Guidance

Ofqual's Principles – advice note (accessible)

Published 4 September 2025

Applies to England

The Principles Condition is currently not in force, and will come into force on 4 December 2025.

Introduction 

This advice note provides support to awarding organisations (AOs) to further understand Ofqual’s Principles Condition. It is not statutory guidance, and awarding organisations may choose to, but do not need to have regard to this document when deciding how to comply with their Conditions of Recognition.  

Within this advice note, Ofqual will provide case studies to help AOs to understand the types of actions and behaviours that Ofqual’s Principles Condition seeks to promote. It will also offer advice on good practice for AOs to consider when deciding how they will comply with the Principles Condition. 

These case studies are for illustrative purposes only and are not intended to set a precedent for how AOs must respond to similar incidents, nor do they set a precedent that similar cases will result in identical regulatory decisions by Ofqual. Every case must be assessed on its individual facts and it is rare that any 2 cases will be identical in every way.

Principle 1 – An AO must act with honesty and integrity 

The requirement to act honestly and with integrity permeates everything that an AO does, and an AO will normally comply with Principle 1 simply by performing everyday tasks in good faith. Given the ubiquitous nature of this obligation, it may be difficult for an AO to demonstrate how it complied with Principle 1 without factual context.  

Many AOs will never fall foul of Principle 1, but it is an important Condition that allows Ofqual to take action where an AO acts dishonestly or without integrity, potentially to the detriment of Learners, other AOs and public confidence in qualifications.  

Where such conduct is suspected, the burden of proof is on Ofqual to demonstrate that an AO has breached its Conditions of Recognition. In practice Ofqual is only likely to ask AOs how it complied with Principle 1 in relation to a specific incident, where there are concerns that the AO has breached the Principle. AOs will find it helpful to consider the Investigations and decision-making advice note for further information on the process for alleging non-compliance. 

AOs will readily understand the concepts of honesty and integrity – they are part of everyday behaviours. It may be less clear what will fall within the scope of dishonesty and lack of integrity and we have provided further information about how Ofqual will decide when an AO has acted dishonestly or without integrity.

Dishonesty 

Ofqual’s test for dishonesty is derived from the established test for dishonesty set out in civil cases.  

It is a 2-stage test as follows: 

1. Ofqual must first ascertain the actual state of the AO’s knowledge or belief as to the facts.

2. Ofqual must then consider whether the conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people.

Ofqual will adopt this test now as it reflects the current law. However, Ofqual intends to follow any future changes in law that may arise and if any such developments require changes to the statutory guidance, Ofqual will consult on those changes as necessary.  

Lack of integrity 

Integrity is another familiar concept and people normally act with integrity without ever thinking about it.

There is no direct case law as to what will amount to a lack of integrity for AOs. In the context of the Principles Condition, integrity is intended to refer to the higher moral or ethical standards that the public expect from an AO given their role in the delivery of qualifications, particularly where they are in receipt of public funds. 

In a practical sense that may mean being scrupulous as to the accuracy of information they provide, or simply ‘doing the right thing’. 

Dishonesty and lack of integrity are not mutually exclusive concepts. Cases will always be fact specific, but an AO may have acted dishonestly and without integrity, or it may have acted without integrity, but not met the threshold for dishonesty.

Case studies 

Ofqual recently commenced an investigation into an AO following complaints that the AO was not following its own appeals policy. 

During the investigation, Ofqual requested detailed records of all appeals received in the past year, including their outcomes. The senior management team (SMT) at the AO arranged for the data to be collated: 

Case study 1 

On reviewing that collated data, the SMT noted irregularities including delays in responding to the appeals and, in some instances, failures to respond to appeals at all. At the request of the SMT, an employee amended a significant amount of information to hide those irregularities before sending the information to Ofqual. 

Dishonesty 

Ofqual must first ascertain the actual state of the AO’s knowledge or belief as to the facts. In this case, the SMT at the AO were fully aware that Ofqual wanted the information to assist with its investigation and to understand if the AO had complied with its Conditions of Recognition. The AO understood that the information in its possession would be detrimental to the AO. The AO made a conscious decision to change the information, thus hiding the true position from Ofqual to make it appear that the AO had complied with its Conditions of Recognition when in fact it had not.  

The second step for Ofqual is to determine whether the conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people. By deliberately amending the records provided to Ofqual, the AO’s actions would be considered dishonest by ordinary standards. The amendment was intended to mislead Ofqual and avoid potential sanctions or reputational damage. 

Integrity 

Such conduct is also likely to fall below the moral and ethical standards that the public would expect of an AO involved in the delivery of qualifications to the public. 

In this scenario it is likely that the AO will have acted dishonestly and without integrity.

Case study 2 

On reviewing the collated data, the SMT failed to notice that some pieces of key data had been corrupted due to an IT error, creating the erroneous perception that all appeals had been responded to, when this was not true. 

The AO submitted the information to Ofqual.

Dishonesty 

When assessing the actual state of the AO’s knowledge or belief as to the facts; the SMT at the AO were fully aware that Ofqual wanted the information to assist with its investigation and to understand if the AO had complied with its Conditions of Recognition. The AO collated the information and provided it to Ofqual believing it to be an accurate and complete record.  

It is unlikely that a member of the public would consider that the AO, through its SMT, has acted dishonestly in those circumstances. 

The AO has not therefore acted dishonestly. 

Integrity 

It is unlikely that the AO can be said to have acted without integrity in this scenario.  

The public will expect AOs to be careful about the information that it provides to its regulator in such circumstances. While this scenario appears to be a simple oversight caused by an IT error; where an AO has not taken sufficient care to ensure the accuracy of the information that it provides to Ofqual, that may meet the threshold for a finding of a lack of integrity. 

There may have been corresponding failures to comply with other conditions, for example Conditions A5 (Availability of adequate resources and arrangements), B4 (Notice to provide information to Ofqual), or I1 (Appeals), but they fall outside the scope of this advice note. 

Case study 3 

On reviewing the collated data, the SMT notes irregularities including delays in responding to the appeals and in some instances, failures to respond to the appeal at all. However, that data had become corrupted while being collated thus creating the impression that the AO has responded to all appeals in a timely manner. The SMT is aware that the data has been corrupted but still decides to send the information to Ofqual in that format. 

Dishonesty

When assessing the actual state of the AO’s knowledge or belief as to the facts, the SMT of the AO collated the information in good faith. Members did not falsify the documents themselves. However, they knew that the information within those documents had since become corrupted and was therefore inaccurate, and they knew that Ofqual was likely to place reliance on that inaccurate information. 

Turning to the second limb of the test - would a member of the public view such conduct as dishonest? This is not as clear cut as a case where the SMT had actively falsified the evidence. The AO has played a passive role in the deception. It has misled Ofqual through omission rather than action.  

On balance, Ofqual is still likely to view such conduct as dishonest when assessed against the standards of the ordinary person.  

Integrity

However, even if such conduct was not considered dishonest as per the standards of the ordinary person, this is the type of conduct that would almost certainly justify a finding of lack of integrity. While the SMT of the AO may not have actively falsified the documents, it failed to correct an obvious error and allowed Ofqual to be misled, to the AO’s benefit. The public would expect an AO to correct such an error immediately upon discovery.  

Case study 4 

The SMT at the AO arranged for the data to be collated but, unbeknown to it, the reports had been falsified by an employee at the AO to cover up errors arising from his own inaction. 

The AO provided the information to Ofqual, confirming it to be a complete and accurate record of the AO’s investigations into suspected malpractice at those affected centres. 

Dishonesty and lack of integrity

When assessing the actual state of the AO’s knowledge or belief as to the facts; the SMT at the AO was fully aware that Ofqual wanted the information to assist with its investigation and to understand if the AO had complied with its Conditions of Recognition. The AO collated the information and presented it to Ofqual in good faith. 

It is unlikely that a member of the public would consider that the AO, through its SMT, has acted dishonestly in those circumstances. 

However, the individual who falsified the records may have acted dishonestly. Ofqual does not regulate individual employees and consideration will need to be given to the extent to which that individual can be said to have been acting on behalf of the AO when he committed the dishonest act, or conversely, whether they were acting as a ‘rogue employee’. 

In general, a rogue employee acting dishonestly will not result in a finding of dishonesty against an AO. However, there may be circumstances where an individual has a particular position of control or influence in the AO (for example, the chief executive), or where the person is responsible for communicating with Ofqual on behalf of the AO (a Responsible Officer). In those circumstances, Ofqual’s analysis may be different. Even though dishonesty by a rogue employee may not result in a finding that the AO has itself acted dishonestly, Ofqual still expects AOs to have effective processes that allow them to detect and take action against rogue employees (see Principle 6). 

There may be circumstances where the AO does not become aware of the actions of a rogue employee until much later. In those circumstances Ofqual would expect the AO to address the issue both with the employee, and with Ofqual (see Principle 5). An AO that chooses to rely on the actions of a rogue employee for its own benefit may be subject to a finding of dishonesty or lack of integrity.

Principle 2 – An AO must treat Learners fairly by acting and taking decisions with due impartiality and based on appropriate evidence

Fairness will mean different things to different people at different times. Principle 2 does not seek to define fairness in all aspects of an AO’s business. Instead, it is focused on the actions that an AO takes and the decisions that an AO makes to comply with its Conditions of Recognition.  

Principle 2 states that an AO will treat Learners fairly by ensuring that when it acts or takes decisions that affect Learners, those actions and decisions are carried out with due impartiality and based on appropriate evidence. 

AOs will be familiar with the application of Principle 2 in situations concerning an individual Learner. For example, when making a formal decision as to the outcome of an appeal, or an application for special consideration, it will need to ensure that the specific outcome decision is based on appropriate evidence and does not demonstrate bias. However, there may be less obvious applications, for example; when deciding how to deal with an issue that adversely affects a moderate number of Learners in a single cohort, an AO will need to think not only about what is ‘fair’ for Learners in that cohort, but what is fair to future, current and past Learners, who may be indirectly impacted by the decision or actions of the AO.

AOs will have broad discretion, within the parameters set by the Conditions (including the other Principles), to determine what is fair to Learners based upon the individual circumstances of any case. However, an AO should have in mind the requirement to act with due impartiality and be able to demonstrate to Ofqual, if requested, that it has considered all relevant evidence and sought to make a decision with due impartiality.

Case studies

Case study 1 

An AO has been the victim of a cyber attack. It has resolved the issue but has irretrievably lost historic data relating to its awards for a particular qualification. The AO retains the names of all Learners who sat the assessments but no longer has a record of their results. The particular qualification involves a pass or fail assessment and the qualification may be relied upon by an individual to obtain employment in a safety critical role.  

The AO decides that if any Learners from the relevant period request a replacement certificate, then it would be unfair to deny them a replacement certificate. The AO decides that if it has a record of that Learner having sat the assessment, it will issue a replacement certificate to them.

While there may be unfairness to the individual Learners affected by the issue, there is a significant risk to public confidence if the AO were to issue a replacement certificate to any Learner from the affected period. There is also a risk to standards arising from the decision to issue a certificate where there are no assurances that the result accurately reflects the Learner’s level of attainment. The AO is assuming the risk that it issues a certificate to an individual who has failed the assessment. The AO knows that the qualification may be relied upon by an individual to obtain employment in a safety critical role and that it may be exposing the public to risk.

Ofqual acknowledges that this is a very difficult situation, but there would be a significant risk to both the public in terms of safety, and to public confidence in the qualification, should the AO adopt the proposed solution. Much will depend on the facts of the case – for example, the number of Learners who completed the assessment and the known pass rate. However, it may be that issuing even one replacement certificate without being assured as to the Learner’s entitlement could expose the public to an unacceptable risk and therefore outweighs the perceived unfairness to the individual Learner.

Ensuring fairness to Learners is not solely about providing what any individual Learner would consider to be the fairest outcome for them. It will often involve balancing fairness for the individual, with fairness to other Learners, as well as the public interest.  

Whatever outcome an AO arrives at, Ofqual would expect to see that it had been guided by Principle 2 in its decision-making process; that it took all relevant factors into account and placed appropriate weight on them; that it documented the factors that it took into account and how it balanced them when arriving at its decision, and that it could justify its decision to Ofqual when asked.

Principle 3 – An AO must ensure that each qualification that it makes available, or proposes to make available is, and continues to be, fit for the purposes for which it is intended 

Condition D1.2 states that a qualification will only be fit for purpose if that qualification, as far as possible, secures the requirements of (a) validity, (b) reliability, (c) comparability, (d) manageability, and (e) minimising bias.  

However, the phrase “fit for purpose” is also used at a number of other points in the GCR: Condition E3.3(b), E4.2(a), G1.1(a), G9.2(a), G9.3(a), H2.4(a), H2.5(b), in the guidance on malpractice and maladministration, and in the Centre Assessment Standards Scrutiny requirements. Each of these references relates to a different area of the qualification lifecycle, a version of which is set out below:

Condition E1 states that qualifications must have an objective, which must be such as to lead to a benefit for Learners who have reached a specified level of attainment. 

Principle 3 makes it clear that an AO must consider fitness for purpose within a clear, but broad, context – and that is that a qualification must be fit for the purposes for which it was intended. This links fitness for purpose directly to the relevant objective that a qualification has.  

Furthermore, Principle 3 drives the need for an AO to consider the fitness for purpose of its qualifications not just at specific moments, but at all stages of the qualification lifecycle. Even once the qualification is in delivery, the requirement continues in that the AO must ensure that the qualification continues to be fit for the purposes for which it is intended. This means that an AO is required to keep the fitness for purpose of its qualifications under review.

Case study

An AO launched a qualification into the market 10 years ago. The objective of the qualification is to ensure that people who hold it can work safely and competently in the relevant industry.  

The industry has changed significantly over the past decade, and the equipment and technology used has evolved considerably.  

The existing qualification means that people who hold it can operate some equipment safely and competently. However, there is newer equipment that a person with the qualification would not be able to operate, which may not be immediately clear to an employer. There are obvious consequential health and safety risks.  

The AO knows that this qualification is popular and has a high pass rate. It brings in considerable income for the AO and it has not reviewed that qualification since it was launched.  

It is likely that such an approach by the AO would be in breach of Principle P3. While the qualification was once appropriate, it has not been reviewed against new market practices and requirements and is therefore out of date. The AO should have been conducting appropriate checks on this qualification, and acting upon the outcome of those checks, to ensure that it remained fit for the purpose for which it was intended.

Principle 4 – An AO must act in a way that maintains and, where possible, promotes public confidence in qualifications

AOs can contribute to the maintenance of public confidence in qualifications through the effective design, delivery and award of high-quality assessments. 

Principle 4 draws a distinction between ‘maintaining’ and ‘promoting’ public confidence in qualifications. AOs often contribute to the maintenance of public confidence through their everyday activities.   

The requirement to promote public confidence is a qualified requirement, by this we mean that it is required ‘where possible’. If public confidence in qualifications is already high, then it may not be possible for an AO to promote public confidence further. But where public confidence in qualifications is low, then an AO will be expected to do more than maintain that low standard. Again, an AO is likely to achieve this through the effective design, delivery and award of high-quality qualifications.

Ofqual acknowledges that while AOs have a high level of control over their own qualifications, they have limited ability to impact upon public confidence in the qualifications offered by other awarding organisations. An AO would be expected to act in a way that does not unduly diminish public confidence in the qualifications offered by other AOs (that is, it maintains public confidence in those qualifications by not unduly diminishing public confidence in those qualifications), but it will have limited ability or obligation to ‘promote’ confidence in qualifications offered by other AOs. 

One example of where an AO would seek to maintain or promote public confidence in qualifications that are not its own is in relation to Condition A8.7. This requires an AO to notify a potentially affected centre or another AO where it has uncovered relevant malpractice or maladministration. In this situation, the AO will have conducted its own malpractice or maladministration investigation and be mitigating the issues and thus will have already done what it can to maintain public confidence in its qualifications. However, by notifying potentially affected awarding organisations and centres, it is supporting the maintenance and promotion of public confidence in qualifications more generally.

Case studies

Case study 1

Public confidence in a licence-to-practice qualification is low after a recent news story revealed widespread fraud, with individuals obtaining fake certificates online in order to access the workplace. No AOs offering this qualification are complicit in the fraud, but the certificates purport to have been issued in the name of several Ofqual regulated awarding organisations. Those AOs continue to certificate Learners that have legitimately completed the qualification. Such is the scale of the issue that there is a general distrust in the wider industry about the legitimacy of the qualification.

In this scenario, Ofqual would expect AOs to do more than just maintain public confidence at the current level, and AOs may instead be expected to take steps to promote public confidence in those qualifications. For example, an AO that has been implicated in the fraud may take legal action against the parties and websites selling certificates bearing its name and logo. AOs may increase their centre monitoring to ensure that weak controls are not delivering opportunities to fraudsters. AOs may decide to work with centres and sector specialists to understand the drivers behind the fraud and to design out opportunities for fraud within its qualification offering. Where an AO suspects malpractice in relation to the qualification, it should investigate that malpractice promptly and comprehensively, sharing any adverse findings with other AOs so that they can consider whether the participants pose a threat to delivery of their qualifications. Those measures may go some way to restoring public confidence in relation to the qualification.

Case study 2

A large AO offers a significant number of GCSE and A level qualifications.

Several members of staff at the AO are involved in a phishing attack and they inadvertently disclose a significant amount of commercially sensitive information and employee personal data. None of this relates to the qualifications that the organisation offers. The Information Commissioners Office (ICO) investigates the matter and finds that the training of relevant staff on phishing attacks is weak and that some of the AO’s system controls to prevent this kind of attack were considerably below expected standards. The AO is issued with a substantial fine by the ICO and the matter receives significant press attention. Unfortunately, the reporting of this matter in the public domain occurs shortly before the summer exam series and the press reports begin to include a narrative that the general qualifications system is not fit for purpose, thus creating a significant public confidence risk.  

In order for Ofqual to meet its statutory objective to promote public confidence in regulated qualifications, it undertakes significant work in response to the ICO finding to reassure the sector and Learners and to seek to restore public confidence in the system.  

Alongside that, the AO can contribute to the maintenance of public confidence in qualifications by following all of the advice given to it by the ICO and other bodies to ensure that its staff are now appropriately trained in how to spot and manage phishing attacks, and that its systems are appropriately up-to-date and protected by the necessary software. The AO might also communicate publicly to reassure the sector that it has taken the necessary steps to address the public confidence concerns. It could also make public any investment it has made to ensure that this does not happen again in the future.

This example demonstrates how an AO might consider broader aspects of its activities when considering how it can maintain public confidence in qualifications. An AO may be largely compliant with Ofqual’s rules, but if its activities undermine its customers’, and the wider sector’s, confidence in its capabilities, this could have a significant impact on wider public confidence in qualifications. 

Case study 3

In response to a major public incident, the government closes all schools and colleges across the country and qualifications are therefore assessed and awarded using alternative methods.  

The AOs that offer regulated qualifications are not responsible for the public incident, the closure of schools or the consequential decision to assess qualifications using alternative methods. They cannot be responsible for maintaining public confidence in the government’s decisions in that regard. This principle requires AOs to maintain and, where possible, promote public confidence in regulated qualifications only. It does not require AOs to promote public confidence in any other respect.

Therefore, in this scenario, once the government has made the relevant decisions, AOs have a responsibility to act in a way that is designed to facilitate the maintenance of public confidence based on the revised assessment approach for the qualifications that they deliver. In the most basic terms, it must do all it can to comply with its Conditions of Recognition and ensure that its qualifications remain fit for purpose (see Principle 2). This, in turn, helps to maintain public confidence in those qualifications. The AO is not responsible for any wider public confidence issues.

Principle 5 – An AO must act in an open, transparent and co-operative manner with Ofqual and, as appropriate, with Users of qualifications 

Ofqual is reliant on AOs being open and transparent about any issues that an AO may face, or have experienced, so that Ofqual may perform its statutory functions^{[footnote 1]}. AOs will already be familiar with the event notification process under which they notify Ofqual when an incident occurs, or is likely to occur, and that has resulted in, or may result in, an Adverse Effect (see Conditions A6 and B3). 

The duty described in Principle 5 is not limited just to information that Ofqual expressly requests. Instead, Principle 5 imposes a requirement on AOs to think about the type of information that Ofqual might need to see in order for Ofqual to fulfil its statutory functions. 

This is not an unfettered power for Ofqual to require information from AOs. Principle 5 is intended to ensure the sharing of relevant information with Ofqual, but it is not intended to override legal protections. For example, it does not override legal obligations to protect the personal details of individuals under GDPR; it does not override Legal Professional Privilege (LPP); and it does not require AOs to hand over commercially sensitive information to its competitors.

Case study 1

An AO has been investigating allegations of malpractice at 3 linked centres, Centres A, B and C. At the conclusion of its investigations, it makes findings of centre-led malpractice in relation to all 3 centres. The AO submits an event notification in which it discloses the issues but erroneously refers to Centres A and B only.  

Ofqual reviews the information and explains that it is commencing an investigation owing to the apparent failures to properly monitor Centres A and B. Ofqual requests copies of all monitoring activities completed in relation to Centres A and B, as well as its investigation reports. At this stage, the AO realises that it had inadvertently failed to tell Ofqual about its investigation into Centre C. However, the AO simply complies with Ofqual’s request and only provides details of its monitoring at Centres A and B. 

In this scenario there is an expectation that, when realising its error, the AO would disclose the issues relating to Centre C. While not doing so is likely to result in a breach of Condition B3, this conduct is also likely to engage Principles 1 and 5. The AO has not disclosed relevant information to Ofqual and this has prevented Ofqual from performing its statutory duties.  

While the AO may argue that it has provided the information specifically requested by Ofqual, this ignores the fact that Ofqual cannot request information in relation to incidents that it does not know have occurred.  

Case study 2

Ofqual has received information from a whistleblower to suggest that the AO has not been undertaking malpractice investigations in accordance with its malpractice policy. Ofqual informs the AO that it is conducting an investigation and requests copies of all materials.  

The Responsible Officer collates all relevant information. In addition to its investigation reports, the AO has in its possession a letter from its external lawyers providing legal advice on the matter, and in particular on whether the evidence collected could reasonably give rise to findings of malpractice and/or maladministration. 

Principle 5 requires AOs to share relevant information and the guidance is explicit that it should not withhold relevant information ‘unless required or permitted by law’. In this case, the legal advice is likely to be subject to Legal Professional Privilege (LPP), and the AO would be ‘permitted by law’ to withhold that document.

In those circumstances the AO would be expected to provide the investigation report to Ofqual, but would not be required to provide the legal advice from its lawyers, although it may choose to waive LPP and disclose the document voluntarily.

Case study 3

The Department for Education has set out the subject content for a new GCSE and Ofqual has put in place associated regulatory requirements. Two AOs are in the process of designing their respective specifications for that new qualification. 

AO Alpha requests sight of AO Beta’s draft specification so that it may compare it with its own. AO Beta considers the information to be commercially sensitive and declines to provide the information. 

Soon afterward, AO Beta submits an application and supporting evidence to Ofqual for its new GCSE qualification to be accredited. Ofqual in turn requests further information, including the draft specification, which was omitted from the application. AO Beta must provide that information in order to progress its application for accreditation. 

In this case, AO Beta has taken a different approach to disclosure of the information to Ofqual and AO Alpha, even though the requests related to the same piece of information. That is entirely appropriate and is anticipated in the wording of the Principle. Ofqual recognises that an AO will owe different duties to different parties. In this particular case there has been no breach of Principle 5.

Principle 6 – An AO must conduct its activities with a proactive approach to compliance with its Conditions of Recognition

Conducting activities with a proactive approach to compliance

Many of Ofqual’s rules are outcomes-focused and they therefore give an AO an amount of flexibility to determine how it will achieve compliance in order to attain the required outcome. This is not a box ticking exercise and an AO should be giving considerable thought to how it can proactively optimise its compliance with its conditions of recognition. An AO’s approach may evolve over time as it, for example, offers new qualifications, expands its scope of recognition, or goes through governance changes.

Case studies 

Case study 1

An AO has a written complaints procedure in accordance with Condition D4 of the General Conditions of Recognition. The procedure includes processes and timescales for responding to complaints and dealing with the subject matter of complaints in accordance with D4.4. However, the complaints procedure is poorly drafted and vague. Furthermore, the procedure is almost impossible for users of qualifications to find on the organisation’s website. Staff members are not adequately trained on the procedure. Any new members of staff who have joined the organisation since the procedure was written have not been trained on it. 

Proactive compliance with Conditions A5.2(a), D3 and D4.3 would include ensuring that the procedure is well-drafted, clearly understood, updated where necessary, that staff are familiar with the procedure through appropriate training, and the policy is followed. 

Case study 2 

An AO has had a number of assessment material errors (AMEs) over the past 2 exam series. The AMEs are similar in type and have been made repeatedly. Ofqual has raised concerns with the AO and has taken regulatory action in relation to a number of those failures to comply with the AOs Conditions of Recognition. However, the AO is not demonstrating any intention to avoid future non-compliances of this nature and appears to be of the view that it is cheaper or easier to accept regulatory action rather than fix the problem. 

This is an example of a likely lack of proactivity in relation to compliance. The AO has demonstrated that it would effectively prefer to pay a fine than ensure compliance by quality assuring its papers appropriately, which in itself would also be a clear non-compliance with other conditions. 

Case study 3

Ofqual has published some research that shows centres are struggling to understand the supervision requirements for some assessments. While the AO’s qualifications were not directly involved in the research, it does offer similar qualifications to similar centres.

The AO decides that since its qualifications were not part of the research, it can ignore the findings. 

In that scenario, the AO knows there is research available that highlights potential risks to its ability to comply with its Conditions of Recognition. By failing to acknowledge and/or fully engage with that research, the AO is demonstrating a likely lack of proactivity in relation to its compliance with Conditions C2.5 and D3.

Alternatively, the AO reviews its instructions and training for centres, and decides that its instructions are clear, and unlikely to be misunderstood, but without considering any data or further investigation that might cause it to reach a different view.

The AO knows that there is research available that highlights potential risks to its ability to comply with its Conditions of Recognition. By failing to acknowledge and/or fully engage with that research, the AO is demonstrating a likely lack of proactivity in relation to its compliance with Conditions C2.5 and D3.

1. As set out in the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009. ↩