From education to employment

Awarding Organisation Governance

Condition A1 – Suitability for continuing recognition

Suitability for continuing recognition

A1.1 An awarding organisation must not, by means of any act or omission which has or is likely to have an Adverse Effect, render itself unsuitable to continue to be recognised for the award of a relevant qualification.

  1. A1.2 For these purposes, an act or omission may include in particular one which results in the awarding organisation –
    1. (a) being convicted of a criminal offence,
    2. (b) being held by a court or any professional, regulatory, or government body to have breached any provision of Competition Law, Equalities Law, or Data Protection Law,
    3. (c) being held by a court or any professional, regulatory, or government body to have breached a provision of any other legislation or any regulatory obligation to which it is subject, or
    4. (d) becoming insolvent or subject to corporate financial restructuring.

Inactive awarding organisations

  1. A1.3 An awarding organisation must –
    1. (a) ensure that, within two years of first being recognised for the award of qualifications, it has submitted to Ofqual for accreditation or directly to the Register a qualification that meets its Conditions of Recognition, and
    2. (b) take all reasonable steps to ensure that, once it has submitted a qualification that meets its Conditions of Recognition, no two-year period passes in which it does not award a qualification in accordance with its Conditions of Recognition.

Ensuring the suitability of Senior Officers

A1.4 An awarding organisation must ensure that each of its Senior Officers is at all times a person suitable to be engaged in that role in an awarding organisation that is recognised for the award of the relevant qualifications.

  1. A1.5 For these purposes, a Senior Officer may in particular be unsuitable for that role by virtue of –
    1. (a) any criminal convictions held by him or her,
    2. (b) any finding by a court or any professional, regulatory, or government body that he or she has breached a provision of any legislation or any regulatory obligation to which he or she is subject,
    3. (c) any proceedings in bankruptcy or any individual financial arrangement to which he or she is or has been subject,
    4. (d) any disqualification from holding the directorship of a company or from public office, or
    5. (e) any finding of malpractice or maladministration, in relation to a qualification (whether a regulated qualification or a qualification which is not regulated), to which he or she is or has been subject.

Condition A2 – Establishment in the EU or the EFTA

  1. A2.1 An awarding organisation must ensure that it at all times –
    1. (a) is ordinarily resident in a member state of the European Union or the European Free Trade Association, or
    2. (b) is legally established, or has a substantial presence, in a member state of the European Union or the European Free Trade Association.

Condition A3 – Safeguards on change of control

Duty on change of control

  1. A3.1 Where there is a change of control in relation to an awarding organisation, it must –
    1. (a) take (and procure that every other relevant person takes) all reasonable steps to ensure that the change of control does not have an Adverse Effect, and
    2. (b) put in place a plan designed to ensure that the interests of Learners will be protected.

Definition of change of control

  1. A3.2 For the purposes of this condition, a change of control takes place in relation to an awarding organisation where –
    1. (a) a person obtains control of the awarding organisation who did not, immediately prior to doing so, have control of it, or
    2. (b) the awarding organisation merges with any person.

A3.3 Where the awarding organisation is a company, sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of section 450 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 shall apply for the purpose of determining whether a person has or had control of the awarding organisation.

Condition A4 – Conflicts of interest

Definition of conflict of interest

  1. A4.1 For the purposes of this condition, a conflict of interest exists in relation to an awarding organisation where –
    1. (a) its interests in any activity undertaken by it, on its behalf, or by a member of its Group have the potential to lead it to act contrary to its interests in the development, delivery and award of qualifications in accordance with its Conditions of Recognition,
    2. (b) a person who is connected to the development, delivery or award of qualifications by the awarding organisation has interests in any other activity which have the potential to lead that person to act contrary to his or her interests in that development, delivery or award in accordance with the awarding organisation’s Conditions of Recognition, or
    3. (c) an informed and reasonable observer would conclude that either of these situations was the case.

Identifying conflicts of interest

  1. A4.2 An awarding organisation must identify and monitor –
    1. (a) all conflicts of interest which relate to it, and
    2. (b) any scenario in which it is reasonably foreseeable that any such conflict of interest will arise in the future.

A4.3 An awarding organisation must establish and maintain an up to date record of all conflicts of interest which relate to it.

Managing conflicts of interest

A4.4 An awarding organisation must take all reasonable steps to ensure that no conflict of interest which relates to it has an Adverse Effect.

A4.5 Where such a conflict of interest has had an Adverse Effect, the awarding organisation must take all reasonable steps to mitigate the Adverse Effect as far as possible and correct it.

Interests in assessment

A4.6 An awarding organisation must take all reasonable steps to avoid any part of the assessment of a Learner (including by way of Moderation) being undertaken by any person who has a personal interest in the result of the assessment.

A4.7 Where, having taken all such reasonable steps, an assessment by such a person cannot be avoided, the awarding organisation must make arrangements for the relevant part of the assessment to be subject to scrutiny by another person.

The written conflict of interest policy

A4.8 An awarding organisation must establish, maintain, and at all times comply with an up to date written conflict of interest policy, which must include procedures on how the awarding organisation intends to comply with the requirements of this condition.

A4.9 When requested to do so by Ofqual in writing, an awarding organisation must promptly submit to Ofqual its conflict of interest policy, and must subsequently ensure that the policy complies with any requirements which Ofqual has communicated to it in writing.

Condition A5 – Availability of adequate resources and arrangements

Ensuring the ability to develop, deliver and award qualifications

  1. A5.1 An awarding organisation must –
    1. (a) ensure that it has the capacity to undertake the development, delivery and award of qualifications which it makes available, or proposes to make available, in accordance with its Conditions of Recognition, and
    2. (b) take all reasonable steps to ensure that it undertakes the development, delivery and award of those qualifications efficiently.
  1. A5.2 For these purposes, an awarding organisation must establish and maintain –
    1. (a) arrangements which will ensure that it retains at all times a Workforce of appropriate size and competence,
    2. (b) arrangements for the retention of data which will ensure that adequate information is available to it at all times,
    3. (c) arrangements which will ensure that sufficient technical equipment and support is available to it at all times,
    4. (d) appropriate management resources, and
    5. (e) appropriate systems of planning and internal control.
  1. A5.3 For these purposes, an awarding organisation must also –
    1. (a) regularly review its ongoing resource requirements and make appropriate changes to take into account the findings of each review, and
    2. (b) adequately plan any new developments which it proposes to introduce, and allocate sufficient resources to ensure that such developments are effectively introduced.

Ensuring financial viability

A5.4 An awarding organisation must ensure that it will have available sufficient financial resources and facilities to enable it to develop, deliver and award qualifications in accordance with its Conditions of Recognition until at least the time by which every Learner for a qualification it makes available has had the opportunity to complete that qualification.

Condition A6 – Identification and management of risks

Identifying risks

A6.1 An awarding organisation must take all reasonable steps to identify the risk of the occurrence of any incident which could have an Adverse Effect.

Preventing incidents or mitigating their effect

  1. A6.2 Where such a risk is identified, the awarding organisation must take all reasonable steps to –
    1. (a) prevent the incident from occurring or, where it cannot be prevented, reduce the risk of that incident occurring as far as is possible, and
    2. (b) prevent any Adverse Effect that the incident could have were it to occur or, where it cannot be prevented, mitigate that Adverse Effect as far as possible.

Contingency plan

A6.3 An awarding organisation must establish and maintain, and at all times comply with, an up to date written contingency plan.

A6.4 A contingency plan must be of sufficient detail and quality to allow the awarding organisation to mitigate, as far as possible, the Adverse Effect of any incident which has been identified by the awarding organisation as having a risk of occurring.

Condition A7 – Management of incidents

  1. A7.1 Where any incident occurs which could have an Adverse Effect, an awarding organisation must (whether or not it has previously identified a risk of that incident occurring) promptly take all reasonable steps to –
    1. (a) prevent the Adverse Effect and, where any Adverse Effect occurs, mitigate it as far as possible and correct it, and
    2. (b) give priority to the provision of assessments which accurately differentiate between Learners on the basis of the level of attainment they have demonstrated and to the accurate and timely award of qualifications.

Condition A8 – Malpractice and maladministration

Preventing malpractice and maladministration

A8.1 An awarding organisation must take all reasonable steps to prevent the occurrence of any malpractice or maladministration in the development, delivery and award of qualifications which it makes available or proposes to make available.

Investigating and managing the effect of malpractice and maladministration

  1. A8.2 Where any such malpractice or maladministration is suspected by an awarding organisation or alleged by any other person, and where there are reasonable grounds for that suspicion or allegation, the awarding organisation must –
    1. (a) so far as possible, establish whether or not the malpractice or maladministration has occurred, and
    2. (b) promptly take all reasonable steps to prevent any Adverse Effect to which it may give rise and, where any such Adverse Effect occurs, mitigate it as far as possible and correct it.

Procedures relating to malpractice and maladministration

  1. A8.3 For the purposes of this condition, an awarding organisation must –
    1. (a) establish and maintain, and at all times comply with, up to date written procedures for the investigation of suspected or alleged malpractice or maladministration, and
    2. (b) ensure that such investigations are carried out rigorously, effectively, and by persons of appropriate competence who have no personal interest in their outcome.

A8.4 Where a Centre undertakes any part of the delivery of a qualification which an awarding organisation makes available, the awarding organisation must take all reasonable steps to keep under review the arrangements put in place by that Centre for preventing and investigating malpractice and maladministration.

A8.5 An awarding organisation must, following a request from such a Centre, provide guidance to the Centre as to how best to prevent, investigate, and deal with malpractice and maladministration.

Dealing with malpractice and maladministration

  1. A8.6 Where an awarding organisation establishes that any malpractice or maladministration has occurred in the development, delivery or award of qualifications which it makes available, or proposes to make available, it must promptly take all reasonable steps to –
    1. (a) prevent that malpractice or maladministration from recurring, and
    2. (b) take action against those responsible which is proportionate to the gravity and scope of the occurrence, or seek the cooperation of third parties in taking such action.
  1. A8.7 Where an awarding organisation has any cause to believe that an occurrence of malpractice or maladministration, or any connected occurrence –
    1. (a) may affect a Centre undertaking any part of the delivery of a qualification which an awarding organisation makes available, it must inform that Centre, and
    2. (b) may affect another awarding organisation, it must inform that awarding organisation.

Guidance on Condition A1

Examples of ‘positive indicators’ that would suggest an awarding organisation is likely to comply

The awarding organisation:

  • is clear about which acts or omissions will have, or are likely to have, an Adverse Effect, and is aware of the type of actions and behaviours that could cause it to happen;
  • makes sure all relevant staff understand which acts or omissions will have, or are likely to have, an Adverse Effect;
  • has considered the behaviours that might be unsuitable for its Senior Officers, taking into account the market in which it operates and the qualifications it provides;
  • uses appropriate information and evidence to make a judgement when it checks the suitability of its Senior Officers, both at the time of appointment and at regular intervals when in post – for example as a result of up-to-date voluntary disclosure or other appropriate checks.

Examples of ‘negative indicators’ that would suggest an awarding organisation is not likely to comply

The awarding organisation:

  • appoints a Senior Officer without knowing, or despite knowing, they were unsuitable for the post;
  • does not ensure that its Senior Officers understand, at the time of appointment and once in post, what is expected of them in order to be suitable;
  • does not identify or address its Senior Officers’ behaviours that make them unsuitable for the role;
  • does not act promptly and appropriately when a Senior Officer becomes unsuitable for the role.

Guidance on Condition A4

In the guidance below ‘confidential assessment information’ refers to both the contents of assessment materials and information about the assessment in relation to which confidentiality must be maintained under Condition G4.1.

Examples of ‘positive indicators’ that would suggest an awarding organisation is likely to comply

The awarding organisation:

  • ensures that its contractual arrangements with staff and third parties who have access to confidential assessment information clearly set out any obligations on those staff and third parties to manage conflicts of interest arising from other activities that they undertake;
  • puts in place contractual arrangements which require, at a minimum, staff and third parties who have, or have had, access to confidential assessment information through the assessment development process (including quality assurance) to provide details to the awarding organisation of –
    • all instances in which such a person is, or has been, a Teacher for the relevant qualification, or is employed by a Centre at which that qualification is taught or delivered (even if that person does not themselves teach or deliver the qualification); and
    • all other conflicts of interest including personal conflicts such as, for example –
      • where a child, sibling, or other close family member is due to take the assessment in relation to which the person has confidential assessment information, and
      • where a partner or other close family member is teaching, or is due to teach, the relevant qualification;
    • requires such details to be provided on an ongoing basis for as long as the relevant assessment information remains confidential;
  • maintains records of all conflicts (using one or more documents) and retains relevant entries for as long as the relevant assessment information remains confidential or as long as required to undertake effective monitoring, whichever is later;
  • puts in place contractual arrangements requiring staff and third parties who have had access to confidential assessment information to promptly notify it if they have been, or are currently, involved in the preparation of a resource designed to support the preparation of Learners for assessments for that qualification. One example of such a resource would be a textbook for the specification. This does not apply to the preparation of teaching resources or materials by a Teacher exclusively for Learners that he or she teaches (although the awarding organisation may choose to look at such materials in order to deter and detect any breach of confidentiality);
  • monitors assessments set by staff and third parties who have been involved in the preparation of a resource designed to support the preparation of Learners for assessments for that qualification, to ensure that the fitness for purpose of those assessments has not been compromised by that resource. One example of such a resource would be a textbook for the specification. This does not apply to the preparation of teaching resources or materials by a Teacher exclusively for Learners that he or she teaches (although the awarding organisation may choose to monitor such materials in order to deter and detect any breach of confidentiality).
  • investigates credible concerns which come to its attention in relation to conflicts of interest.

Examples of ‘negative indicators’ that would suggest an awarding organisation is not likely to comply

The awarding organisation:

  • did not know that the partner of a staff member involved in the development of confidential assessment information was employed at the time as a Teacher for the qualification for which the assessment would be taken;
  • did not know that a third party who it contracted to develop or quality assure confidential assessment materials was employed at the time as a Teacher for the qualification for which the assessment would be taken;
  • did not know that a third party who it contracted to assist with the development of confidential questions for an assessment – who did not teach the relevant qualification at the time – later became a Teacher of that qualification before the assessment was taken;
  • did not know that a third party who modified confidential assessment materials worked at the time as a private tutor in respect of the qualification for which the assessment would be taken;
  • where a current Teacher holds confidential assessment information, deletes relevant information from its conflicts register where the Teacher stops teaching the relevant qualification before the assessment is taken or before any monitoring takes place

Guidance on Condition A5

Examples of ‘positive indicators’ that would suggest an awarding organisation is likely to comply

The awarding organisation:

  • identifies and has in place, the resources it needs to develop, deliver and award its qualifications;
  • has a system for reliably forecasting the demand for its qualifications and puts in place resources to meet this demand;
  • is sufficiently flexible to act to address changes in its forecasted demand;
  • acts quickly to identify and address any shortcomings in its capacity or ability to develop, deliver or award any of its qualifications that it could not reasonably have foreseen;
  • collects and retains data that will allow it to meet its Conditions of Recognition, which could include, but not be limited to:
    • evidence of support for its qualifications (Condition E1);
    • qualitative and/or quantitative information from its monitoring of qualifications for features that could disadvantage particular Learners (Condition D2);
    • data that enables it to review the specified levels of attainment previously set for the qualification and similar qualifications it makes available (Condition H3);
    • the outcomes of its monitoring of its financial position and the steps it has taken to address any issues identified.

Examples of ‘negative indicators’ that would suggest an awarding organisation is not likely to comply

The awarding organisation:

  • does not identify or address inefficiencies in the development, delivery and award of its qualifications;
  • cannot cope with demand for its qualifications;
  • cannot facilitate demands from the regulator or other agencies, as required;
  • fails to make appropriate amendments to the size and competence of its Workforce when it makes significant changes to the qualifications it offers;
  • relies on IT systems that are prone to poor performance and/or repeated error;
  • cannot access the up-to-date data it needs to be able to meet its Conditions of Recognition.

Guidance on Condition A6

Examples of ‘positive indicators’ that would suggest an awarding organisation is likely to comply

The awarding organisation:

  • identifies events that might have an Adverse Effect using risk management approaches;
  • knows where ownership for its approach to risk management lies within the organisation;
  • reviews and updates its risks using a systematic and consistent approach;
  • takes action to prevent or deal with risks that might have an Adverse Effect;
  • has a contingency plan that covers:
    • the triggers for implementation of the plan;
    • the impact on other parts of the business of implementing the plan;
    • the minimum requirements to maintain development, delivery and award of its qualifications;
    • communication plans for relevant external parties;
    • what needs to be done to return to business as usual;
  • tests its contingency plan to make sure it can mitigate Adverse Effects, covering areas such as key business systems and processes, and makes any necessary changes following the tests.

Examples of ‘negative indicators’ that would suggest an awarding organisation is not likely to comply

The awarding organisation:

  • does not systematically consider the range and type of risks that may have an impact on its regulated activities;
  • has an ad hoc or inconsistent approach to identifying and managing risks that relate to preventing or mitigating Adverse Effects;
  • does not actively take steps to mitigate risks it has identified;
  • fails to identify a foreseeable risk ̶ where it might be reasonably expected to do so ̶ that could result in an Adverse Effect.

Guidance on Condition A8

Examples of ‘positive indicators’ that would suggest an awarding organisation is likely to comply

The awarding organisation:

  • has ways of working that reduce the risk of incidents of malpractice or maladministration occurring;
  • makes sure that individuals involved in the development, delivery and award of its qualifications understand and routinely follow these ways of working;
  • takes all reasonable steps to ensure that current (and former) staff and third parties do not provide information about its qualifications which is inaccurate or misleading;
  • follows policies, practices and/or procedures that reduce the risk of malpractice and maladministration, covering, among other things:
    • plagiarism, collusion, tampering, breach of confidentiality of assessment materials;
    • incidents that occur outside of England (if it operates elsewhere);
  • knows what to do if evidence of malpractice or maladministration comes to light, whether in the organisation itself or within a third party involved with the design, delivery or award of a qualification;
  • acts quickly when it has evidence of malpractice or maladministration;
  • investigates promptly any allegations for which there are reasonable grounds that current (or former) staff or third parties have provided inaccurate or misleading information to Centres or Teachers about its qualifications and, if the awarding organisation establishes that Teachers have been misinformed, takes reasonable steps to correct any misunderstandings with the Centres or Teachers that are affected;
  • captures, logs and addresses all suspicions and evidence of malpractice.

The awarding organisation uses and regularly reviews a standardised investigations policy and approach that sets out:

  • who investigates concerns about malpractice or maladministration;
  • how an investigation is undertaken;
  • how whistleblowers will be treated, and in such a way that individuals will not be prejudiced;
  • when and how interested parties will be notified lawfully;
  • how any interviews should be conducted;
  • how facts will be gathered and evidence found, collated and stored;
  • how evidence will be verified;
  • how confidentiality of investigation materials is assured;
  • how the records of its investigations will be presented and their accuracy assured;
  • how and when any visits to Centres will be announced and undertaken;
  • which principles will be followed when it undertakes an investigation with other bodies.

The awarding organisation has on record:

  • clear terms of reference for the investigations that it has undertaken;
  • a log of all allegations, including those that were not investigated, that it can cross-reference if new information is provided.

Where the awarding organisation finds that a Teacher has disclosed confidential assessment information, the awarding organisation ensures that, where appropriate, the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA), or any organisation that carries out the same function in England or another jurisdiction, is notified. In considering whether or not such a referral is appropriate the awarding organisation considers whether:

  • the Teacher in question is subject to professional regulation by the TRA or other teaching regulator; and
  • the malpractice identified is serious based on the facts of the case and the seriousness of the sanction imposed by the awarding organisation.

The awarding organisation takes into account any guidance issued by the appropriate regulator. In general, a referral should be made where there was a deliberate or persistent disclosure in contravention of the requirements for the conduct of the assessment, or in breach of confidentiality of confidential assessment information, particularly where the action had, or was intended to have, a significant impact on the outcome of the assessment for at least one Learner.

The awarding organisation reminds any Centre at which the Teacher is employed of its obligation to consider a referral to the TRA. Where an awarding body has evidence that a Centre has made a referral, then it does not need to make a referral itself. If in doubt, an awarding organisation should err on the side of making a referral itself.

Where the awarding organisation finds that a person not subject to regulation by the TRA or another teaching regulator has disclosed confidential assessment information, it notifies any other professional regulator to which that person is subject, where appropriate.

Examples of ‘negative indicators’ that would suggest an awarding organisation is not likely to comply

The awarding organisation:

  • has used an individual or Centre to assist with, or lead on, an investigation when there is a suspicion or allegation that the individual or Centre was itself connected to, or responsible for, the malpractice and/or maladministration being investigated;
  • cannot demonstrate that it has taken steps to prevent repeat incidents of previous cases;
  • has not followed its own procedures when investigating a matter;
  • has not properly evaluated, and, where required, validated evidence collected during an investigation;
  • has not contacted relevant parties that are critical to the investigation itself, or to the outcomes of the investigation;
  • has not kept records and documents relating to the incident and investigation for an appropriate period;
  • has not been able to enforce action it has taken against those involved in malpractice or maladministration, and cannot demonstrate a good reason why it has been unable to do so;
  • has failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent its current (or former) staff or third parties from providing inaccurate or misleading information about its qualifications;
  • has failed to investigate promptly allegations for which there are reasonable grounds that current (or former) staff or third parties have provided inaccurate or misleading information about its qualifications to Centres or Teachers;
  • has not, where it has established that current (or former) staff or third parties have provided inaccurate or misleading information about its qualifications to Centres or Teachers, taken reasonable steps to correct any misunderstandings with the Centres or Teachers that are affected.

Related Articles

Responses