Back

1. Policy Purpose & Proactive Governance

WingsWay Training Institute prioritizes proactive mitigation to prevent malpractice and maladministration from occurring in any academic or examination activity.

In accordance with CIPS (Chartered Institute of Procurement & Supply) standards and awarding body guidelines, this policy prioritizes practical, upfront operational controls that reduce opportunities for non-compliance, rather than relying solely on reactive disciplinary procedures after an incident has occurred.

2. Practical Preventative Measures & Compliance Controls

WingsWay enforces structured, operational controls across five key domains to systematically mitigate malpractice risks:

2.1 Induction & Mandatory Academic Integrity Training

  • Student Orientation: All enrolling candidates must complete an Academic Integrity orientation during induction, covering plagiarism, proper citation standards, allowable collaboration vs. unauthorized collusion, and unethical AI tool usage.
  • Staff Compliance Training: All teaching, administrative, and invigilation staff undergo mandatory annual compliance training on examination security, conflict of interest management, and awarding body regulations prior to conducting assessments.

2.2 Assessment Design & Rotation Safeguards

  • Dynamic Assessment Briefs: Faculty members must regularly refresh assignment briefs, rotate exam questions, and design tasks requiring original, context-specific responses to eliminate recycled solutions.
  • Automated Plagiarism Screening: All written coursework submissions must pass through automated anti-plagiarism detection software (e.g., Turnitin) prior to formal grading, setting strict original similarity thresholds.

2.3 Physical & Digital Examination Security

  • Secure Document Controls: All physical exam papers, answer scripts, and official certifying documentation are stored in secure, encrypted systems or lockable physical safes accessible only by authorized personnel, with strict access logs maintained.
  • Invigilation & Proctoring Protocols: In-person and remote examinations enforce strict physical room checks, active invigilator-to-candidate ratios, screen monitoring, clear-desk policies, and prohibition of unauthorized electronic devices.

2.4 Rigorous Identity Verification & Access Management

  • Pre-Exam Identity Checks: Multi-factor photo ID checks (government-issued ID or passport) are mandatory prior to seating any candidate for an examination or accepting formal coursework submissions to prevent impersonation.
  • System Access Restrictions: Role-based access restrictions prevent staff members from accessing exam materials or grading systems outside their immediate scope.

2.5 Continuous Monitoring & Pre-Emptive Audits

  • Unannounced Audits: Management conducts periodic, unannounced audits of teaching, assessment, and invigilation practices to ensure full adherence to CIPS and international regulatory standards before issues emerge.
  • Internal Verification Sampling: Internal verifiers review a random sample of marked assessments across all cohorts to detect grading anomalies, systemic errors, or unflagged similarity issues early.

3. Definition & Scope of Malpractice & Maladministration

‘Malpractice‘ is defined as any act, or failure to act, that threatens or compromises the integrity of the assessment process, the validity of qualifications, or certification integrity. ‘Maladministration‘ refers to operational or administrative lapses that compromise quality assurance controls.

4. Categorization & Examples of Malpractice

4.1 Student Malpractice Examples

  • Obtaining unauthorized exam materials or question papers prior to testing.
  • Arranging impersonation or sitting an assessment for another individual.
  • Unauthorized collaboration, collusion, or submitting unreferenced AI-generated content.
  • Plagiarism, forged documentation, or failure to comply with invigilator instructions.

4.2 Employee & Stakeholder Malpractice Examples

  • Assisting candidates beyond allowable limits or completing assignments for them.
  • Falsifying student assessment results, attendance records, or internal verification logs.
  • Failing to adhere to exam security undertakings, improper paper storage, or unvetted invigilation.
  • Deliberately failing to report suspected cases of student or staff malpractice.

5. Sanctions & Enforcement Framework

Where malpractice or maladministration is upheld following investigation, proportionate penalties are enforced:

  • Student Sanctions: Written warning, disqualification of submitted assessment, mandatory resubmission, or formal removal from the course and reporting to awarding bodies (e.g., CIPS) or employers.
  • Staff Sanctions: Formal written warning, special monitoring conditions, removal from teaching/invigilation duties, or employment termination and reporting to professional bodies.

6. Reporting, Investigation, & Escalation Procedure

  • 1. Timely Reporting: Suspected breaches must be reported to the Co-founder & Managing Partner within 2 working days.
  • 2. Formal Investigation: Reports are acknowledged within 5 working days; affected parties are contacted within 10 working days and given 15 working days to submit a written response.
  • 3. Appeals & External Escalation: Parties retain the right to appeal. Upheld cases are reported to CIPS, relevant awarding bodies, and legal authorities as required.