[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-619056-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":80,"doc-detail-619056-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":73,"head_meta":75,"extra_data":77,"updated_unix":79},105,"en","consultation-response-guidance-on-malpractice-and-maladministration-19-march-2020","Consultation response - Guidance on malpractice and maladministration - 19 March 2020","","Consultation response providing detailed feedback on draft guidance for awarding organisations dealing with malpractice and maladministration. Respondent agrees the guidance helps articulate regulatory expectations, while raising concerns about clarity and categorisation—particularly distinctions between deliberate malpractice and non-intentional maladministration. Comments address definition scope, inclusion of intentional bias, reasonable grounds for investigations, evidence credibility, monitoring and sampling of high-risk areas, and expectations around prompt investigations, terms of reference, and investigator competence and capacity.",{"@graph":14,"@context":72},[15,34,55],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/exam/","Exam",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/consultation-response-guidance-on-malpractice-and-maladministration-19-march-2020/619056/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/consultation-response-guidance-on-malpractice-and-maladministration-19-march-2020/619056.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Patrick","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-06","2026-10-20",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":30},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",{"@type":56,"mainEntity":57},"FAQPage",[58,64,68],{"name":59,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":61},"How does the respondent view the draft guidance’s usefulness for awarding organisations?","Question",{"text":62,"@type":63},"Any guidance supporting the Conditions is helpful for clarifying expectations and ensuring regulatory compliance, and the respondent agrees the draft guidance is helpful in principle.","Answer",{"name":65,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":66},"What concerns are raised about the definition of malpractice versus maladministration?",{"text":67,"@type":63},"The distinction between deliberate malpractice and non-intentional maladministration raises concerns because intent can be difficult to establish and accidental or unintentional actions may have serious consequences, yet may be better characterised as breaches of security or improper assistance.",{"name":69,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":70},"What clarification is requested regarding investigations and “reasonable grounds”?",{"text":71,"@type":63},"The respondent finds the “reasonable grounds” section useful, but asks for further explanation of evidence that could reduce allegation credibility, and notes the guidance is unclear about whether credibility can only be determined through an investigation.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":74,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":76,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":78,"site_id":7},619056,1792462420,{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":82},"success",[83,87,91,94,99,104,109,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":84,"show_sort_weight":85,"slug":86},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":88,"show_sort_weight":89,"slug":90},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":92,"slug":93},70,"exam",{"id":95,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":96,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":98},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":100,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":101,"show_sort_weight":102,"slug":103},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":105,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":106,"show_sort_weight":107,"slug":108},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":110,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":111,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":95,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":131},{"doc_id":78,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":33,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":30,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":33,"language":139,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":79,"read_time":123,"preview_page_count":4},549758146520,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/80002397d8c0411e94?_k=1775819394049821470","Consultation response  \nGuidance on malpractice and maladministration  \n19 March 2020  \nQ1: To what extent do you agree or disagree that the draft guidance will help awarding organisations to understand the requirements of Conditions when dealing with malpractice and maladministration, including A8?  \nAny guidance in support of the Conditions is helpful in further articulating the expectations placed on awarding organisations in order to ensure regulatory compliance. To that end, we agree that the draft guidance, in principle, is helpful. However, it is not as immediately clear and unambiguous as the style generally used of showing positive and negative indicators.  \nQ2: Do you have any comments on the draft guidance on malpractice and maladministration? For specific comments, please refer to the relevant line number in your response.  \nDefinition of malpractice/maladministration (lines 19 to 64)  \nThe distinction between malpractice being a deliberate act and maladministration being non-intentional causes some concern. It can be difficult to establish intent and, even in cases where it is possible to show something is unintentional, the action can still have very serious consequences. The accidental opening and distribution of the incorrect exam paper, for example, can have far-reaching effects at a national level. Although unintentional, we would not term this as maladministration but a breach of security.  \nLikewise, a lack of understanding of the rules in relation to how much assistance can be provided to students in NEA would not be termed as maladministration but as improper assistance. The distinction as set out therefore suggests a categorising of cases that would not reflect current practice and that may suggest some very serious, albeit unplanned actions, fall into a lesser sub-category of malpractice.  \nIn addition, line 36 brings the notions of intentional bias and discrimination into the definition of malpractice. These are not issues we would usually investigate and the expectation here is unclear.  \nThe examples as to who may commit malpractice in lines 42 to 44 include awarding body personnel. This, along with the current explanation of maladministration and the examples given in lines 25 to 32 suggest a widening of what would be considered to fall under the definition of malpractice/maladministration that the regulator would expect a board to investigate. In reality, any staff issues would be dealt with as a contractual matter and would not be considered by the malpractice team under the auspices of the JCQ suspected malpractice guidance. The procedures and sanctions set out in the JCQ guidance are not applicable to staff or associates, unless they are also teachers who commit malpractice in their role as a teacher.  \nLine 71 mentions ‘reasonable grounds’ for an investigation into malpractice. It is very useful to see this set out in the guidance and the acknowledgement that awarding bodies would not necessarily be expected to investigate every allegation made. Lines 234 to 245 then provide additional explanation as to what should be considered in order to determine whether or not there are reasonable grounds. The third bullet point mentions ‘any evidence that may reduce the credibility of the allegation’. Further explanation as to what is meanthere would be helpful. Is this evidence already in the board’s possession? The difficulty is that evidence is collected as part of an investigation so, if there is an expectation to collect evidence in some way, this becomes a rather circular situation.  \nAgain, in lines 74 to 78, it talks about it sometimes only being possible to determine the credibility of the allegation and what sort of incident has occurred through investigation. This reinforces the point made above in relation to what form of evidence-gathering is expected before a board determines whether or not there are reasonable grounds – on one hand, this section suggests only investigating if there are reas","cbCaigWA8IMfykKF","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaigWA8IMfykKF","pdf",132083,"English","# Consultation response\n## Guidance on malpractice and maladministration\n## Feedback on definition and categorisation\n## Evidence, reasonable grounds, and investigation clarity\n## Monitoring, sampling, and assessment material checks\n## Investigation timeliness and terms of reference\n## Who can investigate and competence/capacity","[{\"question\":\"How does the respondent view the draft guidance’s usefulness for awarding organisations?\",\"answer\":\"Any guidance supporting the Conditions is helpful for clarifying expectations and ensuring regulatory compliance, and the respondent agrees the draft guidance is helpful in principle.\"},{\"question\":\"What concerns are raised about the definition of malpractice versus maladministration?\",\"answer\":\"The distinction between deliberate malpractice and non-intentional maladministration raises concerns because intent can be difficult to establish and accidental or unintentional actions may have serious consequences, yet may be better characterised as breaches of security or improper assistance.\"},{\"question\":\"What clarification is requested regarding investigations and “reasonable grounds”?\",\"answer\":\"The respondent finds the “reasonable grounds” section useful, but asks for further explanation of evidence that could reduce allegation credibility, and notes the guidance is unclear about whether credibility can only be determined through an investigation.\"}]","Consultation response - Guidance on malpractice and maladministration - 19 March 2020 | PDF"]