Malpractice and maladministration
Malpractice may be defined as deliberate wrong doing or misconduct. Maladministration may be defined as inefficient, bad or dishonest management or administration. This may or may not be deliberate. The two can overlap. The following list is not exhaustive, but is intended to give examples of malpractice / maladministration within the context of training, assessment and certification.
Providers, instructors or assessors
Vale Training Services requires that providers, instructors, assessors examiners and external verifiers report any cases of suspected malpractice and/or maladministration to Vale Training Services.
Where investigations show that malpractice or maladministration has occurred, Vale Training Services will take appropriate action. This could include:
Right to Appeal
Those involved in the malpractice or maladministration case may appeal against the outcome or any sanction(s) imposed as a result. Details of how to appeal are included in Vale Training Services’s Appeals Policy.
Prevention of malpractice and maladministration
Potential for malpractice and maladministration is considered as part of the development, delivery design and the award of the qualification as far as is reasonably possible.
Vale Training Services requires all relevant persons to confirm that they have a policy for preventing and investigating malpractice and maladministration.
Vale Training Services will upon request provide guidance to providers as to how to best prevent, investigate, and deal with malpractice and maladministration.
Notification to Regulators
If certificates may be invalid due to malpractice or maladministration Vale Training Services will report this to Ofqual and will fully co-operate with investigations carried out. In such cases Vale Training Services will seek to agree a course of remedial action with Ofqual.
Where malpractice and/or maladministration is suspected in relation to SVQ centres, SQA will be notified as required in the SQA Awarding Body Criteria (2007).