S&Co Make-up Academy Policy

It sets out the steps the Academy’s, and Learners or other Personnel must follow when reporting suspected or actual cases of Malpractice/Maladministration and S&Co.’s responsibilities in dealing with such cases. It also sets out the procedural steps S&Co. will follow when reviewing the cases.

Academy’s Responsibility

It is important that the staff involved in the management, assessment and quality assurance of S&Co. qualifications, and the Learners, are fully aware of the contents of the policy and that the Centre has arrangements in place to prevent and investigate instances of Malpractice and Maladministration.

A failure to report suspected or actual Malpractice/Maladministration cases, or have in place effective arrangements to prevent such cases, may lead to sanctions being imposed on the Academy.

The Academy’s compliance with this policy and how it takes reasonable steps to prevent and/or investigate instances of Malpractice and Maladministration will be reviewed by S&Co. periodically through our on-going Academy monitoring arrangements.

Should an investigation be undertaken into the Academy, the Head of S&Co. will:

• Ensure the investigation is carried out by competent investigators who have no personal involvement in the incident or interest in the outcomes

• Ensure the investigation is carried out in an effective, prompt and thorough manner and that the Investigator(s) look beyond the immediate reported issues to ensure that arrangements at the Centre are appropriate for all qualifications

• Respond speedily and openly to all requests relating to the allegation and/or investigation

• Co-operate and ensure that all staff co-operate fully with any investigation and/or request for information

Review Arrangements

S&Co. will review the policy annually as part of our annual self-evaluation arrangements and revise it as and when necessary in response to Customer and Learner feedback; changes in S&Co. and S&Co.’s practices; actions from the Regulatory Authorities or External Agencies; changes in Legislation; or trends identified from previous allegations.

In addition, this policy may be updated in light of operational feedback to ensure S&Co.’s arrangements for dealing with suspected cases of Malpractice and Maladministration remain effective.

If you would like to feedback any views please contact us via the details provided at the end of this policy.

Definition of Malpractice

Malpractice is essentially any activity or practice, which deliberately contravenes Regulations and compromises the integrity of the internal or external assessment process and/or the validity of certificates. It covers any deliberate actions, neglect, default or other practice that compromises, or could compromise any of the following:
• The assessment process

• The integrity of a Regulated Qualification

• The validity of a result or certificate

• The reputation and credibility of S&Co.

• The qualification or the wider qualification’s community

Malpractice may include a range of issues from the failure to maintain appropriate records or systems to the deliberate falsification of records in order to claim certificates.

For the purpose of this policy, this term also covers misconduct and forms of unnecessary discrimination or bias towards certain groups of Learners.

Definition of Malpractice

The categories listed below are examples of Centre and Learner Malpractice. Please note that these examples are not exhaustive and are only intended as guidance on S&Co.’s definition of Malpractice:

• Denial of access to premises, records, information, Learners and staff to any authorised S&Co. representative and/or the Regulatory Authorities

• Failure to carry out internal assessment, internal moderation or internal verification in accordance with S&Co.’s requirements

• Deliberate failure to adhere to S&Co.’s Learner registration and certification procedures

• Deliberate failure to continually adhere to S&Co.’s Centre recognition and/or qualification approval requirements or actions assigned to the Centre

• Deliberate failure to maintain appropriate auditable records, e.g., certification claims and/or forgery of evidence

• Fraudulent claim for certificates

• The unauthorised use of inappropriate materials / equipment in assessment settings (e.g., mobile phones)

• Intentional withholding of information from us which is critical to maintaining the rigor of quality assurance and standards of qualifications

• Deliberate misuse of S&Co.’s logo and trademarks or misrepresentation of a Academy’s relationship with S&Co. and/or its recognition and approval status with S&Co.

• Collusion or permitting collusion in exams/assessments

• Learners still working towards qualification after certification claims have been made

• Persistent instances of Maladministration within the Academy

• Deliberate contravention by a Academy and/or its Learners of the assessment arrangements as specified for S&Co. qualifications.

• A loss, theft of, or a breach of confidentiality in, any assessment materials

• Plagiarism by Learners/staff

• Copying from another Candidate (including using ICT to do so)

• Personating -assuming the identity of another Candidate or having someone assume your identity during an assessment

• Unauthorised amendment, copying or distributing of exam/assessment papers/materials

• Inappropriate assistance to Learners by Academy staff (e.g., unfairly helping them to pass a unit or qualification)

• Deliberate submission of false information to gain a qualification or unit

• Deliberate failure to adhere to, or to circumnavigate, the requirements of S&Co.’s Reasonable
Adjustments and Special Considerations Policy

• False ID used at the registration stage

• Creation of false records

• Impersonation of a Learner for assessment

• Inappropriate use of technology during assessments (e.g., mobile phone)

• Cheating

• Cash for certificates (e.g., the selling of certificates for cash)

• Selling papers/assessment details

• Extortion

• Fraud

• Failure to manage and prevent Conflicts of Interest

Definition of Maladministration

Maladministration is essentially any activity or practice which results in non-compliance with Administrative Regulations and requirements and includes the application of persistent mistakes or poor administration within a Centre (e.g., inappropriate Learner records.)

Examples of Maladministration

The categories listed below are examples of Centre and Learner Maladministration. Please note that these examples are not exhaustive and are only intended as guidance on S&Co.’s definition of Maladministration:

• Persistent failure to adhere to S&Co.’s Learner registration and certification procedures

• Persistent failure to adhere to S&Co.’s Academy recognition and/or qualification requirements and/or associated actions assigned to the Academy 

• Late Learner registrations (both infrequent and persistent)

• Unreasonable delays in responding to requests and/or communications from S&Co.

• Inaccurate claim for certificates

• Failure to maintain appropriate auditable records, e.g., certification claims and/or forgery of evidence

• Withholding of information, by deliberate act or omission, from us which is required to assure S&Co. of the Centre’s ability to deliver qualifications appropriately

• Misuse of S&Co.’s logo and trademarks or misrepresentation of a Centre’s relationship with S&Co. and/or its recognition and approval status with S&Co.

• Failure to adhere to, or to circumnavigate, the requirements of S&Co.’s Reasonable Adjustments and Special Considerations Policy

Conflicts of Interest

Centers must ensure that assessments are not undertaken by any person who has a personal interest in the result of the assessment (e.g., Internal Verifiers signing off their own assessments; someone assessing the work of a family member; or someone whose pay is influenced by positive assessment results.)

Centers are not permitted to offer financial reward for any of their staff involved in the assessment of Learners in respect of the assessment outcomes of those Learners (other than normal pay associated with the role of Assessors, etc) that may lead to doubts about the integrity of their decisions.

In addition, EVs/Examiners will check this aspect when reviewing assessment arrangements at Centers and will record details of any such checks/conflicts recorded in the associated Centre engagement reports.

If such conflicts cannot be avoided (e.g., due to a lack of competent staff at the Centre) the EV/Examiner will make arrangements for the relevant part of the assessment to be subject to scrutiny by another person and in doing so will seek approval for such arrangements with the Quality Manager.