These are the CIPR Awarding Body Assessment and Awarding Regulations and Procedures for the CIPR Internal Communication Certificate and Diploma, the Public Affairs Diploma and the Crisis Communication Diploma. They cover:
1. Principles of CIPR assessment
2. Procedures - checking, authorising and releasing results
3. Information provided in results notifications
5. Enquiries, complaints and appeals procedures
6. Procedures - dealing with malpractice
9. Retention of candidates' work
APPENDIX 1: Assessments for students who have previously failed or been absent/deferred
APPENDIX 2: Deferral procedures
1. Principles of CIPR assessment
1.1 Candidates should note that the purpose of assessment is to enable them to demonstrate they have achieved the objectives of the programme of study at the standard required for the award they seek.
1.2 Candidates' performance must accord with the assessment requirements provided for the specific Unit of study. Examiners are required to use established methods to assess candidates fairly and consistently.
1.3 Candidates are advised that assessment involves judgement, not simply computation. Grades are not absolute values but indicators used to communicate examiners' judgement of different aspects of a candidate's work in relation to achievement of assessment objectives.
1.4 Within the constraints imposed by the assessment objectives and regulations, examiners have wide discretion in reaching decisions on the awards to be recommended for individual students. They are responsible for interpreting the assessment regulations for the programme in the light of the CIPR requirements and of good educational practice.
1.5 Assessments are subject to a robust evaluation process that includes steps to verify the quality and consistency of individual examiners. This includes particular emphasis on work submitted for assessment that is judged to marginally fail to reach the criteria for any particular grade award (pass, merit or distinction).
1.6. The CIPR issues guidelines to the centres in respect of selecting samples. When completed, a Centre's marking is then subject to the external moderation of the CIPR's Chief Examiner for the award in question, according to instructions set out and given to Centres, in the document called "Marking and Moderating Regime (Sampling by CIPR Examiners of Assignments marked by Centres) ".
| Back to top |
2. The procedures – checking, authorising and releases results
2.1 A Chief Examiner, appointed by the CIPR, is responsible for moderating the assessment process nationally prior to the submission of results for consideration by the Board of Examiners of the CIPR AB.
2.2 This Chief Examiner shall report on the results of all candidates for the particular assessment for which s(he) is responsible, to the Board of Examiners of the CIPR AB.
2.3 The Qualifications Dept of the CIPR AB simultaneously gathers all statistical data from the marked assessment submissions, and ensures that these are presented for the consideration of the Board of Examiners.
2.4 Assessment results are then subjected to the scrutiny and consideration of the CIPR Board of Examiners of the Awarding Body (AB). This Board meets three times a year and on each occasion, is responsible for authorising the release of the results of all assessments taken by students of CIPR qualifications. Both the moderation process and then the scrutiny of the Exam Board exist to ensure that justice is done to the individual student and that the standard of the CIPR awards is maintained.
2.5 This Board of Examiners has the authority to accept the recommendations presented by the Chief Examiner and the Qualifications Dept., and that the results of the assessment in question be released accordingly. Alternatively the Board may authorise such amendment to the results as it sees fit, prior to its authorisation that they be released.
2.6 Assessment results are released by the Qualifications Dept. only after they have been subject to a careful check to ensure that they are in accordance with the decisions of the Board of Examiners.
| Back to top |
3. Information provided in results notifications
3.1. The results provided to candidates in respect of their assessed work by the CIPR AB shall be by grade only. The grades will be as determined in the relevant assessment criteria for individual Units. The grades are:
· Fail
· Pass
· Merit
· Distinction
3.2 Each Unit will be awarded a grade. For full details of the workings of this for the units see Grading the units.
3.3 In order to achieve the overall qualification, candidates must pass all three units of the award for which they have studied. Candidates failing one or more unit will be allowed to reattempt the unit(s) in question.
3.4 Candidates achieving passes in all three units, and thereby achieving the overall award, will be eligible for that overall award to be granted with the appropriate grade. This overall grade will be established by applying the following formula:
·A pass will score 1 point
· A merit will score 2 points
· A distinction will score 3 points.
The total score will be divided by 3 to obtain an average, and the overall grade shall be that nearest the average. e.g. 2 merits and a distinction will be 2 + 2 + 3 = 7. Average is 2.3 = overall Merit
| Back to top |
4. How are results sent out?
Assessment results shall be sent to students by email by the CIPR AB within five working days of the meeting of the Board of Examiners that authorises their release. A formal results letter and certificate will be sent by first class post by the CIPR within two weeks following the relevant meeting of the Board of Examiners. Candidates should note it is their responsibility to inform the CIPR AB of any changes to address or other contact details.
| Back to top |
5. Enquiries, complaints and appeals procedures
5.1 Enquiries – Obtaining further information on results
Candidates should apply for further feedback on assessment of their work to their teaching centre.
5.2 Enquiries – Obtaining a re-mark
5.2.1 Grounds for candidates to seek a re-mark.
Candidates may request that their work is re-marked on the basis of a specific disagreement with the academic judgement of the examiners in assessing the merits of an individual piece of work or in reaching an assessment decision on the grade awarded.
5.2.2 Procedure for obtaining re-marks
5.2.2.1 Candidates should approach the CIPR AB directly. Any such application to the CIPR AB must be submitted in writing to the Qualifications Dept of the CIPR AB to arrive as soon as possible, but no later than three weeks after the assessment result has been published/released. Any such application must be accompanied by a fee of £50. The candidate's full student number must be stated. The Qualifications Dept will acknowledge receipt of such an application within one week.
5.2.2.2 The candidate's work will be re-marked by a Chief Examiner of the CIPR AB's choice, other than the Chief Examiner responsible for the initial marking of the assessment in issue. This Chief Examiner will assess the work on the basis of the original assessment criteria with reference to the candidate's detailed argument for disagreement and the assessment of the initial examiner(s).
5.2.2.3 The result of the re-mark will be despatched to the candidate as soon as possible and in any event no longer than six weeks after the CIPR AB's receipt of the application. Candidates are advised that such a re-mark may result in an increase or a decrease of their final grade. Should the re-mark result in the upgrading of the original grade to a higher grade, the application fee of £50 shall be refunded.
5.2.2.4 A record shall be kept of any such re-marks, - their number, the speed with which they were handled and their outcome – and reported on annually at the July meeting of the Board of Examiners.
In the case of a re-mark that shows the initial marking to have been unfair, the CIPR AB shall ensure that the Chief Examiner responsible for the re-marked submission, shall also reconsider the submission of other candidates from the same cohort. The Chief Examiner will bring this matter to the attention:
· of the next meeting of the Board of Examiners, or – if awaiting that meeting will unduly and unreasonably delay providing students with revised results -
· of the Chairman of Examiners, who will act with the Board of Examiners' delegated powers.
Revised results – as appropriate – will be despatched to the students in question within a week of the decision reached by the Board of Examiners or Chairman of Examiners.
The CIPR AB shall ensure that in such circumstances, candidates involved are kept fully informed until such time as the reviewed results are despatched.
5.2.2.5 Should the candidate be dissatisfied with the result of the re-mark s/he may have recourse to appeal to the Qualifications AB Committee as set down in paras 5.4.1 and 5.4.3 below.
5.3 Complaints
Where a candidate wishes to submit that any action of the CIPR AB, its servants or agents, has had an inappropriate or prejudicial influence upon his/her pursuit of a CIPR AB qualification, the following procedure shall apply.
5.3.1 The candidate must lodge his/her complaint with the CIPR AB Head of Qualifications within two weeks of the occasion of the subject of complaint. The complaint will be acknowledged within one week and recorded within the Qualifications Department.
5.3.2 Where such a complaint relates to the services provided by the candidate's teaching organisation, the candidate will be asked if he/she is content that the CIPR AB discloses the identity of the candidate in raising the matter with the teaching organisation. The wishes of candidates preferring that their identity is
NOT
disclosed will be respected, although such candidates should be aware that frequently teaching organisations will infer their identities.
5.3.3 In the case of a complaint as in 5.3.2 above, the complaint shall be referred to the teaching organisation for its comment. The teaching organisation will be told that its response is likely to be passed on to the candidate complaining. The response shall be expected within a maximum period of two weeks.
5.3.4 In the case of a complaint, as in 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 above, the response of the teaching organisation will be considered by the CIPR Head of Qualifications. The Head of Qualifications shall, as he deems appropriate, dismiss the complaint as unwarranted; require the teaching organisation to take immediate and appropriate action; or refer the matter to directly to the Exam Board (see 5.4.2)
5.3.5 Where a complaint relates to some act or omission committed by the CIPR AB itself, the Head of Qualification will undertake to provide a response, detailing any action to be taken, for the candidate within two weeks of the receipt of the original complaint.
5.4 Appeals Procedures – Against the results of re-marks or in respect of the outcome of other complaints.
5.4.1 In respect of the result of a re-mark.
Candidates shall have a right of appeal against the outcome of a re-mark. Any such application must be made within three weeks of the candidate's receipt of the result of the re-mark, and it must be made with full details supporting the candidate's grounds of appeal. A review on appeal will be granted only if the candidate can show reasonable evidence that supports their view that the re-mark does not reasonably reflect either the quality of the assessment submission in issue, or fails to take account of other factors previously disclosed to the CIPR AB. Any such appeal must be submitted to the CIPR's Head of Qualifications, who will send an acknowledgement of receipt of the appeal within two weeks. The Head of Qualifications shall refer the matter to the Exam Board. Should the Appellant reject the decision of the Committee the Appellant shall have recourse to the Independent Review procedure set out below in Section 5.4.3. There is no fee involved.
5.4.2 In respect of the outcome of other complaints submitted to the CIPR AB.
Where a candidate wishes to appeal against the results of the CIPR AB's treatment of a complaint, and considers that this has had an inappropriate or prejudicial influence upon his/her pursuit of a CIPR AB qualification, the following procedure shall apply. Any such appeal shall be made within three weeks of the act or omission in question, and submitted to the CIPR AB's Head of Qualifications, who shall acknowledge receipt within two weeks. The Head of Qualifications shall refer the matter to the Exam Board. Should theAppellant reject the decision of the Exam Board, the Appellant shall have recourse to the Independent Reviewprocedure set out below in Section 5.4.3. There is no fee involved.
5.4.3 Independent Review
5.4.3.1 Candidates have the right to appeal against any decision of the Exam Board taken under 5.4.1 or 5.4.2 above. Any such appeal for Independent Review shall be referred to the CIPR's Independent Adjudicator. The Independent Adjudicator is a Barrister retained by the CIPR to consider such appeals. The Independent Adjudicator is wholly independent from the Qualifications AB Committee and the Awarding Body. He acts alone but may in his absolute discretion appoint one or more assessors to advise him on any technical matter on which the Appeal may turn. The CIPR is responsible for the payment of the fees of the Independent Adjudicator and any assessor appointed by him.
5.4.3.2 The Independent Adjudicator acts at discretion in matters of procedure but the general framework for the convening and adjudication of Appeals will be as set out below. In all matters within his competence the decision of the Independent Adjudicator shall be final.
5.4.3.3 Full particulars of the Appeal (the Appeal Statement) and any supporting evidence shall be submitted to the CIPR AB's Head of Qualifications within three weeks of the decision at issue. Receipt of the Appeal will be acknowledged within two weeks of receipt and a copy sent to the Chairman of the Qualifications Committee for comment within a further two weeks. Any comments on the Appeal Statement made by the Chairman shall be submitted to the Head of Qualifications with a certificate that they have been copied to the Appellant by registered post. Any such comments submitted by the Chairman of the Exam Board on the Appeal Statement will be sent with the Appeal Statement (collectively referred to here as the Appeal Papers) to the Independent Adjudicator within one month of the acknowledgement of the Appeal. If the Independent Adjudicator requires further information from either of the parties or any independent source he will seek it within two weeks of his receipt of the Appeal Papers.
5.4.3.4 The Independent Adjudicator shall convene an oral hearing within six weeks of his receipt of the Appeal Papers having agreed a date and venue convenient to the parties. The Independent Adjudicator will inform the parties in writing of the procedure to be followed at the hearing.
5.4.3.5 The parties to an Appeal shall be entitled to have a friend present at the hearing. However, any such friend shall not be entitled to speak on behalf of the Appellant or the Chairman of the Exam Board.
5.4.3.6 In exceptional cases the Independent Adjudicator may permit the parties to be legally represented and or to introduce expert witnesses and in that event he will consider on their merits any applications for the reasonable costs of such representation.
5.4.3.7 The Independent Adjudicator shall send his award in writing to the parties within two weeks of the hearing.
5.4.3.8 The Independent Adjudicator may in exceptional cases consider applications for the costs of preparing an appeal but as a general rule such costs will not be awarded and Appellants will be informed of that rule when receipt of an Appeal is acknowledged.
5.4.3.9 The Independent Adjudicator is empowered in exceptional cases to award the Appellant compensation where he considers that the acts or omissions of the CIPR AB or any of its servants or agents have been unreasonable or unconscionable and such compensation shall not exceed £1,000. He shall certify such an award to the Chairman of the Exam Board.
5.4.3.2010 The Independent Adjudicator is also empowered to request the Chairman of the Qualifications Committee to take such action as he considers may be necessary to remedy a non-pecuniary injustice sustained by an Appellant, which he has recorded in an Award. He shall certify such an award to the Chairman of the Exam Board.
5.4.3.11 If the Chairman of the Exam Board fails to take the action requested under paragraphs 5.4.3.9 or 5.4.3.2010 within one month of the date of the Independent Adjudicator's certificate the Independent Adjudicator shall lay a report before the Head of the CIPR Awarding Body.
5.4.3.12 The Head of Qualifications shall maintain a record of any such appeal, its handling, the time taken for this, and outcome, and submit this information in a report to be provided annually and laid before the July meeting of the Qualifications Awarding Body Committee and (separately) the Head of the CIPR Awarding Body.
| Back to top |
6. Procedures - dealing with malpractice
6.1 Malpractice can arise in different ways. Examples of malpractice committed by students can include:
· Plagiarism or deliberate copying of another's work, passing it off as one's own.
· Using the services of somebody else to produce work submitted for assessment.
· Bringing undue pressure and influence to bear on assessors thereby compromising their impartiality.
6.2 Apart from unit 1.1 (Advanced Certificate), it is the CIPR's centres that will discover such malpractices in the first instance. It is the clear duty of CIPR centres to investigate all such cases and report their conclusions to the CIPR AB Qualifications Department by written communication, as soon as possible and not later that one week after the matter has come to the centre's attention. The CIPR AB Qualifications Department will acknowledge all such notifications within one week. It will bring the matter in question to the attention of the candidates involved and seek their response.
6.3 Should it come to the attention of the CIPR AB that a centre's staff is alleged guilty of an act of malpractice, an extreme example being its production of work to be assessed in the name of its candidate(s), the CIPR AB Qualifications Department shall inform the centre of its concerns to this effect and require its full response.
6.4 Once the Qualifications Department has been able to gather a full report on the alleged malpractice and obtained the response of those alleged to have committed the malpractice, this information shall be laid before the meeting of the Board of Examiners at which the assessment submission is to be considered in any event. That Sub Committee shall have the prerogative to:
1. dismiss the allegation as unsubstantiated; or
2. withhold the release of the result pending further investigation, or
3. declare the assessment submission(s) as null and void.
6.5 Should the Board of Examiners decide that the allegation of offence is well founded and take the action 3 listed above, copies of the evidence laid before the Sub Committee and a report on the grounds on which the Sub Committee adjudged the evidence, shall be made available to the candidate or centre (whichever party is adjudged to have committed the offence). It shall be the duty of the Head of Qualifications of the Awarding Body to ensure that this takes place and that copies of these papers be submitted to the regulatory authorities.
6.6 Candidates and Centres are advised that they will have a right of appeal against a decision to declare their scripts null and void. The appropriate appeal process is that described in full above – in Section 5.4. The Head of Qualifications shall ensure that the regulatory authorities are informed of any such proceedings and notified as to their outcome.
6.7 Judgement against a candidate
Should the judgement of malpractice against a candidate be upheld, the Qualifications Awarding Body Committee shall have in its discretion the power to:
· admonish a candidate, · withhold his/her certificate
· admonish and exclude the candidate from presenting for further assessments for a period of not less than three years
· admonish and exclude the candidate from presenting for further assessments indefinitely
A full report on such a matter pertaining to a candidate, who shall also be a member of the CIPR, shall be made to the CIPR Professional Practices Committee.
6.8 Judgement against a centre
Should the judgement of malpractice against a centre be upheld, the Qualifications Awarding Body Committee shall have in its discretion the power to:
· admonish a centre and require its declaration that it shall undertake that there shall be no recurrence of the malpractice
· withhold certificates from candidates in the affected cohort from that centre
· admonish and exclude the centre from providing courses for CIPR AB awards for a period of not less than three years
· admonish and exclude the centre from providing courses for CIPR AB awards indefinitely.
| Back to top |
7. CIPR requirements of teaching centres in respect of implementation of marking standards, and procedures for devolved assessments, including sanctions for non - compliance
7.1 As noted in 6.2 above, Centres are responsible for the assessment of all students' work, subject to CIPR external moderation, with the exception of Unit 1.1. Centres are provided with clear instructions on the level of standard to be applied to the marking of students' submissions; with guidance documents on how to carry out the assessment, and with instructions and mark sheets and feedback sheets to enable its consistent operation. In all of this, Centres are required to co-operate with the appointed CIPR Chief Examiner and the CIPR Qualifications Dept, submitting by designated dates, full information on the grades that the Centre has awarded to its students, so that the CIPR Chief Examiner may thereupon select a sample of the Centre's assessed student submissions, in accordance with CIPR sampling rules. The CIPR Chief Examiner shall scrutinise the submitted samples, reporting on his/her findings to both the Centre and the CIPR Board of Examiners. The Centre is required to implement any adjustment to its approach to assessing and in consequence the grades it has awarded, if so instructed by the Chief Examiner.
7.2 It is the duty and responsibility of each Centre's Course Leader to ensure that the assessment of students' submissions by the Centre, and the Centre's compliance with instructions from the CIPR Chief Examiners, are carried out in full, in accordance with CIPR instructions and rules, and according to the agreed timetable. Centres employ markers for the assessment of each submission; larger centres sometimes employ a number of markers for this purpose. The Centre's Internal Moderator (usually the Course Leader) must ensure that the Centre's various markers are marking consistently; he/she must investigate any substantial variance between the marks being given by his/her markers, discuss the matter with them and ensure that corrective action is taken immediately, and prior to the submission of full sets of marks to the CIPR Chief Examiner, who will make a selection to sample from that full set of marks.
7.3 A Centre that fails to follow the instructions, guidance and timetable for the assessment of students' submissions, or which negligently allows its assessors to mark at variance from each other - where no reasonable explanation may be adduced, and where the variance derives from the unco-ordinated personal approaches of the assessors, will be:
7.3.1) in the first instance, reported accordingly in the Chief Examiner's report for that Centre for the assessment in question. The Centre will be required to take immediate corrective action, prior to the submission of the results for confirmation, to the Board of Examiners.
7.3.2) should the Centre fail to take this action, the Board of Examiners shall take such action as it considers necessary to ensure the final results reflect parity of assessment and the application of the stated standard. In extreme cases, the Board may not be able to take such action, requiring either partial or total re-marking of the students' submissions, before final results may be issued.
7.4 A Centre that is the subject of action 7.3.1 above, will be admonished and required to give a firm undertaking that it will take steps to preclude a recurrence of the negligent action. An explanation of the action to be taken will be required from the Centre, and evidence submitted within a period of one month that that action has been carried out. A Centre which fails to do this, or a Centre that is the subject of action 7.3.2 above, shall be reported to the Board of Examiners. That Board shall have the power to withdraw CIPR AB accreditation from the Centre for a period of up to three years, or indefinitely as it sees fit. In taking any such action, the Board shall ensure that it protects the interests of the Centre's existing students. It will however, have the prerogative to delay the issue of final results to the Centre's students, if this is necessary to ensure their fairness.
| Back to top |
8. Reasonable Adjustments
8.1 Reasonable adjustments and special consideration
8.1.1 Policy
The CIPR AB aims to ensure that all candidates are treated fairly and consistently. Candidates with particular requirements should not be disadvantaged in any way when being assessed and demonstrating performance. The CIPR AB thus commits itself to compliance with criteria 14 to 20 of the CAEQ.
8.1.2 What are Reasonable Adjustments for?
The CIPR AB recognises that some candidates may find standard arrangements for assessment can cause unnecessary problems, and so prove to be unnecessary barriers. These can often be overcome without compromising the validity of the assessment. Such barriers can arise where candidates have:
(i) known and permanent or long term disabilities or learning difficulties, or
(ii) temporary disabilities or illnesses, or
(iii) temporary illness, injury, indisposition or comparable adverse circumstance at the time of assessment, that could influence performance to the candidates' detriment.
8.1.3 What are the Reasonable Adjustments?
Reasonable Adjustments are arrangements that are approved before an assessment so that a candidate can take part and perform to the best of their ability. Adjustments can be provided for reasons mentioned in 8.1.2 (i) and (ii) above. The CIPR AB deals with all applications for Reasonable Adjustments, and will authorise assessment centres to carry out Adjustments on its behalf. It is the responsibility of the candidate to ensure that any request for Reasonable Adjustments is based on firm evidence. Evidence may be produced from a variety of sources, including documents from medical practitioners and educational psychologists. If a candidate is in doubt over this, the CIPR AB's Qualifications Dept. should be contacted for advice.
8.1.4 Examples of Reasonable Adjustments
A candidate may develop a visual impairment and be unable to use a personal computer to complete a test in the time allowed. A Reasonable Adjustment in this case could involve the provision of tape recording facilities or the supply of an amanuensis. In extreme cases, candidates could be supplied with assessment exercises in Braille and produce their answers in Braille.
a) A candidate may have suffered an accident or illness, and be unable to travel to a place where they could use a personal computer.
b) A candidate may have suffered an accident or illness, and be unable to travel to a place where they could use a personal computer.
c) A Reasonable Adjustment could be the provision of a PC for the assessment.
d) A candidate may be diagnosed with a condition such as dyslexia. Depending on the severity of the condition, a Reasonable Adjustment could involve the provision of tape recording facilities or the supply of an amanuensis.
Note: In CIPR AB assessments the provision of additional time is of no value, and so this is not an Adjustment that is normally allowed.
Reasonable Adjustment arrangements are made with the objective of enabling candidates to take the assessment with neither advantage, nor disadvantage, in comparison with other students on the course.
8.1.5 When should a candidate make an application?
Candidates with a learning difficulty or with a permanent or long-term disability should apply in writing for a Reasonable Adjustment at least three weeks before the assessment. This will enable the CIPR AB to make appropriate arrangements with the centre. Please note, applications by e-mail cannot be accepted, as supporting documentation is required.
8.2 Absence from the assessment
Where a candidate chooses to defer submitting an assessment exercise for any reason, the candidate can submit for the next available session. An administration charge of £75 will be made per assessment. Candidates should be clear however, that this will require that they take the new assignment set for the next session in question. (See appendix 2 at the end of these Regulations). After that, no further opportunity to defer will be made available, except in very exceptional circumstances. (For full information on deferral regulations and procedures governing both assessment matters AND teaching/attendance on CIPR courses, please see appendix 2 - "CIPR Deferral Procedures" at the end of these Regulations.)
| Back to top |
9. Retention of candidates' work
9.1 All candidates' work assessed for a CIPR qualification will be kept for six months from the date of the Board of Examiners at which the results were ratified. The CIPR's Centres will be responsible for retaining students' assignments. Appeals involving any piece of student work will be considered at the following meeting of the full Exam Board, which will take place within the six-month period. Where an appeal against the decision of the Board is referred to the independent adjudication procedure provided by the CIPR AB, and extends beyond the six month period, the CIPR AB or the independent adjudicator will keep the piece of work in question for as long as necessary.
9.2 At the end of a six month period the CIPR and its Centres will dispose of the assessment material in their possession. It will not be made available or be recognisable for future use in any way, unless by the prior consent of its author.
| Back to top |
10. Certificates.
10.1 Students will be awarded certificates on successful completion of the award.
10.2 Students whose original certificate has been lost or destroyed, who consequently wish to obtain a replacement certificate, must apply in writing to the Qualifications Department, explaining that the original certificate has been lost or destroyed. There is a fee of £20 for producing and sending a replacement certificate. The new certificate issued will show clearly that it is a replacement, and its individual identifier shall reflect this. The issue of such a certificate will be recorded on the Awarding Body's database for this purpose.
| Back to top |
11. Monitoring and reporting
11.1 The CIPR Awarding Body is committed to analysing its own performance through reporting on all aspects of its work to its governing Committee, Board of Examiners and through them, to the Head of the Awarding Body. Prominent activities include detailed reviews of the syllabuses and the types and appropriateness of assessment exercises, and their administration. Such reports and information shall be available to the regulatory authorities as required.
11.2 Details of this monitoring and reporting in respect of particular activities are set out elsewhere in these regulations. Other arrangements are set out in the remits of the Board of Examiners and the Qualifications Awarding Body Committee, the Syllabus and Assessments Working Parties
11.3 It is the Awarding Body's undertaking that through this process of evaluation and reporting, it may be able to take whatever measures are necessary to update, augment or modify as appropriate its work in all respects.
| Back to top |
APPENDIX 1: Assessments for students who have previously failed
Students are entitled to reattempt any failed assessment exercise on TWO occasions only. After that, they shall be deemed to have failed the award.
| Back to top |
APPENDIX 2: Deferral procedures
This document clarifies the CIPR's deferral procedures.
There are two types of deferral – deferral of assessments and deferral of teaching/attendance. Both are dealt with separately below.
a) Deferral of teaching/attendance
Reasonable grounds must be provided for the deferral of teaching/attendance and these must be detailed on a deferral form available from the CIPR. The student must then submit the deferral form to their centre for approval and for the tutor's recommendations. The centre will then submit the form to the CIPR for formal approval. The form must be accompanied by 'evidence' where possible. Acceptable grounds and evidence required.
In the case of personal circumstances such as marriage breakup or bereavement, a detailed letter from the student will suffice.
If appropriate a doctor's letter detailing related medical conditions (e.g. stress or depression) should also be submitted. Such requests will be treated with the utmost confidentiality.
Requests for deferral on work grounds should be accompanied by a letter explaining the special circumstances that are contributing to an increased workload. A general on-going heavy work load will not normally be considered a valid reason. However having to cover for a long-absent colleague, a new role or company restructuring, for example, would be. In such cases a letter from the student's employer explaining the problem and how it has affected their workload will be required.
Entitlement to further teaching/attendance
Once a deferral has been approved by the CIPR the student and the centre will be notified accordingly. The onus is then on the student to liaise with their centre to discuss how to proceed. Generally speaking a centre will only allow a deferred student to attend those parts of the course which he/or she has missed. For example if a student attended the first semester, and then deferred, the centre would then only allow them to attend the second semester the following year. The exact amount of teaching a deferred student is entitled to is entirely at the discretion of the centre.
NB. Deferrals for longer than one academic year will only be considered under exceptional circumstances.
Charges
The CIPR does not make any charges for such teaching deferrals. However students should note that CIPR membership lasts for one year only. It continues to run regardless of whether or not a student defers. It is a requirement that students who defer continues their CIPR membership (which will be charged at the full rate) from the date at which their membership ceases until they complete the course.
Centres will however be free to make reasonable additional charges at their discretion. This could for example be to cover library access/student cards for a further year. This is something students should discuss with their centre.
b) Deferral of Assessments
Students may choose to defer the Internal Communications Certificate assignment for one submission date only. No grounds need to be given.
Procedure
Students will be required to complete the online deferral/re-registration form in the Study Centre on the CIPR website. A charge for deferral/re-registration of £75 per assessment is made and payment details are required to be completed on the form. The deadline for completing the deferral form is the last working day before the submission date for each assignment.
If a student requests a deferral an assessments they will then automatically be booked on the next available submission date for that assessment.
Students may only defer an assessment more than once in very exceptional circumstances. And in this case a special appeal, with evidence, will need to be made to the CIPR.
Charges
An administration charge of £75 will be made by the CIPR for deferral of each assessment.
In addition students are required to remain in membership of the CIPR until their final assessment has been successfully completed.
| Back to top |
Failure to submit an assessment
Any student who does not request a deferral by the deadline given and who then does not submit the assessment (or who submits work which, in the opinion of the examiners, does not constitute a serious attempt), will fail that assessment. In this case the student will be required to complete the Deferral/re-registration form (as above) to re-register for this assessment at the next available date. There will be a charge for re-registration of £75 and the mark for the assessment concerned will be capped at a Pass grade.
A user-friendly summary of the rules and procedures concerning deferring and re-taking assignments can be found in the Quick reference guide.
| Back to top |
Appendix 3: Plagiarism
Plagiarism is the use of another's thoughts and ideas, presenting them as if they were your own, using words identical or close to the original. This is not acceptable.
It is however standard academic practice to use a review of others' work to build an argument. Any such work that is used in this way, whether by direct quotation or paraphrasing, should be indicated by proper referencing and supported by a full bibliography. (see the instructions on the Harvard referencing system in the "Guide to Writing Assessments" section elsewhere in this Handbook.
If plagiarism is suspected, the tutor must first inform the Course Leader, who will in turn call a meeting with the student as soon as possible to investigate the matter. If the Course Leader feels that plagiarism has indeed occurred, the work will be marked as ungraded and the CIPR Qualifications Department informed. The CIPR Qualifications Department will bring the matter to the attention of the student(s) involved seeking their response. The CIPR shall have the power to take the action more fully set out in Section 6 above (see especially 6.8), although in any event, the student will be required to resubmit that element of assessment, and be restricted to only that ONE resubmission.
Centres should be aware that they may have students who work closely together for the same employer and that they may want to pursue topics for their personal projects that are largely similar. When negotiating these topics, and later when assessing students' submissions, centres need to pay particular attention to a natural tendency to collaborate over such project work, and that this must not be allowed to lead to the unfair advantage of one or more students in relation to the objectives of the assessment exercise. Centres are therefore encouraged to negotiate topics with individual students that obviate, so far as may be, such an eventuality.
| Back to top |
