Centre Quality Briefing

September 2012

2

Agenda topics

1. The Regulatory Framework

2. Centre Monitoring

3. New and Revised Policies

3

1. Regulatory Framework

QAA

• Regulates Access to HE Diplomas

• Licenses Access Validating Agencies (AVAs)

• Requires AVAs to regulate Centres

• Regulations stable for last few years

Ofqual

• Regulates other qualifications

• Licenses Awarding Organisations (AOs)

• Requires AOs to regulate Centres

• Regulations changed in May 2011

4

1.1 OFQUAL’s role

• ensure assessments and qualifications are reliable and consistent over time

• promote public confidence in regulated qualifications and assessments

• secure efficiency and value for money

5

1.2 OFQUAL Regulations

• Introduced May 2011

• More stringent than previous regulations

• General Conditions of Recognition

– apply to recognised Awarding Organisations

• Criteria for Recognition

– apply to AOs seeking recognition

6

1.3 Impact of Conditions on Centres• Directly – none

• However Conditions affect:

– the way AOs regulate Centres

– policies and procedures required

– how qualification and assessment standards are set and maintained

– quality assurance arrangements

7

2. Centre Monitoring

2.1 Risk based approach

2.2 Sanctions

2.3 Monitoring Visits

2.4 Direct Claims Status

2.5 Quality Assurance of Centre Monitoring

8

2.1 Risk-Based Approach

• Each Centre allocated to a risk band based on:

– risk rating for the qualifications at the Centre

• as indicted by Ofqual

• as indicated from EV reports

– outcomes of annual monitoring visits

– Centre’s record of responding to action

• Risk band re-assessed at each visit

9

Banding ScoreColour code General descriptor Priority of actions

required

Low Risk 1 Green

Little or no risk to integrity of assessment, qualifications, Centre

approval criteria, regulatory Conditions and/or reputation of

OCNYHR or NOCN. Centre performance is good.

No action required, or suggestions towards improvement or best

practice

Marginal Risk

2 YellowAny risk to integrity is marginal.

Centre performance is satisfactory.Suggested action

Moderate Risk

3 Amber

Concerns about a specific risk indicator or indicators. Customized or specific action required to ensure

integrity. Sanctions may be imposed.

Action is required

High Risk 4 Red

Major concerns about one or more risk indicators which threaten

integrity. Urgent action required. Sanctions may be imposed.

Immediate and urgent action is required.

10

Table of Risk Indicators

1Centre uses valid, reliable, fair and safe assessment methods and tasks. Clear, comprehensive assessment guidance for assessors.

2

Assessment decisions made against unit learning outcomes and assessment criteria at appropriate level, so evidence is valid, authentic, sufficient and current. Clear and constructive feedback to learners explains assessment decisions and helps them improve.

3Robust internal verification, including pre-issue verification, confirming validity and consistency of assessment tasks and decisions, constructive feedback to assessors, appropriate standardisation, accurate records.

4 Centre provides appropriate and timely response to action points.

5Centre compliant with qualification and Centre approval criteria and requirements, quality assurance criteria and regulatory Conditions.

2.2 Risk Indicators

11

2.3 Sanctions

• Five Sanction Levels

• Applicable where Risk Band is 3 or 4

• Not always used, even where Risk is 3 or 4

• Intention is to apply Sanctions where they will help to ensure the required action is implemented

12

Table of Sanctions that may be applied

Level Sanction Rationale

0 None Little or no risk

1Escalation to Centre management, eg, QIP monitored by Centre senior manager.

Limited confidence in specific risk indicators

2

Additional development or quality intervention visit, eg to check action plan completion or EV following learner re-assessment, etc

Non-compliance Not responding to action points

3(a) Suspension of registration(b) Suspension of certification

Threat to learners Loss of integrity of assessment Danger of invalid certification claims

4Withdrawal of Centre approval for specific qualifications

Irretrievable breakdown in QA and management of specific quals

5Withdrawal of Centre approval for all qualifications

Irretrievable breakdown in QA and management of all quals

13

Exercise

In groups, use the information provided to allocate the fictitious

Centres to a risk band. Be prepared to share your group’s reasoning.

14

2.4 Centre Monitoring Visits

• One visit always a compliance review.

• If only one, visit will combine this with EV.

• Number of visits will depend on number of qualifications offered, number of learners and Centre Risk Band.

• Fee charged for extra visits.

15

2.5 Before the visit

• QR/EV contacts Centre to arrange visit(s).

• QR/EV will ask Centres for pre visit information and will send a Visit Plan.

• Please respond promptly – as most do

• Failure to respond can affect your Risk Band

16

2.6 During the visit

• Where visit involves EV:– random sample scrutinised, as now

– also any records of malpractice

• Where visit is compliance monitoring:– quality systems and management scrutinised, as now

– Centre Malpractice Policy checked

– Check that malpractice procedures are implemented and recorded

– Check of requirements for Direct Claims Status

17

2.7 Upholding standards

Standards high in most Centres, however:

• QR/EV must check additional work where initial sample identifies an issue.

• Where assessment decisions incorrect:– QR/EV can reverse assessment decisions;

– QR/EV must ask for work to be re-assessed;

– QR/EV should not sign off achievements.

• If previous decisions could be affected, QR/EV may ask for a review of assessment tasks and/or for all relevant work to be re-assessed.

18

2.8 After the visit

• Visit report will show reviewed and/or revised Risk Band, and any Sanctions applied

• Centre to report completion of Conditions – which many of you do, thank you

• Quality team will follow up in any case – but

failure to report may affect your Risk rating

19

2.9 Direct Claims Status (DCS)

• DCS awarded to Centre for particular qual, if: – Centre has an Accredited Internal Verifier (AIV);

– Centre has delivered the qual for at least a year;

– assessors & IVs satisfactory, Centre Risk Band = 1 or 2.

• Criteria reviewed during compliance visit

• Sample of assessed & verified work scrutinised

• Direct Claims Status removed if:– AIV no longer verifies, or Centre stops delivering qual;

– Centre Risk = 3 or 4, or monitoring reveals concerns.

20

2.10 Quality Assurance of Centre Monitoring

• Awarding Organisation checks all reports (as now).

• Formal moderation of visit reports.

• QRs and EVs to be qualified (most already are).

• Centres will be asked to complete an evaluation following each visit.

21

Exercise

In groups:

• Discuss the changes to Centre Monitoring

• Agree three changes that you welcome

• Identify three changes that may be less easy to implement

• Suggest actions that might help

22

3.1 Withdrawal Policy

• If Centres withdraw, learners must be protected.

• AO and Centres must check qualification end dates to prevent withdrawal.

• Centres to inform OCNYHR as soon as they believe learners may not be able to complete.

• Action plan must be developed, eg, transfer learners to another Centre.

• Ofqual may need to be notified.

23

3.2 Notification to Ofqual

• Ofqual to be notified if anything happens that might have an Adverse Effect.

• Has affected a number of processes, eg, need to tell us if you will use formal exams or tests.

• Examples of Adverse Effects:– Learners unable to get certificates

– Learners get certificates when they haven’t completed or achieved the standard

– Integrity of qual threatened, eg, by security breach, assessment conditions not met, etc

24

Further information

• Centre Handbook

• www.certa.org.uk

• www.ofqual.gov.uk

• www.qaa.ac.uk

• www.accesstohe.ac.uk