Centre Quality Briefing
September 2012
Agenda topics
1. The Regulatory Framework
2. Centre Monitoring
3. New and Revised Policies
2
1. Regulatory Framework
QAA
Ofqual
• Regulates Access to HE
Diplomas
• Regulates other
qualifications
• Licenses Access Validating • Licenses Awarding
Agencies (AVAs)
Organisations (AOs)
• Requires AVAs to regulate • Requires AOs to
Centres
regulate Centres
• Regulations stable for last • Regulations changed
few years
in May 2011
3
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
4
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
5
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
6
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
7
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
8
Banding
Score
Colour
code
General descriptor
Priority of actions
required
No action required, or
suggestions towards
improvement or best
practice
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.
Marginal
Risk
2
Yellow
Any risk to integrity is marginal.
Centre performance is satisfactory.
Suggested action
Amber
Concerns about a specific risk
indicator or indicators. Customized
or specific action required to ensure
integrity. Sanctions may be
imposed.
Action is required
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.
Moderate
Risk
High Risk
3
4
9
2.2 Risk Indicators
Table of Risk Indicators
1
Centre 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.
3
Robust 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.
5
Centre compliant with qualification and Centre approval criteria and
requirements, quality assurance criteria and regulatory Conditions.
10
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
11
Table of Sanctions that may be applied
Sanction
Rationale
0
None
 Little or no risk
1
Escalation to Centre
management, eg, QIP monitored by
 Limited confidence in specific risk
indicators
Level
Centre senior manager.
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
4
Withdrawal of Centre approval for
specific qualifications
Irretrievable breakdown in QA and
management of specific quals
5
Withdrawal of Centre approval for
all qualifications
Irretrievable breakdown in QA and
management of all quals
12
Exercise
In groups, use the information
provided to allocate the fictitious
Centres to a risk band. Be prepared
to share your group’s reasoning.
13
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.
14
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
15
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
16
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.
17
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
18
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.
19
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.
20
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
21
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.
22
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
23
Further information
• Centre Handbook
• www.certa.org.uk
• www.ofqual.gov.uk
• www.qaa.ac.uk
• www.accesstohe.ac.uk
24