Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Centre Quality Assurance Briefing for AIVs January 2013.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Centre Quality Assurance Briefing for AIVs January 2013."— Presentation transcript:

1 Centre Quality Assurance Briefing for AIVs January 2013

2 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 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 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 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 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 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 8 Banding Score Colour code General descriptor Priority of actions required Low Risk1Green 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 2Yellow Any risk to integrity is marginal. Centre performance is satisfactory. Suggested action Moderate Risk 3Amber Concerns about a specific risk indicator or indicators. Customized or specific action required to ensure integrity. Sanctions may be imposed. Action is required High Risk4Red 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 9 Table of Risk Indicators: Indicators 1, 2 and 3 are important for AIVs 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. 4Centre 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. 2.2 Risk Indicators

10 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 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 12 Table of Sanctions that may be applied Level SanctionRationale 0None  Little or no risk 1 Escalation 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 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

13 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 21 Further information

Download ppt "Centre Quality Assurance Briefing for AIVs January 2013."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google