Notice

Pearson: Notice of monetary penalty - A level Chinese

Published 15 December 2025

Applies to England

Notice of monetary penalty

Imposition of a monetary penalty on Pearson Education Limited (Pearson) in relation to GCE Chinese

Introduction

1. The Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation (“Ofqual”) has decided to issue Pearson Education Ltd (“Pearson”) with a monetary penalty under section 151A of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (“ASCLA”) in the sum of £505,000.

2. This Monetary Penalty Notice (“the notice”) contains the reasons why Ofqual has decided to impose a penalty. Further information about Ofqual’s statutory powers and the Conditions of Recognition are set out in Annex A of this notice.

Executive summary

1. 3. This notice relates to assessment content and marking non-compliances in respect of the Pearson Edexcel Level 3 Advanced GCE (A level) in Chinese (spoken Mandarin/spoken Cantonese) in 2019, 2022 and 2023 (“the qualification”).^{[footnote 1]}

2. 4. Ofqual finds that, on the balance of probabilities, Pearson breached the Conditions. The breaches can be summarised as follows:

   1. a. In the 2019, 2022 and 2023 series, Pearson failed to comply with the approach to mark schemes set out in the assessment strategy, specification and published sample assessment materials (SAMs) for the qualification.

   2. b. In the 2019, 2022 and 2023 series, Pearson failed to ensure that the expectations of language to be understood and/or produced were appropriate and not excessive in terms of range of vocabulary, and social/cultural knowledge.

   3. c. In the 2019, 2022 and 2023 series, Pearson failed to ensure that the Level of Demand for the qualification was appropriate.^{[footnote 2]}

   4. d. In the 2019 and 2022 series, Pearson failed to ensure that all of the grammar required to respond to the translation tasks was included in the grammar list in the specification.

   5. e. In the 2019 and 2023 series, Pearson failed to ensure that the expectations in relation to accuracy for Paper 1 assessed Learners in line with its assessment strategy, specification and SAMs.^{[footnote 3]}

   6. f. Pearson failed to have due regard to concerns raised by teachers and other stakeholders and address the Level of Demand in its assessments for the qualification.

1. 5. Due to the nature and broad range of breaches, all learners have been impacted, to one degree or another, by the non-compliances. Ofqual finds that the issues were likely to disadvantage learners who were non-native Chinese speakers. This is because, in a qualification not designed for native speakers, the questions and mark scheme were inappropriately pitched towards knowledge that native speakers would have, but non-native speakers were less likely to have. This would have conferred an undue advantage for native speakers, and correspondingly, placed non-native speakers at an unreasonable disadvantage, meaning that they will have been disadvantaged as against native speakers.

2. 6. It is not possible to determine the impact on any individual or group of students, beyond noting that non-native speakers are likely to have been more severely impacted by the breaches. However, Ofqual finds that it is reasonable to conclude that this difference in marks will have led to some individual results for the qualification not fully reflecting student proficiency in Chinese. Ofqual considers that Pearson’s approach to assessment content and marking will have been unexpected as the published materials will have led Teachers and Learners to have a particular view on the knowledge, skills and understanding required for the qualification, and the Level of Demand of the assessments.

3. 7. On 1 December 2025. Pearson entered into a voluntary settlement agreement with Ofqual to resolve this investigation. Pearson made full admissions in relation to Ofqual’s allegations of non-compliance and has agreed to pay a penalty of £505,000.

4. 8. In accordance with section 151A (4) of the 2009 Act, Ofqual served Pearson with a Notice of Intention to impose a monetary penalty on 1 December 2025. Ofqual determined it was not necessary to publish the Notice of Intention. On 1 December 2025, and in accordance with the settlement agreement, Pearson confirmed it had no representations to make and was content for Ofqual to proceed to final decision.

Background

The qualification

1. 9. Pearson’s Level 3 Advanced GCE Chinese qualification was first made available in September 2017 with the first award in summer 2019.

2. 10. The qualification specification outlines that the qualification was developed to inspire all students who have an appreciation of the language, literature, film and culture of the Chinese-speaking world.

3. 11. The qualification assessment structure consists of 3 components:

   1. a. Component 1 is an examination of listening comprehension tasks, reading comprehension tasks and a translation into English.

   2. b. Component 2 is an examination of 2 written responses to literary works or to 1 literary work and 1 film, and a translation into Chinese.

   3. c. Component 3 is a speaking assessment that is broken down into three parts:

      1. i. Discussion on a theme
      2. ii. Presentation of an Independent Research Project (“IRP”)
      3. iii. Follow up discussion on the IRP.

Timeline

12. After first award in 2019, Pearson was aware of overarching concerns that the qualification was too demanding for non-native (or non-heritage) speakers of Chinese languages. Although it is recognised that non-native speakers are at a disadvantage compared to native-speaking candidates in any language exam, there were concerns from Teachers and other stakeholders that non-native speakers were put at a disproportionate disadvantage when taking the qualification.

On 22 March 2021, Pearson issued a letter to Centres giving assurance that the qualification was designed to be accessible to all Learners and the full range of grades were available to all.  Pearson informed Centres that it had nonetheless begun a review as part of its routine programme of qualification reviews.  Following Pearson’s letter, stakeholders remained concerned about the Level of Demand.

Ofqual’s evaluation of the qualification

13. In February 2024, Ofqual obtained and commenced a review of Pearson’s 2019, 2022 and 2023 assessment materials.

14. In April 2024, Ofqual provided Pearson with a high-level summary of its findings.

15. On 3 May 2024, Ofqual issued a provisional evaluation report to Pearson identifying several concerns in relation to assessments conducted in 2019, 2022 and 2023 (as set out below).

16. On 30 August 2024, Pearson confirmed that it had taken steps to realign, reinforce and monitor marking for summer 2024, as set out in its action plan provided to Ofqual in May 2024.

17. On 30 September 2024, Pearson submitted preliminary representations to the provisional evaluation report.

18. On 8 November 2024, Pearson sent its full response to the provisional evaluation report accepting there were a number of non-compliances in 2019, 2022 and 2023 which meant that the Level of Demand in some areas of the assessments was too high for a qualification designed for language learners.

19. In preparation for the 2025 series, Pearson implemented further corrective actions to address outstanding issues pertaining to assessment content.

20. On 13 June 2025, Ofqual served Pearson with a final version of the evaluation report (“the final evaluation report”). The final evaluation report largely reflected the conclusions previously set out in the 2024 provisional evaluation report.

21. On 11 July 2025, Pearson submitted representations in respect of the final evaluation report and allegations of non-compliance. Pearson broadly accepted Ofqual’s findings. Pearson also submitted an update to its action plan (shared with Ofqual in May 2024) detailing the actions taken for examinations in 2025 and future work.

22. Pearson stated that due to the exceptional circumstances of the pandemic, the stakeholder concerns from 2019 had not been followed up at the time. Staff changes in the intervening period meant they were also not followed up for the 2022 exams. Pearson also noted that a number of the concerns expressed by stakeholders, such as the restrictions on the proportion of assessment in English, were required by Ofqual’s Subject Level Conditions, although these have since been revised for exams from 2026 onwards.

Non-compliances

1. 23. Pearson has admitted that it failed to comply with the Conditions in relation to the qualification, as follows:

Setting assessments

1. 24. Pearson failed to comply with Conditions D7.1, G1.1(c), G1.2(c), G3.1 (read together with G3.2(a) – (c)), G3.3(b) – (d), G3.4, Qualification Level Condition GCE2.3, and Subject Level Conditions GCE (Modern Foreign Languages)1.1(a), and 2.3 when it set its assessments for the qualification in the 2019, 2022 and 2023 series.

2. 25. In particular, Pearson failed to ensure the expectations of language to be understood, and language to be produced were appropriate to the qualification and not excessive in terms of range of grammar, vocabulary, and social/cultural knowledge. This included:

   1. a. In several instances, assessments used or required vocabulary which was not indicated in the specification, SAMs or assessment strategy, which Learners would not have anticipated encountering, and which Teachers had no reason to teach,

   2. b. In several instances, assessments required knowledge of grammar and structures which were not included in the specification or the subject content requirements and which were not presented in the specification and assessment strategy.

   3. c. The setting for some topic-based questions required knowledge from countries other than China, which was contrary to the assessment strategy,

   4. d. Speaking tests expected a depth of knowledge about the stimulus themes which went beyond that envisaged in the specification and assessment strategy.

Level of demand

1. 26. Pearson failed to comply with Conditions G1.1(c), G1.2(a) and (c), G3.1 (read together with G3.2(a) – (c)), G3.3(a) – (d)), G3.4, and Qualification Level Conditions GCE2.3 and GCE7.1, when it set and delivered its assessments for the qualification in the 2019, 2022 and 2023 series.

2. 27. In particular, Pearson failed to ensure the Level of Demand in its assessments was appropriate. This included:

   1. a. Setting inappropriately challenging tasks,

   2. b. Including an excessive range of contexts within the topics presented in the specification, and requiring too much detail,

   3. c. Setting indicative content, for speaking assessments, which required greater and more detailed knowledge than the exemplar materials,

   4. d. Tasks on chosen texts expected complex grammatical structures and language styles, which were too complex for the level of qualification,

   5. e. Using tasks which required cultural and societal knowledge which went beyond that reasonably expected for the level of qualification.

Marking

1. 28. Pearson failed to comply with Conditions D1.1 (read with D1.2(a) - (c)), D7.1, G1.1(c), G1.2(c), G1.3, H1.1, H5.3(a), Qualification Level Condition GCE2.3, and Subject Level Condition GCE (Modern Foreign Languages)1.2. when it marked assessments for the qualification in the 2019, 2022 and 2023 series.

2. 29. In summary, Pearson failed to ensure assessments were marked consistently with the marking criteria, the assessment strategy, the qualification specification and the sample assessment materials. This included:

   1. a. Applying a strict 2-minute time limit, beyond which responses were not marked, for one aspect of the speaking assessment, when the assessment strategy, specification and SAMs set only recommended timings,

   2. b. Stipulating that examiners should avoid awarding full marks for responses in speaking tests and should award more marks for longer answers,

   3. c. Setting unduly high marking expectations, in particular for expectations of precision in the translation into English (in 2019 and 2023).

   4. d. Setting unduly high expectations for character formation,

   5. e. Setting marking criteria which penalised a failure to use complete sentences in relation to tasks which did not assess writing.

Qualification review

1. 30. Pearson failed to comply with Conditions D3.2, H5.1, and Qualification Level Condition GCE10.1(c) and (d) because it failed to take appropriate action when, in 2019, concerns were raised that the Level of Demand in its assessments for the qualification was too high. In particular:

   1. a. Pearson failed adequately to investigate when stakeholders raised concerns that assessments were too demanding for the non-native speakers for which the assessment was primarily designed, and

   2. b. Pearson failed adequately to have regard to the observations made in its Chair of Examiners’ Report, on the 2019 series, which suggested grade boundaries were too high for learners who were not native speakers.

Impact

31. Ofqual considers that Pearson’s approach to assessment content and marking will have been unexpected as the published materials will have led Teachers and Learners to have a particular view on the knowledge, skills and understanding required for the qualification, and the Level of Demand of the assessments. Due to the nature and broad range of breaches, it is reasonable to conclude that all learners have been impacted, to one degree or another, by the non-compliances.

32. Ofqual finds that the issues were likely to disadvantage Learners who were non-native Chinese speakers. This is because, in a qualification not exclusively designed for native speakers, the questions and mark scheme were inappropriately pitched towards knowledge that native speakers would have, but non-native speakers were less likely to have. This would have conferred an undue advantage for native speakers, and correspondingly, placed non-native speakers at an unreasonable disadvantage, meaning that they will have been disadvantaged as against native speakers.

33. It is not possible to determine the impact on any individual or group of students, beyond noting that non-native speakers are likely to have been more severely impacted by the breaches. However, Ofqual finds that it is reasonable to conclude that this difference in marks will have led to some individual results for the qualification not fully reflecting student proficiency in Chinese.

Regulatory action

1. 34. On 1 December 2025, Pearson signed a settlement proposal by which it:

   1. a. agreed that it had breached its Conditions of Recognition as set out in this Notice,
   2. b. agreed to pay a monetary penalty in the sum of £505,000 in settlement of those breaches,
   3. c. agreed to pay Ofqual’s reasonable legal costs.

Determination of monetary penalty

35. On 1 December 2025, Ofqual’s Enforcement Panel considered the evidence relating to the breaches set out above, alongside the settlement proposal presented by Pearson.

36. Ofqual finds that Pearson breached its Conditions of Recognition as per the allegations set out above.

37. Having had regard to Ofqual’s policy, Supporting Compliance and Taking Regulatory Action (2025), as well as to Ofqual’s objectives and duties as set out in the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, Ofqual considers that this case represents a serious and prolonged period of non-compliance.

38. Pearson breached regulatory conditions compromising the standard of the qualification and undermined public confidence in the qualifications system. Ofqual finds that Pearson’s failure to comply with the Conditions is such that Ofqual should impose a monetary penalty.

Aggravating factors

1. 39. The following factors, as taken from Ofqual’s Supporting Compliance and taking regulatory action policy, are relevant in this case:

The seriousness of the breach, particularly in relation to its effect on standards of qualifications, public confidence and the efficiency of the qualifications system,

The effect of the breach (both in terms of the seriousness of the impact and the number of people affected) on purchasers, learners and users of qualifications:

• The breaches constitute a serious breach of Pearson’s regulatory obligations to monitor and assure the ongoing integrity of its qualifications.
• It is not possible to determine the impact on any individual or group of students, beyond noting that non-native speakers are likely to have been more severely impacted by the breaches. However, Ofqual finds that it is reasonable to conclude that this difference in marks will have led to some individual results for the qualification not fully reflecting student performance in Chinese.
• The number of learners affected, entries for the years falling under this enforcement case are:
  • 2019: total entries c 2,880 (including 2,086 in England)
  • 2022: total entries c 3,940 (including 1,201 in England)
  • 2023: total entries c 5,150 (including 1,314 in England)

Whether the breach was prolonged or repeated: 

• The breaches were sustained, occurring repeatedly across multiple assessment series, specifically 2019, 2022 and 2023.

The extent to which the circumstances of the breach were within the control of the Awarding Organisation

The behaviour of the awarding organisation in relation to the breach, including whether it happened intentionally, whether there was any negligence on the part of the awarding organisation, and whether the breach gives rise to concerns about the organisation’s management or control systems:

• Pearson failed to take reasonable and timely action to prevent or mitigate foreseeable non-compliance. Ofqual considers that the breaches resulted from failures in internal governance, oversight and quality assurance arrangements.
• Ofqual has not found any evidence to show that Pearson acted intentionally in committing the breaches.

Pearson has breached regulatory requirements in the past, and, if so, how frequently:

• Ofqual has, on 4 previous occasions, imposed a monetary penalty on Pearson.  The first fine (£85,000) was imposed in 2016 and concerned inaccurate and delayed results arising out of complications following a change of IT system.
• The second and third fines were imposed in November 2022 in the sum of £1,200,000 and £150,000 respectively. These related to (i) Pearson’s failings in its review of marking arrangements between 2016 and 2019 and (ii) to Pearson’s issuing of incorrect short course certificates in 2017 and 2018.
• The fourth and most recent fine was imposed on 21 March 2025 in the sum of £250,000. This related to Pearson’s failures in identifying, monitoring and managing conflicts of interest, and to take all reasonable steps to secure the confidentiality of assessment materials.

A fine is likely to improve compliance with regulatory conditions in the future (including by other awarding organisations):

• Ofqual considers that there is a clear need to deter Pearson and other awarding organisations from making similar failings in the future. The imposition of a monetary penalty emphasises the importance of maintaining robust systems to identify and manage risk, and any potential adverse effects. It also demonstrates that where standards are compromised, Ofqual will take proportionate and transparent regulatory action to protect the integrity of, and public confidence in, qualifications.

Mitigating factors

40. Upon receiving Ofqual’s draft evaluation report (3 May 2024) Pearson took immediate action to resolve the issues as quickly as possible, to address the mark schemes and their application in summer 2024 and the assessments for summer 2025.

41. Pearson has fully accepted responsibility for the non-compliances and the impact on standards and public confidence that arose.

42. Pearson has engaged and co-operated fully with Ofqual during the enforcement process.

43. Ofqual has not found any evidence to show that Pearson acted intentionally in committing the breaches

Other factors

1. 44. The Enforcement Panel has also considered:

   1. a. the need to deter Pearson and other awarding organisations from making similar failings in the future;
   2. b. the need to promote public confidence in qualifications through visible, appropriate and effective regulatory action;
   3. c. the nature and circumstances of these breaches in comparison to other breaches for which fines have been imposed by Ofqual on other awarding organisations;
   4. d. Ofqual has taken into account that there is no evidence the breaches were motivated by financial gain, although Pearson derived profit from the qualification during the period of non-compliance.

Settlement

45. Pearson cooperated with Ofqual’s investigation, promptly admitted the non-compliances and entered into a voluntary settlement in which it has acknowledged Ofqual’s decision in this Notice and agreed not to appeal. In light of this settlement, Ofqual has decided to impose a lower penalty than it would have done in a contested case.

Final decision

46. Taking all of the above into account, the Enforcement Panel has confirmed its earlier notice of intention to accept a settlement proposal and imposes a monetary penalty in the sum of £505,000.

47. The Enforcement Panel is satisfied, in accordance with section 151B of the 2009 Act, that a Monetary Penalty in the sum of £505,000 would not exceed 10% of Pearson’s total annual turnover.

Payment

48. The monetary penalty must be paid within 28 days of the date of this notice, in accordance with the payment instructions provided with this notice.

49. In the event of non-payment, interest may be charged and the outstanding amount may be recovered as a debt, in accordance with section 151D of the Act.

Appeals

1. 50. An awarding organisation may appeal to the First Tier Tribunal in respect of Ofqual’s decision to impose the monetary penalty and/or in respect of the amount of that penalty, in accordance with section 151C of the Act.

2. 51. An appeal may be made on the grounds:

   1. a) that the decision was based on an error of fact;
   2. b) that the decision was wrong in law;
   3. c) that the decision was unreasonable.

3. 52. Any appeal must be made within 28 days of the date of this notice. Further information is available from HM Courts and Tribunals Service.

Signed: 

Chris Paterson Chair of the Enforcement Panel

Date: 5 December 2025

Enforcement Panel:

Chris Paterson

Susan Barratt

Hardip Begol CBE

Annex A: Legal provisions

Statutory powers

1. Pearson Education Limited (“Pearson”) is recognised as an awarding body by The Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation (“Ofqual”) under section 132(1) of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act, 2009 (“the 2009 Act”) and is subject to the General Conditions of Recognition (“the Conditions”) which Ofqual is required to set and publish under Section 134 of the 2009 Act.

2. Under Section 151A(2) of the 2009 Act, Ofqual may impose a Monetary Penalty on an awarding body if it appears to Ofqual that the awarding body has failed to comply with its Conditions of Recognition.

3. Under Section 151B(3) of the 2009 Act, the amount of any Monetary Penalty may be whatever Ofqual decides is appropriate in all the circumstances of the case, subject to Section 151B(1), which provides that Ofqual may not impose a Monetary Penalty in an amount which exceeds 10% of the awarding body’s turnover.^{[footnote 4]}

4. Ofqual’s Supporting Compliance and Taking Regulatory Action Policy (2025) sets out how it will use its powers to take regulatory action, including the factors it will take into account when deciding whether to impose a Monetary Penalty and how it will determine the amount of any Monetary Penalty to be imposed.

Conditions of Recognition

1. 5. The conditions relevant to this incident are set out below.

2. 6. General Conditions D1.1 and D1.2 requires:

D1.1 An awarding organisation must ensure that each qualification which it makes available is fit for purpose.

D1.2 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.

7. General Conditions D3.2 requires:

D3.2 An awarding organisation must –
(a) have due regard to all information, comments and complaints received from Users of qualifications in relation to the development, delivery and award of qualifications, and
(b) identify and give due regard to any credible evidence which suggests that a change in its approach to the development, delivery and award of qualifications is required in order to ensure that the approach remains appropriate.

8. General Condition D7.1 requires:

D7.1 In respect of each qualification which it makes available, an awarding organisation must ensure that there is available to each Teacher any information which, for the purpose of preparing Learners and persons likely to become Learners for assessments for that qualification, the Teacher may reasonably require to be provided by the awarding organisation.

9. General Condition G1.1 requires:

G1.1 In setting an assessment for a qualification which it makes available, an awarding organisation must ensure that the content of the assessment is –
(a) fit for purpose,
(b) appropriate for the method of assessment chosen, and
(c) consistent with the specification for that qualification.

10. General Condition G1.2 requires:

G1.2 An awarding organisation must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the Level of Demand of an assessment for a qualification which it makes available is consistent –
(a) across all options as to tasks which may be completed by a Learner for the purposes of the assessment,
(b) with the Level of Demand of any other assessment which may be completed by a Learner as an alternative to the assessment, for the purpose of the qualification, and
(c) with the Level of Demand of previous assessments and of any specimen assessment materials which the awarding organisation has published in relation to the qualification.

11. General Condition G1.3 requires:

G1.3 An awarding organisation must produce a written document in relation to an assessment which sets out clear and unambiguous criteria against which Learners’ levels of attainment will be differentiated.

12. General Condition G3.1 (read together with G3.2(a) – (c)), G3.3(b) – (d) requires:

G3.1 An awarding organisation must ensure that assessments for qualifications which it makes available use only appropriate language and Stimulus Materials.

G3.2 Language and Stimulus Materials are only appropriate if they –
(a) enable Learners to demonstrate their level of attainment,
(b) require knowledge, skills and understanding which are required for the qualification,
(c) are clear and unambiguous (unless ambiguity forms part of the assessment), and
(d) …..

G3.3 In considering whether language and Stimulus Materials for an assessment are appropriate, an awarding organisation must take into account in particular –
(a) the age of Learners who may reasonably be expected to take the qualification,
(b) the level of the qualification,
(c) the objective of the qualification, and
(d) the knowledge, skills and understanding assessed for the qualification.

13. General Condition G3.4 requires:

G3.4 An awarding organisation must take all reasonable steps to ensure that no assessment for a qualification which it makes available contains language or Stimulus Materials which could lead a group of Learners who share a common attribute or circumstance to experience – because of that attribute or circumstance – an unreasonable disadvantage in the level of attainment that they are able to demonstrate in the assessment.

14. General Condition H1.1 requires:

H1.1 For each qualification which it makes available, an awarding organisation must have in place effective arrangements to ensure that, as far as possible, the criteria against which Learners’ performance will be differentiated are –
(a) understood by Assessors and accurately applied, and
(b) applied consistently by Assessors, regardless of the identity of the Assessor, Learner or Centre.

15. General Condition H5.1 requires:

H5.1 An awarding organisation must ensure that the result of each assessment taken by a Learner in relation to a qualification which the awarding organisation makes available reflects the level of attainment demonstrated by that Learner in the assessment.

16. General Condition H5.3 requires:

H5.3 Where an awarding organisation sets a rule as to the quantity or type of evidence generated by Learners which will be admissible in an assessment, it must ensure that –
(a) the assessment makes the rule clear, and
(b) the rule is applied to all Learners taking the assessment (other than where any Reasonable Adjustments or Special Consideration require it to be altered).

17. Qualification Level Condition GCE2.3 requires:

GCE2.3 - An awarding organisation must ensure that all assessments for a GCE Qualification which it makes available, or proposes to make available, are designed, set, delivered and marked in compliance with its assessment strategy for that qualification.

18. Qualification Level Condition GCE7.1 requires:

GCE7.1 - An awarding organisation must take all reasonable steps to ensure that all assessments for a GCE A level qualification which it makes available are at a consistent Level of Demand.

19. Qualification Level Condition GCE10.1 requires:

GCE10.1 - In respect of each GCE Qualification which it makes available, an awarding organisation must ensure that the arrangements which are in place in accordance with General Condition H1.1 provide that, in respect of an assessment other than an assessment marked by a Centre –
(a) all marking will be carried out by Assessors who have appropriate competence and who have no personal interest in the outcome of the marking,
(b) prior to carrying out any marking, each Assessor shall be provided with training,
(c) the awarding organisation shall monitor whether or not the criteria against which the Learners’ performance is differentiated are being understood and applied accurately and consistently by Assessors,
(d) where the awarding organisation learns, through its monitoring or otherwise, that an Assessor is failing to accurately or consistently apply those criteria, it shall take all reasonable steps to –
(i) correct, or where it cannot be corrected, mitigate as far as possible the effect of the failure, and
(ii) ensure that the failure does not recur,…

20. Subject Level Condition GCE (Modern Foreign Languages)1.1(a) requires:

GCE(Modern Foreign Languages)1.1
In respect of each GCE Qualification in a Modern Foreign Language which it makes available, or proposes to make available, an awarding organisation must –
(a) comply with the requirements relating to that qualification set out in the document published by the Secretary of State entitled ‘Modern foreign languages GCE AS and A level subject content’, document reference DFE-00694-2014,….

21. Subject Level Condition GCE (Modern Foreign Languages)1.2 requires:

GCE(Modern Foreign Languages)1.2
In respect of each GCE Qualification in a Modern Foreign Language which it makes available, or proposes to make available, an awarding organisation must comply with any requirements, and have regard to any guidance, relating to the objectives to be met by any assessment for that qualification which may be published by Ofqual and revised from time to time.

22. Subject Level Condition GCE (Modern Foreign Languages) 2.3 requires:

GCE(Modern Foreign Languages)2.3
An awarding organisation must ensure that in respect of each assessment for a GCE Qualification in a Modern Foreign Language which it makes available it complies with any requirements, and has regard to any guidance, which may be published by Ofqual and revised from time to time.

1. Qualification number 603/1044/3 ↩

2. General Condition J1.8 defines Level of Demand: The degree of challenge that an assessment presents for the Learner. ↩

3. General Condition J1.8 defines Learner: A person who is registered to take a qualification and to be assessed as part of that qualification. ↩

4. The turnover of an awarding organisation is determined in accordance with Regulations 3 and 4 of the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation (Determination of Turnover for Monetary Penalties) Order 2012/1768 (as in force from 6 July 2012). ↩