| Date Created | Date 1st Review Date | Date Reviewed | Version | Next Review Date |
| October 2025 | October 2026 | 1 |
Key Staff Involved in the conduct of non-examination assessments
| ROLE | NAME(S) |
| Head of Centre | Adrian Pavia |
| Exams Manager | Amar Panesar |
| SENDCo | Nicki Foster |
| Senior Leader(s) | All of the above |
| Other members of staff | Subject Teachers |
Contents
| Key staff involved in the conduct on non-examination assessments | 2 |
| Purpose of the policy | 4 |
| What are non-examination assessments | 5 |
| What is coursework | 5 |
| Procedures for planning and managing non-examination assessments identifying staff roles and responsibilities | 5 |
| The basic principles | 5 |
| Task Setting | 6 |
| Issuing of tasks | 7 |
| Task taking | 7 |
| Supervision | 7 |
| Advice and Feedback | 7 |
| Resources | 8 |
| Word and time limits | 8 |
| Collaboration and group work | 8 |
| Authentication procedures | 8 |
| Presentation of work | 9 |
| Keeping materials secure | 9 |
| Task marking- externally assessed components | 10 |
| Conduct of externally assessed work | 10 |
| Task marking- internally assessed components | 11 |
| Marking and annotation | 11 |
| Internal standardisation | 12 |
| Submissions of marks and work for moderation | 12 |
| Storage and retention of work after submission of marks | 13 |
| External moderation – the process | 13 |
| External moderation – feedback | 14 |
| Access arrangements and reasonable adjustments | 14 |
| Special consideration and loss of work | 14 |
| Malpractice | 15 |
| Post-results service | 16 |
| Management of issues and potential risks associated with non-examination assessments | 17 |
What does this policy affect?
This policy affects the delivery of subjects with one or more non-examination assessment component, controlled assessments and coursework.
The regulators’ definition of an examination is very narrow. In effect, any type of assessment that is not:
• set by an awarding body
• designed to be taken simultaneously by all relevant candidates at a time determined by the awarding body, and
• taken under conditions specified by the awarding body (including conditions relating to the supervision of candidates during the assessment and the duration of the assessment)
is classified as non-examination assessment (NEA).
‘NEA’ therefore includes, but is not limited to, internal assessment. Externally marked and/or externally set practical examinations taken at different times across centres are classified as ‘NEA’.
This publication is further referred to in this policy as NEA
The term coursework is a generic one. It includes the work required in Project qualifications and internally assessed work in other qualifications covered by the JCQ’s Instructions for conducting coursework.
These instructions may also apply to other awarding body-specific Entry level, Level 1, Level 2 or Level 3 qualifications. Centres should refer to awarding body instructions. (JCQ’s Instructions for conducting coursework, Introduction, Foreword)
(This document is further referred to in this policy as ICC)
Purpose of the policy
This policy confirms the JCQ requirement that Egham Park School has a written policy regarding the management of non-examination assessments including controlled assessments and coursework. This policy must be in place for inspection and must be reviewed and updated annually.
Awarding bodies require centres to have a non-examination assessment policy in place to:
• cover procedures for planning and managing non-examination assessments
• define staff roles and responsibilities for exams manager to confirm that a policy is in place. Guidance provided in this document will help the head of centre to ensure that the centre’s policy is fit for purpose. (NEA 1)
• manage risks associated with non-examination assessments
A JCQ Centre Inspector will ask the examinations manager to confirm that a policy is in place. Guidance provided in this document will help the head of centre to ensure that the centre’s policy is fit for purpose (NEA 1)
What are non-examination assessments?
Non-examination assessments measure subject-specific knowledge and skills that cannot be tested by timed written papers.
There are three assessment stages and rules which apply to each stage. These rules often vary across subjects.
The stages are:
• task setting
• task taking
• task marking (NEA 1)
What is coursework?
Coursework components assess candidates’ skills, knowledge and understanding that may not readily be assessed by timed written papers. Coursework will take many different forms. (ICC 1)
Procedures for planning and managing non-examination assessments identifying staff roles and responsibilities:
Where reference is made in these procedures to non-examination assessment, this is intended to include (GCE and GCSE) non-examination assessments, controlled assessment (where relevant) and coursework.
The basic principles
Head of centre
• Returns a declaration (managed as part of the National Centre Number Register annual update) to confirm awareness of, and that relevant centre staff are adhering to, the latest version of NEA and ICC.
• Ensures the centre’s policy is fit for purpose and covers all types of non examination assessment
• Ensures the centre’s internal appeals procedure clearly details the procedure to be followed by candidates (or their parents/carers) appealing against internal assessment decisions (centre assessed marks) and requesting a review of the centre’s marking
Senior leaders
• Ensure the correct conduct of non-examination assessments (including endorsements) which comply with NEA, ICC and awarding body subject-specific instructions
• Ensure the centre-wide calendar records assessment schedules at the start of the academic year
Quality assurance (QA) lead/Lead internal verifier (or equivalent role)
• Confirms with subject heads that appropriate awarding body forms and templates for non-examination assessments (including endorsements) are used by teachers and candidates
• Ensures appropriate procedures are in place to internally standardise/verify the marks awarded by subject teachers in line with awarding body criteria
• Ensures appropriate centre-devised templates are provided to capture/record relevant information given to candidates by subject teachers
• Ensures appropriate centre-devised templates are provided to capture/record relevant information is received and understood by candidates
• Where not provided by the awarding body, ensures a centre-devised template is provided for candidates to keep a detailed record of their own research, planning, resources etc.
Head of department
• Ensures subject teachers understand their role and responsibilities within the non-examination assessment process
• Ensures NEA, ICC and relevant awarding body subject specific instructions are followed in relation to the conduct of non-examination assessments (including endorsements)
• Works with the QA lead/Lead internal verifier (or equivalent role) to ensure appropriate procedures are followed to internally standardise/verify the marks awarded by subject teachers
Subject teacher
• Understands and complies with the general instructions as detailed in NEA and ICC
• Where these may also be provided by the awarding body, understands and complies with the awarding body’s specification for conducting non-examination assessments, including any subject-specific instructions, teachers’ notes or additional information on the awarding body’s website
• Marks internally assessed work to the criteria provided by the awarding body
• Ensures the exams manager is provided with relevant entry codes for subjects (whether the entry for the internally assessed component forms part of the overall entry code for the qualification or is made as a separate unit entry code) by the internal deadline for entries for the relevant exam series
Exams manager
• Signposts the annually updated JCQ NEA and ICC documents to relevant centre staff • Carries out tasks where these may be applicable to the role in supporting the administration/management of non-examination assessment
Task setting
Subject teacher
• Selects tasks to be undertaken where a number of comparable tasks are provided by the awarding body OR designs tasks where this is permitted by criteria set out within the subject specification
• 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
• Ensures the correct task is issued to candidates
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 • Is confident where work may be completed outside of the centre without direct supervision, that the work produced is the candidate’s own
• Where candidates may work in groups, keeps a record of each candidate’s contribution and it must be possible to attribute assessable outcomes to individual candidates
• Ensures candidates are aware of the current JCQ documents Information for candidates – non-examination assessments and Information for candidates – Social Media
• 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 writing frames specific to the task
• When reviewing candidates’ work, unless prohibited by the specification, provides oral and written advice at a general level to candidates
• Allows candidates to revise and re-draft work after advice has been given at a general level • Records any assistance given beyond general advice and takes it into account in the marking or submits it to the external examiner
• 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 (Malpractice – JCQ Joint Council for Qualifications) as well as the awarding body’s specification and/or associated documentation published by the awarding bodies and the regulator
• By referencing this document and the centre’s malpractice policy, 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.
Word and time limits
Subject teacher
• Refers to the awarding body’s specification to determine where word and time limits apply/are mandatory
Collaboration and group work
Subject teacher
• Unless stated otherwise in the awarding body’s specification, and where appropriate, allows candidates to collaborate when carrying out research and preparatory work
• Ensures that it is possible to attribute assessable outcomes to individual candidates
• Ensures that where an assignment requires written work to be produced, each candidate writes up their own account of the assignment
• Assesses the work of each candidate individually
Authentication procedures
Subject teacher
• Where required by the awarding body’s specification
• ensures candidates sign a declaration confirming the work they submit for final assessment is their own unaided work
• signs the teacher declaration of authentication confirming the requirements have been met
• Keeps signed candidate declarations on file until the deadline for requesting reviews of results has passed or until any appeal, malpractice or other results enquiry has been completed, whichever is later
• Provides signed candidate declarations where these may be requested by a JCQ Centre Inspector (Electronic signatures are acceptable)
• Where there may be doubt about the authenticity of the work of a candidate or if malpractice is suspected, follows the authentication procedures and malpractice information in NEA or ICC and informs a member of the senior leadership team
• Understands that if, during the external moderation process, it is found that the work has not been properly authenticated, the awarding body will set the mark(s) awarded by the centre to zero
Presentation of work
Subject teacher
• Obtains informed consent at the beginning of the course from parents/carers if videos or photographs/images of candidates will be included as evidence of participation or contribution
• Instructs candidates to present work as detailed in NEA or ICC unless the awarding body’s specification gives different subject-specific instructions
• Instructs candidates to add their candidate number, centre number and the component code of the assessment as a header/footer on each page of their work • Ensures if candidates’ work is to be submitted electronically, that it meets the awarding body’s specified requirements
Keeping materials secure
Subject teacher
• When work is being undertaken by candidates under formal supervision, ensures work is securely stored between sessions (if more than one session)
• When work is submitted by candidates for final assessment, ensures work is securely stored
• Follows secure storage instructions as defined in NEA 4.8
• Takes sensible precautions when work is taken home for marking
• Stores internally assessed work, including the sample returned after awarding body moderation, securely until all possible post-results services have been exhausted
• If post-results services have not been requested, returns internally assessed work to candidates (if requested by a candidate) after the deadline for requesting a review of results for the relevant series
• If post-results services have been requested, returns internally assessed work to candidates (if requested by a candidate) once the review of results and any subsequent appeal has been completed
• Reminds candidates of the need to keep their own work secure at all times and not share completed or partially completed work on-line, on social media or through any other means (Reminds candidates of the contents of the JCQ document Information for candidates – Social Media)
• Where work is stored electronically, liaises with the IT Company to ensure the protection and back-up of candidates’ work and that appropriate arrangements are in place to restrict access to it between sessions
• Understands that during the period from the submission of work for formal assessment until the deadline for requesting a review of results, copies of work may be used for other purposes, provided that the originals are stored securely as required
IT Company
• Ensures appropriate arrangements are in place to restrict access between sessions to candidates’ work where work is stored electronically
• Restricts access to this material and utilises appropriate security safeguards such as firewall protection and virus scanning software
• Employs an effective back-up strategy so that an up to date archive of candidates’ evidence is maintained
• Considers the contingency of candidates’ work being backed-up on two separate devices, including one off-site back-up and implementing appropriate security arrangements which protect candidates’ work in the event of IT system corruption and cyber-attacks
• Considers encrypting any sensitive digital media to ensure the security of the data stored within it and refers to awarding body guidance to ensure that the method of encryption is suitable
Task marking – externally assessed components
Conduct of externally assessed work
Subject teacher
•Liaises with the exams manager regarding the arrangements for any externally assessed components of a specification which must be conducted within a window of dates specified by the awarding body and where applicable, according to JCQ Instructions for conducting examinations
• Liaises with the Visiting Examiner where this may be applicable to any externally assessed component
Exams manager
• Arranges timetabling, rooming and invigilation where and if this is applicable to any externally assessed non-examination component of a specification
• Conducts the externally assessed component within the window specified by the awarding body and where applicable, according to JCQ Instructions for conducting examinations
Submission of work
Subject teacher
• Pays close attention to the completion of the attendance register, if applicable
Exams manager
• Provides the attendance register to the subject teacher where applicable
• Ensures the awarding body’s attendance register for any externally assessed component is completed correctly
Head of department
• Where candidates’ work must be despatched to an awarding body’s examiner, or uploaded electronically, ensures this is completed by the date specified by the awarding body
• Packages the work as required by the awarding body and attaches the examiner address label
• Ensures that the package in which the work is despatched is robust and securely fastened
• Despatches the work to the awarding body’s instructions by the required deadline
• Keeps a copy of the attendance register until after the deadline for reviews of results for the exam series
Task marking – internally assessed components
Marking and annotation
Head of Centre
• Makes every effort to avoid situations where a candidate is assessed by a person who has a close personal relationship with the candidate, for example, members of their family (which includes step-family, foster family and similar close relationships) or close friends and their immediate family (e.g son/daughter)
• Where this cannot be avoided, ensures the possible conflict of interest is declared to the relevant awarding body and the marked work is submitted for moderation whether or not it is part of the moderation sample
Head of department
• 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
• Accesses awarding body training/updates 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
• Does not use artificial intelligence as the sole means of marking candidates’ work
• 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 of 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 (or equivalent role)
• 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
• Indicates on work (or cover sheet) the date of marking
• 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
• Inputs and submits marks online, via the awarding body secure extranet site, keeping a
record of the marks awarded, to the external deadline/Provides marks to the exams
manager to the internal 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 awarding body moderator by
the external deadline, keeping a record of the work submitted/Provides the moderation
sample to the exams manager to the internal deadline
• Ensures that where a candidate’s work has been facilitated by a scribe or practical
assistant, the relevant completed cover sheet is securely attached to the front of the work
and sent to the moderator in addition to the sample requested
• 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
• Submits any supporting documentation required by the awarding body/Provides the
exams manager with any supporting documentation required by the awarding body
Head of department
• Submits the requested samples of candidates’ work to the moderator by the awarding body deadline, keeping a record of the work submitted
• 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
• Liaises with the exams manager and subject teacher, to ensure the moderator is provided with authentication of candidates’ work, and confirm that internal standardisation has been undertaken and any other subject-specific information where this may be required
• Through the subject teacher, submits any supporting documentation required by the awarding body
Exams manager
• 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
• Confirms with subject teacher that the moderation sample has been submitted to the awarding body by the deadline
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
• In liaison with the IT company, takes steps to protect any work stored electronically from corruption and has a back-up procedure in place
• If retention is a problem because of the nature of the work, retains some form of evidence such as photos, audio or media recordings
Exams manager
• Ensures any sample returned after moderation is logged and returned to the subject teacher for secure storage and required retention
External moderation – the process
Subject teacher
• Ensures that awarding body or its moderator receive the correct samples of candidates’ work
• Where relevant, liaises with the awarding body/moderator where the moderator visits the centre to mark the sample of work
• Complies with any request from the moderator for remaining work or further evidence of the centre’s marking
External moderation – feedback
Head of department
• Checks the final moderated marks when issued to the centre when the results are published
• Checks any moderator reports and ensures that any remedial action, if necessary, is undertaken before the next exam series
Exams manager
• Accesses or signposts any moderator reports to relevant staff
• Takes remedial action, if necessary, where feedback may relate to centre administration
Access arrangements and reasonable adjustments
Subject teacher
• Works with the SENDCo to ensure any access arrangements for eligible candidates are applied to assessments
SENDCo
• Follows the regulations and guidance in the JCQ document 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 manager when special consideration may need to be applied for a candidate taking assessments
• Liaises with the exams manager to report loss of work to the awarding body
Exams manager
• Refers to/directs relevant staff to the JCQ document A guide to the special consideration process
• Where a candidate is eligible, submits an application for special consideration via
the awarding body’s secure extranet site to the prescribed timescale
• Where application for special consideration via the awarding body’s secure
extranet site is not applicable, submits the required form to the awarding body to
the prescribed timescale
• Keeps required evidence on file to support the application
• Refers to/directs relevant staff where applicable to Form 15 – JCQ/LCW and where applicable submits to the relevant awarding body (For coursework, AQA and OCR centres must not submit Form 15 – JCQ/LCW. Applications must be submitted online using AQA Centre Services or OCR Interchange as appropriate)
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 or centre staff
• Ensures any irregularity identified by the centre before the candidate has signed the authentication statement (where required) is dealt with under its own internal procedures, with no requirement to report the irregularity to the awarding body. (The only exception being where the awarding body’s confidential assessment materials has been breached, the breach must be report to the awarding body)
• Is familiar with the JCQ document Suspected Malpractice: Policies and Procedures
• Ensures that those members of teaching staff involved in the direct supervision of candidates producing non-examination assessment or coursework 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
• Is aware of the JCQ Notice to Centres – Sharing NEA material and candidates’ work to mitigate against candidate and centre malpractice
• Ensures candidates understand what constitutes malpractice in non-examination assessments and coursework
• Ensures candidates understand the JCQ document Information for candidates – non-examination assessments and (where applicable) Information for candidates – coursework assessments
• Ensures candidates understand the JCQ document Information for candidates – Social Media
• Escalates and reports any alleged, suspected or actual incidents of malpractice involving candidates to the Head of Centre
Exams manager
• Signposts the JCQ document Suspected Malpractice: Policies and Procedures to the head of centre
• Signposts the JCQ Notice to Centres – Sharing NEA material and candidates’ work to subject heads
• Signposts candidates to the relevant JCQ information for candidates’ documents
• Where required, supports the head of centre in investigating and reporting incidents of alleged, suspected or actual malpractice
Post-results services
Head of centre
• Is familiar with the JCQ document Post-Results Services
• Ensures the centre’s internal appeals procedure clearly details the procedure to be followed by candidates (or their parents/carers) appealing against a centre decision not to support an application for a review of results or an appeal
Head of department
• 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 manager with the original sample or relevant sample of candidates’ work that may be required for a review of moderation to the internal deadline
Exams manager
• Is aware of the individual post-results services available for externally assessed and internally assessed components 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 centre assessed work are submitted online via the awarding body secure extranet site to deadline
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 documents Instructions for conducting non-examination assessments and Instructions for conducting coursework • the JCQ document Notice to Centres – Sharing NEA material and candidates’ work – www.jcq.org.uk/exams-office/non-examinationassessments | Exams manager /Head of department |
| 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, AI, the internet 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: nonexamination assessments, Information for candidates: coursework assessments and Information for candidates: Social Media – www.jcq.org.uk/examsoffice/information-for-candidates-documents and understand they must not post their work on social media | Head of department/Exams manager/Subject teacher |
| 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 | IT Company /Exams manager |
| Issue/Risk | Centre actions to manage issue/mitigate risk | Action by |
| 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 | Head of department |
| 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 | Head of department |
| Subject teacher long term absence during the task setting stage | See centre’s contingency plan (Teaching staff extended absence) | Head of department |
| Issuing of tasks | ||
| 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 | Head of department/Subject teacher |
| 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 | Head of department /Subject teacher |
| Subject teacher long term absence during the issuing of tasks stage | See centre’s contingency plan (Teaching staff extended absence) | Head of department |
| 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 | Head of department /Exams manager |
| 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 | Head of department /Subject teacher |
| 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) | Head of department /Subject teacher |
| Insufficient supervision of candidates to enable work to be authenticated | Confirm subject teachers are aware of and follow the current JCQ document Instructions for conducting nonexamination 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 | Head of department /Subject teacher |
| A candidate is suspected of malpractice prior to submitting their work for assessment | Instructions and processes in the current JCQ documents Instructions for conducting non-examination assessments (section 9 Malpractice) and Instructions for conducting coursework (section 6 Malpractice in coursework) are followed An internal investigation and where appropriate internal disciplinary procedures are followed | Head of centre |
| Access arrangements were not put in place for an assessment where a candidate is approved for arrangements | Relevant staff are signposted to the JCQ document A guide to the special consideration process (section 2), to determine the process to be followed to apply for special consideration for the candidate | SENDCo |
| 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 | Head of department |
| 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 | Head of department |
| 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 | Head of centre |
| 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 | Subject teacher |
| Candidate does not set out references as required | Candidate is advised at a general level to review and redraft 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 and Information for candidates: coursework assessments Candidate’s detailed record of his/her own research, planning, resources etc. is regularly checked to ensure continued completion | Subject teacher |
| 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 | Subject teacher |
| 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 | Head of department |
| An excluded pupil wants to complete a 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 | Head of department |
| 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 | Subject teacher |
| 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 acknowledge 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 | Subject teacher |
| 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 | Student |
| 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 | Head of centre |
| 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 Notice to Centres – Sharing NEA 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 nonexamination 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 | Head of department |
| Candidate does not sign their authentication statement/declaration | Records confirm that candidates have been issued with the current JCQ document Information for candidates: nonexamination assessments and Information for candidates: coursework 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 and Information for candidates: coursework assessments Declaration is checked for signature before accepting the work of a candidate for formal assessment | Subject teacher |
| 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 | Head of department |
| 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 | Subject teacher |
| Keeping materials secure | ||
| Candidates work between formal supervised sessions is not securely stored | Records confirm subject teachers are aware of and follow current JCQ document Instructions for conducting nonexamination assessments Regular monitoring/internal audit ensures subject teacher use of appropriate secure storage | Head of centre |
| 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 | Head of department |
| Candidates work produced electronically is not securely stored | Records confirm subject teachers are aware of and follow current JCQ publication Instructions for conducting nonexamination assessments Internal processes and regular monitoring/internal audit by IT Company ensure: • access to this material is restricted • appropriate security safeguards are in place • an effective back-up strategy is employed so that an up-to-date archive of candidates’ evidence is maintained • any sensitive digital media is encrypted (according to awarding body guidance to ensure that the method of encryption is suitable) to ensure the security of the data stored within it | Head of department /IT company |
| 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 | Head of department |
| A candidate is absent on the day of the examiner visit for an unacceptable reason | The candidate is marked absent on the attendance register | Head of department |
| 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 | Head of department |
| A candidate is unable to finish their work for an unforeseen reason | Relevant staff are signposted to the JCQ document A guide to the special consideration process (section 5), to determine eligibility and the process to be followed for shortfall in work | SENDCo |
| The work of a candidate is lost or damaged | Relevant staff are signposted to the JCQ documents Instructions for conducting non-examination assessments (section 8) and Instructions for conducting malpractice (section 16) to determine eligibility and the process to be followed for lost or damaged work | Head of department |
| Candidate malpractice is discovered | Instructions and processes in the current JCQ documents Instructions for conducting non-examination assessments (section 9 Malpractice) and Instructions for conducting coursework (section 6 Malpractice in coursework) are followed Investigation and reporting procedures in the current JCQ document Suspected Malpractice: Policies and Procedures are followed Appropriate internal disciplinary procedures are also followed | Head of centre |
| A teacher assesses the work of a candidate with whom they have a close personal relationship e.g. members of their family (which includes stepfamily, foster family and similar close relationships) or close friends and their immediate family (e.g. son/daughter) | A possible conflict of interest is declared by informing the awarding body before the published deadline for entries for each examination series Marked work of said candidate is submitted for moderation whether part of the sample requested or not | Head of centre |
| 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 document A guide to the special consideration process (section 5), to determine eligibility and the process to be followed for an extension | Head of department |
| 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 document 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 | Head of department |
| 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 | Head of centre |
| 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 | Head of department |
| 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 | Head of department |
| Subject teacher long term absence during the marking period | See centre’s contingency plan (Teaching staff extended absence) | Head of department |