01 Jan 2023
Following the return to a ‘business as usual’ exam series in 2022, Ofqual data relating to the management, administration and conducting of examinations in summer 2022 was eagerly anticipated to allow stakeholders to analyse the impact of covid and no summer exam since 2019.
The data published by Ofqual is in line with the NAEO annual survey which revealed an increase in cases of malpractice in an increasing number – and majority – of centres.
In this article, we consider the statistics relating to two areas – malpractice and access arrangements – which are key to maintaining the integrity and security of examinations and ensuring equal opportunity for all students.
Malpractice
Before considering the data for the summer 2022 exam series in relation to instances of malpractice, it is important to consider the scale of the ‘examination system’ and the number of students and entries involved. Here is a breakdown of some key statistics in relation to the summer 2022 exam series:
- Nearly 1,500 different question papers were made available to 1.23 million students (898,950 – GCSE, 33,110 – AS, 299,710 – A level)
- 6.05 million entries (5,219,550 – GCSE, 61,355 – AS, 776,625 – A-level)
- Approximately 15.7 million individual exam scripts
When considering the number of malpractice cases, this should be viewed in the context of the total number of students involved and examinations taken. This confirms that whilst there was an increase in malpractice during summer 2022, this involved an extremely small number of students.
However, the focus upon malpractice – despite the small numbers involved – and the determination to improve the situation is required to maintain the UK’s reputation for delivering a ‘world-leading’ examination system where the emphasis is placed upon integrity, security and equal opportunity for all students and to support high quality teaching and learning.
Student malpractice
Unfortunately, but perhaps unsurprisingly for a cohort impacted by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and which had not previously experienced a ‘formal’ summer exam series, there was a significant increase in the number of penalties issued to students engaging in malpractice - 4,335 penalties in 2022, up from 3,040 in 2019.
Penalties were issued to 3985 individual students in 2022, compared to 2805 individual students in 2019.
What the statistics do not reveal are instances of malpractice which may have occurred as the centre had not made students aware of what constitutes malpractice. We are also unaware of the number of cases which centres decide to deal with internally when they should be reported to the relevant awarding body.
Type of student malpractice
(number shown as a percentage)
Type of student malpractice
|
2018
|
2019
|
2022
|
Mobile phones
|
47.3
|
45.6
|
42.6
|
Other reasons
|
19.2
|
20.9
|
20.3
|
Inappropriate materials
|
8.3
|
14.8
|
14.6
|
Other unauthorised materials
|
16.3
|
12.2
|
13.9
|
Disruptive behaviour
|
7.1
|
4.3
|
6.4
|
Plagiarism
|
1.8
|
2.3
|
2.2
|
The ‘Other unauthorised materials’ category includes watches (not smartwatches, which are included with mobile phones) which were prohibited from being brought into the examination room or assessment situation from September 2021.
Type of malpractice
The most common type of malpractice reported in 2022 was the introduction of a mobile phone or other communication device into the examination room, the same as in 2019. This category accounted for 43% of all student penalties (1,845 penalties in 2022, compared with 1,385 in 2019).
Of concern, is the increase in disruptive behaviour amongst students.
Type of penalty issued to students
The most common type of penalty issued in 2022 was a loss of marks, with the number of this type of penalty increasing to 2075 from 1560 in 2019.
Other penalties issued included a warning (1455 penalties) and a loss of aggregation or certification opportunity (805 penalties)
Type of penalty issued to students for type of malpractice
- Disruptive behaviour: Where students engaged in disruptive behaviour in the examination room, 27% lost the opportunity to aggregate or certificate (up from 16% in 2019) 40% received a loss of marks (down from 52%) and 33% received a warning (up from 32%)
- Inappropriate materials: The majority of students bringing inappropriate materials into the examination room were issued with a warning (51%, up from 48% in 2019), 36% lost marks (down from 44%) whilst 13% were denied the opportunity to aggregate or certificate (up from 8%)
- Mobile phones: The introduction of a mobile phone or other communications device into the examination room remains the most common type of malpractice (see above)
When this occurred during the summer 2022 exam series, 67% of students were issued with a loss of marks for the examination concerned (up from 63% in 2019), 19% received a warning (down from 16%), and 14% lost the opportunity to aggregate or certificate
- Plagiarism: Students should note that when cases of plagiarism are reported, this involves both the student who is copying, and the student who is allowing their work to be copied. In such instances, the most common penalty was a loss of marks (56%, down from 68% in 2019), followed by a warning (38%, up from 17%), and a loss of opportunity to aggregate/certificate for 6% of students (down from 15% in 2019)
NAEO recommendation - Malpractice
JCQ and its awarding bodies have issued clear guidance over what constitutes malpractice and examples of the indicative sanctions which may be applied to particular instances of malpractice.
The NAEO firmly believes that in order to maintain our position as a world-leader in the management, administration and conducting of examinations, all instances, however minor, should be reported to the awarding bodies. Therefore, the responsibility lies at centre level to address malpractice, ensuring that whilst all cases are reported, there is also an aim to strive for no instances of malpractice occurring during an examination series within their centre. This can be achieved by implementing the following five measures:
- Support the senior leader(s) with responsibility for examinations in acquiring a ‘good working knowledge of the examination system’ via a structured programme of support materials (e.g. good practice guides, key tasks and deadlines etc.), training and easy-to-access information (e.g. email updates to ensure that key tasks are completed on time, where specific JCQ documentation can be found and information, such as infographics which can be shared with students).
Senior leaders should be made aware that instances which they may deem as ‘minor’ or not even as malpractice must be reported to the relevant awarding body. For example, some senior leaders may not deem a student talking with another candidate upon entering the examination room, but prior to taking their seat, as malpractice, or deal with the situation internally. They should also be made aware that failure to follow the instructions of the invigilator – or undermining the authority of an invigilator – must be reported as malpractice.
- Ensure that centres, and senior leaders in particular, are aware that all cases of malpractice – however minor and including ‘low level’ disruption – must be reported. This is critical in reducing more serious instances of malpractice.
- Require centres to host a Key Stage 4 and 5 student assembly/briefing at the start of each academic year – in addition to one held prior to an exam series – to inform students of exam regulations, including what constitutes malpractice and highlighting the possible sanctions which may be applied by awarding bodies
- Encourage teaching staff to utilise a short period of ‘class time’ to emphasise exam requirements within specific subjects and general exam regulations
- Encourage centres to support their exam officer in running at least one set of mock examinations in line with JCQ regulations – this will also provide invigilators, particularly those new to the role, with invaluable experience ahead of the summer exam series
Consideration was given to recommending that malpractice data of cases per centre is published and that JCQ inspections are conducted utilising this data, however, this may discourage centres to report cases of malpractice, particularly those deemed as ‘minor’.
Staff malpractice
Although penalties for staff malpractice fell from 450 in 2019 to 340 in 2022, this remains a figure which causes concern. It may be argued that this involves a very small proportion of the total number of staff in England (nearly 360K full time equivalent teachers and support staff in state funded secondary schools), however, all members of staff should be aware of the Joint Council for Qualifications’ regulations in relation to examinations and assessments.
The largest proportion of penalties (47%) were for maladministration (the failure to adhere to the regulations of examinations and non-examination assessments). Improper assistance to candidates was the second most common type of offence, accounting for 33% of cases (up from 22% in 2019).
Other instances of malpractice included:
- Breach of security (14%)
- Deception (3%)
- Failure to comply with the regulations, which refers to a failure to comply with regulations for access arrangements, reasonable adjustments, and/or special consideration (2%)
Where staff engaged in malpractice, the majority of penalties (59%) were a written warning.
NAEO recommendation – Staff malpractice
The NAEO urges the DfE/Ofqual to explore the possibility of including some guidance on examination regulations and what teachers are expected to be aware of within Initial Teacher Training (ITT) and Newly Qualified Teacher (NQT) training. This may include:
- JCQ regulations which are relevant to teaching staff
- How teachers can support their exams officer
- Information which students should be made aware of ahead of an exam series
- What constitutes malpractice and how it should be dealt with
- How qualifications are structured – this will be particularly relevant for those engaged in vocational qualifications or general qualifications which include non-examination assessments, coursework or other internally assessed work
Senior leaders should utilise heads of department meetings, staff briefings and INSET days to ensure that heads of departments and subject staff within their centre are aware of their responsibilities in relation to examinations and aware of JCQ regulations, for example, who can be present in the exam room, access to question papers at the end of an examination and their responsibilities during results days and the post-results process.
School/college malpractice
Although 60 penalties were issued to 50 individual schools/colleges (out of nearly 6,000) in 2022, compared to 135 penalties issued to 115 individual schools/colleges in 2019, it is interesting to note that included a larger proportion of breaches of security (41% compared to 24% in 2019).
NAEO recommendation – Centre malpractice
The NAEO firmly believes that stakeholders should work collaboratively to offer support to senior leaders as is offered to exams officers. This aim of such a support programme will help senior leaders acquire a ‘good working knowledge of the examination system’, and address some of the issues associated with centre malpractice. Support could include:
- Definitions of integrity, security and equal opportunity in relation to the management, administration and conducting of examinations and assessments
- Resources to help senior leaders to identify, address and resolve/report all cases of centre malpractice
- Suggested strategies to prevent instances of centre malpractice occurring
- Making senior leaders aware of guidance and good practice in relation to the secure room and secure storage facility
Access Arrangements
An analysis of the number of students receiving access arrangements must be delivered with a caveat that equal opportunity for all students must exist in the management, administration and conducting of examinations. If a student has been assessed, and it is their normal way of working (in the classroom or internal/mock examinations) then they must be given access to the examination/assessment as determined by the SENCo and approved by the JCQ and its awarding bodies.
However, the increase in the number of students receiving an access arrangement should be monitored to ensure that centres are complying with the regulations and that students are only being approved an access arrangement(s) in line with the regulations.
The table below shows the increase in the number of approved access arrangements in recent years:
2017/18
|
2018/19
|
2019/20
|
2020/21
|
2021/22
|
391,185
|
404,600
|
460,750
|
447,555
|
512,085
|
The numbers detailed above do not include centre delegated access arrangements which include:
- Bilingual dictionary
- Prompter
- Read aloud (which can include an examination reading pen)
- Separate invigilation within the centre (sitting the examination outside of the main
examination hall/room, e.g. a room for a smaller group of candidates)
- Supervised rest breaks
- Word processor
Types of access arrangements
The table below shows the most commonly approved access arrangements:
Access Arrangement
|
2017/18
|
2018/19
|
2019/20
|
2020/21
|
2021/2022
|
25% extra time
|
235,105
|
256,710
|
297,810
|
294,370
|
334,375
|
Computer reader/reader
|
95,795
|
95,570
|
107,205
|
102,090
|
114,725
|
Scribe/speech recognition
|
41,075
|
41,255
|
44,255
|
41.070
|
45,895
|
Extra time over 25%
|
5,190
|
5,300
|
5,975
|
5,420
|
6,135
|
Other
|
1,370
|
1,515
|
1,710
|
1,475
|
4,120
|
All other arrangements
|
12,650
|
4,250
|
3,795
|
3,135
|
6,840
|
Total
|
391,185
|
404,600
|
460,750
|
447,555
|
512,085
|
Percentage of all approved arrangements (Percentage of all candidates)
Access Arrangement
|
2020/21
|
2021/2022
|
25% extra time
|
65.8%
(21.6%)
|
65.3%
(26.0%)
|
Computer reader/reader
|
22.8%
(7.5%)
|
22.4%
(8.9%)
|
Scribe/speech recognition
|
9.2%
(3.0%)
|
9.0%
(3.6%)
|
Extra time over 25%
|
1.2%
(0.4%)
|
1.2%
(0.5%)
|
Other
|
0.3%
(0.1%)
|
0.8%
(0.3%)
|
Proportions of all approved access arrangements by centre type
Access Arrangement
|
% of all candidates in Secondary non-selective, non-independent centres
|
% of all candidates in Independent centres
|
% of all candidates in Selective centres
|
% of all candidates in Sixth Form and FE centres
|
% of all candidates in Other centres
|
25% extra time
|
22.7%
|
35.8%
|
11.9%
|
31.6%
|
42.1%
|
Computer reader/reader
|
8.3%
|
5.7%
|
0.5%
|
11.0%
|
19.1%
|
Scribe/speech recognition
|
3.3%
|
3.3%
|
0.4%
|
3.5%
|
11.3%
|
Extra time over 25%
|
0.2%
|
0.8%
|
0.3%
|
0.9%
|
1.5%
|
Other
|
0.3%
|
0.5%
|
0.2%
|
0.2%
|
0.8%
|
- Secondary non-selective, non-independent centres include academies, free schools, secondary comprehensives or middle schools or wide ability school and secondary modern schools or high schools
- Independent centres include independent schools, city training colleges (CTCs) and all independent schools having some or all students of secondary school age
- Selective centres include secondary selective schools, for example grammar or technical
- Sixth Form and FE centres include sixth form colleges, tertiary colleges and further education establishments, including a centre which primarily provides education for students aged 16+ up to and including A level and its equivalent
- ‘Other’ centre type includes special schools, colleges of higher education, university departments, tutorial colleges, language schools, pupil referral units (PRUs), HM Young Offender Institutes (HMYOI), HM Prisons, training centres, and unknown centre types
NAEO recommendations – Access arrangements
Before making any recommendations relating to access arrangements it needs to be made clear that students who have been assessed and for whom it is their ‘normal way of working’ should always be given access to an arrangement(s) which provides equal opportunity and allows them access to the examination/assessment.
Recommendations are made to protect the integrity of the system and to ensure a ‘level playing field’ for all students.
It should also be noted that the logistics associated with access arrangements are a source of considerable additional work for exam officers. These include making approval applications, timetabling, rooming, seating of students and training of invigilators and facilitators.
The NAEO calls upon the DfE/Ofqual to undertake a detailed analysis of the figures relating to:
- The number of candidates awarded access arrangements – should it be expected that 42% of all students have an approved access arrangement?
- The number of candidates awarded extra time of 25% across all centres - should it be expected that more than 1 in 4 students require 25% extra time?
- The number of candidates awarded extra time of 25%, and over 25%, within the independent sector (almost 2 in 5 students) and Sixth Form/FE colleges (1 in 3 students) was significantly higher than those students within secondary non-selective, non-independent centres. It may be that the independent sector is more ‘efficient’ at assessing their students, but this needs to be confirmed as the reason behind the large number of candidates awarded these arrangements
- The number of centre delegated access arrangements awarded per type/centre
Greater responsibility should be placed upon senior leaders to:
- Endorse access arrangements applications and supporting evidence
- Confirm that despite an access arrangement being approved across a qualification (e.g. GCSE or GCE), the SENCo is considering the subjects in which the access arrangement is required and not ‘automatically’ granting an access arrangement across all subjects
- Monitor – and act upon – the non-use of access arrangements during an exam series
Modified papers
There were 61,125 requests for modified papers in summer 2022, an increase of 4.9% compared to summer 2019.
Modified paper type
|
% of all approved arrangements in 2019
|
% of all approved arrangements in 2022
|
Non-interactive electronic question paper
|
38
|
38
|
18-point bold papers
|
33
|
33
|
24-point bold papers
|
20
|
19
|
Remaining formats
|
7
|
7
|
Braille
|
2
|
2
|
Tactile diagrams with print labels
|
1
|
1
|
‘Remaining formats’ includes less frequently used modified papers such as modified language, transcripts of listening test/video, and other formats.
Conclusion
An increase in cases of malpractice during the summer 2022 exam series is a cause of concern which requires further investigation. The factors behind this increase should be analysed and addressed ahead of this summer’s exam series.
Evidence acquired by the NAEO suggests the following reasons which may explain this increase:
- The impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and a lack of awareness of examination regulations amongst staff and students following no summer exam series since 2019
- A lack of invigilators ahead of the summer 2022 exam series which may have led to inexperienced, and possibly poorly trained, invigilators being deployed
- The altering of the invigilator to candidate ratio in the examination room from at least one invigilator for each group of thirty candidates or fewer sitting written examinations to at least one invigilator for each group of forty candidates or fewer. This reduction in the number of invigilators monitoring candidates may have encouraged a greater number of candidates to engage in malpractice – with some instances possibly being undetected
When considering the number of students who take examinations each summer, the cases of malpractice are minimal. However, if we are to maintain our position as having an examination/assessment system which is replicated in centres around the world and which supports good teaching and learning, then we should strive to continually improve the situation by aiming to eradicate all cases of malpractice.
The aim for all stakeholders must be to protect the integrity and security of examinations and ensure equal opportunity for all students. This is only achieved if the DfE, Ofqual, JCQ, awarding bodies, the NAEO and schools/colleges/other approved exam centres retain a focus upon eliminating all forms of malpractice, and where malpractice does occur, however minor, ensuring that it is reported and dealt with in line with JCQ regulations.
The data relating to access arrangements also needs further analysis.
For several years, there has been a significant increase in the number of access arrangements awarded to students, and in particular, extra time of 25% and above. Any instances of students incorrectly receiving such an arrangement in an examination should be fully investigated as a possible threat to the integrity of the examination system.