacher prior to the start of the course

Alternative secure storage sourced where required
Task marking – externally assessed components
A candidate is absent on the day of the examiner visit for an acceptable reason Awarding body guidance is sought to determine if alternative assessment arrangements can be made for the candidate

If not, eligibility for special consideration is explored and a request submitted to the awarding body where appropriate
A candidate is absent on the day of the examiner visit for an unacceptable reason The candidate is marked absent on the attendance register
Task marking – internally assessed components
A candidate submits little or no work Where a candidate submits no work, the candidate is recorded as absent when marks are submitted to the awarding body

Where a candidate submits little work, the work produced is assessed against the assessment criteria and a mark allocated appropriately; where the work does not meet any of the assessment criteria a mark of zero is submitted to the awarding body
A candidate is unable to finish their work for unforeseen reason Relevant staff are signposted to the JCQ publication A guide to the special consideration process (section 5), to determine eligibility and the process to be followed for shortfall in work
The work of a candidate is lost or damaged Relevant staff are signposted to the JCQ publication Instructions for conducting non-examination assessments (section 8), to determine eligibility and the process to be followed for lost or damaged work
Candidate malpractice is discovered Instructions and processes in the current JCQ publication Instructions for conducting non-examination assessments (section 9 Malpractice) are followed

Investigation and reporting procedures in the current JCQ publication Suspected Malpractice in Examinations and Assessments are followed

Appropriate internal disciplinary procedures are also followed
A teacher marks the work of his/her own child A conflict of interest is declared by informing the awarding body that a teacher is teaching his/her own child at the start of the course

Marked work of said child is submitted for moderation whether part of the sample requested or not

  

 

 
An extension to the deadline for submission of marks is required for a legitimate reason Awarding body is contacted to determine if an extension can be granted

Relevant staff are signposted to the JCQ publication A guide to the special consideration process (section 5), to determine eligibility and the process to be followed for non-examination assessment extension

  

 

 
After submission of marks, it is discovered that the wrong task was given to candidates Awarding body is contacted for guidance

Relevant staff are signposted to the JCQ publication A guide to the special consideration process (section 2), to determine eligibility and the process to be followed to apply for special consideration for candidates
A candidate wishes to appeal/request a review of the marks awarded for their work by their teacher Candidates are informed of the marks they have been awarded for their work prior to the marks being submitted to the awarding body

Records confirm candidates have been informed of their marks

Candidates are informed that these marks are subject to change through the awarding body’s moderation process

Candidates are informed of their marks to the timescale identified in the centre’s internal appeals procedure and prior to the internal deadline set by the exams officer for the submission of marks

Through the candidate exam handbook, candidates are made aware of the centre’s internal appeals procedures and timescale for submitting an appeal/request for a review of the centre’s marking prior to the submission of marks to the awarding body 

Deadline for submitting work for formal assessment not met by candidate Records confirm deadlines given and understood by candidates at the start of the course

Candidates confirm/record deadlines known and understood

Depending on the circumstances, awarding body guidance sought to determine if the work can be accepted late for marking providing the awarding body’s deadline for submitting marks can be met

Decision made (depending on the circumstances) if the work will be accepted late for marking or a mark of zero submitted to the awarding body for the candidate
Deadline for submitting marks and samples of candidates work ignored by subject teacher Internal/external deadlines are published at the start of each academic year

Reminders are issued through senior leaders/subject heads as deadlines approach

Records confirm deadlines known and understood by subject teachers

Where appropriate, internal disciplinary procedures are followed
Subject teacher long term absence during the marking period See centre’s exam contingency plan (Teaching staff extended absence at key points in the exam cycle)