Centre Quality Assurance

Briefing for AIVs January 2013

2

Agenda topics

1. The Regulatory Framework

2. Centre Monitoring – risk and sanctions

3. Direct Claim Status

4. Impact on AIVs

5. Pre-issue verification of assessment tasks

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

2.1 Centre Monitoring: 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 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.

9

Table of Risk Indicators: Indicators 1, 2 and 3 are important for AIVs

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

10

Exercise

In groups, use the information provided to allocate the fictitious

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

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, decide whether any of the fictitious Centres should be

sanctioned, and if so, how. Be prepared to share your group’s

reasoning.

14

3. 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.

15

4.1 Impact on AIVs - role of the AIV

AIVs act on behalf of OCNYHR:

• To conduct and/or oversee internal quality assurance activity:

– Assessment tasks are high quality

– Assessment is high quality

– Internal verification is robust

• To ensure and assure that standards are met

• To enable RACs to be signed off

16

4.2 AIVs uphold standards

• AIV must check additional work where initial samples identify an issue.

• If assessment decisions incorrect, AIV can:• reverse assessment decisions;

• ask for work to be re-assessed;

• not sign off achievements.

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

17

4.3 AIV & Centre Monitoring visits

• Visits check robustness of IV process

• QRs/EVs look for evidence that:• Assessment tasks fit for purpose

• Learner work meets required standard

• Assessment is accurate

• IV robust, effective feedback to assessors

• If QR/EV needs to see more, integrity of Centre’s IV is in question

18

Exercise

In groups:

• Discuss the implications of the Ofqual regulations on your work as an AIV, considering:– challenges that arise

– how you might address them

– how you might use the risk-based approach to help

– what OCNYHR could do to support you

19

5.1 Verification of assessment tasks

• Every task must be verified

• before using the tasks with learners

• Includes tasks that are revised

• And extras devised for learners who need to re-do an assessment

20

5.2 Assessment tasks must:

• be fit for purpose;

• permit reasonable adjustments while minimising the need for them;

• allow learners to generate evidence that can be authenticated;

• allow learners to reach the specified level of attainment;

• allow assessors to differentiate accurately

21

Further information

• www.certa.org.uk

• www.ofqual.gov.uk

• www.qaa.ac.uk

• www.accesstohe.ac.uk