1. 1. The Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation (“Ofqual”) gives notice that it intends to accept a Settlement Proposal from Pearson in terms that Pearson:

   1. a) admits the breaches set out in this Notice;
   2. b) agrees to pay the Monetary Penalty of £250,000;
   3. c) agrees to pay Ofqual’s reasonable legal costs in respect of this matter.

2. 2. This Notice relates to breaches of Pearson’s Conditions of Recognition which occurred in 2023. The occurrence of those breaches reflects failures by Pearson to identify, monitor and manage conflicts of interest, and to take all reasonable steps to secure the confidentiality of assessment materials.

3. On 1 April 2010, Ofqual recognised Pearson as an awarding organisation to deliver and award a broad range of General Qualifications as well as Vocational and Technical regulated qualifications.

4. Ofqual has set conditions in relation to the management of conflicts of interest under Condition A4 of the General Conditions of Recognition, and in relation to maintaining the confidentiality of assessment materials under Condition G4. Ofqual has published guidance in relation to those Conditions.

5. Ofqual has also published guidance pertaining to the particular circumstances where a teacher has access to confidential assessment materials by reason of their role in developing those materials on behalf of an Awarding Organisation as an assessor or subject expert.

6. Between 12 July and 6 October 2023, Pearson submitted 3 event notifications. Two of those event notifications related to Pearson’s failure to monitor, and act upon, conflicts of interest arising from the involvement of Senior Associates in both assessment content production and teaching. Specifically, there were 6 instances where Pearson failed to follow its own policies designed to ensure the confidentiality of live assessment materials, thereby creating a risk to the integrity of exams.

7. In the further event notification, Pearson reported a failure in its process to identify and record conflicts of interest. Specifically, 195 persons both worked for Pearson as examiners in summer 2023 and carried out tutoring in schools (under contract to Pearson) as part of the National Tutoring Programme. These individuals had not declared the tutoring activity in connection with their role as an examiner. No cross-reference or verification had been undertaken by Pearson which itself held all relevant information about the tutoring work undertaken by these examiners.

8. On 12 July 2023, Pearson submitted the first event notification referred to above, the circumstances of which raised concern in relation to the identification, monitoring and management of conflicts of interest as well as Pearson’s ability to ensure the confidentiality of assessment material.

9. The basis of this concern was that a teacher at one of Pearson’s centres was also a Senior Associate involved in the production of the final assessment for one of Pearson’s GCE papers.

10. Pearson confirmed its policy is that, for any components where one of the Senior Associates involved in content production is a teacher, multiple possible question papers are produced in parallel, so that the senior team do not know, with certainty, which of the potential papers will be used in a live examination session. The reason this policy is in place is because a conflict of interest arises in respect of those Senior Associates involved in both content production and teaching.

11. Pearson confirmed that it did not follow this process for this GCE paper.

12. A further event notification was submitted when Pearson identified a similar failing in that multiple versions of an exam paper in another qualification were also not produced for Summer 2023, despite the policy criterion being met.

13. Furthermore, while multiple versions were produced for exam papers in 4 further qualifications, Pearson confirmed that internal failures stemming from human error meant that the senior team could nonetheless have identified which version of the exam paper would be used in the live series, rendering this control ineffective.

14. On 29 August 2023, Pearson submitted an event notification related to examiners who it realised had not declared a potential conflict of interest for centres where they had also been contracted as tutors working for Pearson as part of the National Tutoring Programme (“NTP”).

15. The notification indicated that the event was discovered on 17 July 2023. The  issue was reported to Ofqual during a scheduled meeting on 21 July 2023.

16. The issue impacted assessments in the summer 2023 exam series.

17. The notification set out that Pearson sends regular newsletters to tutors, and conflict of interest reminders are included in these newsletters. It was confirmed that one of the tutors responded to confirm that they had not completed a conflict of interest notification for a centre they had tutored at. This then prompted a review of the wider tutor pool to identify any other cases.

18. It was explained that Pearson uses qualified teachers to provide their tutoring sessions for the NTP. In many cases the individuals involved may also work with Pearson in another capacity, such as having contracts to complete marking during the summer series. Pearson identified that it had 373 individuals contracted to it for tutoring, of whom 128 were also working as examiners.

19. Pearson’s requirement was that any individual accepting a contract to mark for it should declare any centre for which they have a personal interest, such as any school they are employed by. Pearson’s requirement was also that where a marker had tutored at a centre as part of the NTP, ahead of an exam series they were required to declare such centres. This was information that Pearson already held but it did not carry out any of its own checks, instead relying on the statements made by examiners. An appropriate declaration, or the checks Pearson could have done, would have prevented the examiner being allocated any candidate responses from that centre as part of their marking quota.

20. In total there were over 16,000 individuals working for Pearson as examiners during the summer 2023 series.

21. Upon reviewing which examiners had also worked as tutors Pearson identified that 195 examiners, who had also worked for Pearson as part of the NTP, had not made declarations for centres where they had both provided tutoring and had been allocated marking in 2023 or previous years.

22. Pearson further explained that it was satisfied it had identified all cases for summer 2023 where an examiner marked items or scripts for a subject for which they had also tutored students from a centre for that same subject.

23. Across GCSE, A level and BTEC, Pearson identified 7,244 candidate responses (from 6,119 unique scripts) originally marked by the 195 specific examiners. This included all candidate scripts from a centre with which a tutor worked, and included learners that the tutor did not directly engage with through the tutoring programme. Having identified the issue Pearson ensured each candidate response was marked again by a different examiner (with no connection to the centre) prior to results being released.

1. 24. In correspondence with Ofqual, Pearson has admitted that it failed to comply with its Conditions of Recognition as identified in this Notice of Intention.

2. 25. Specifically, Pearson has admitted the following breaches:

   1. i. Pearson did not monitor Conflicts of Interest, arising from the involvement of Senior Associates in both assessment content production and teaching, in respect of 6 examination papers for the following GCE and GCSE for qualifications in the Summer 2023 series:

   2. (a) GCE economics

   3. (b) GCSE music

   4. (c) Two GCSE combined science papers  

   5. (d) Two GCSE biology papers

   6. This is contrary to Condition A4.1 of the General Conditions of Recognition.

   7. ii. Pearson did not identify Conflicts of Interest, arising from examiners who were also contracted as tutors working for Pearson as part of the National Tutoring Programme, in respect of GCE, GCSE and BTEC examinations for the Summer 2023 series

   8. This is contrary to Condition A4.1 of the General Conditions of Recognition.

   9. iii. Pearson did not maintain an up-to-date record of all Conflicts of Interest arising from:

      1. (a) the involvement of Senior Associates in both assessment content production and teaching; and/or

      2. (b) examiners who were also contracted as tutors working for Pearson as part of the National Tutoring Programme in respect of the Summer 2023 examination series.

   10. This is contrary to Condition A4.2 of the General Conditions of Recognition

   11. iv. Pearson did not take all reasonable steps to ensure confidentiality in respect of 6 specific exam papers for the following GCE and GCSE qualifications for the Summer 2023 series:

       1. (a) GCE economics

       2. (b) GCSE music

       3. (c) Two GCSE combined science papers  

       4. (d) Two GCSE biology papers

   12. This is contrary to Condition A4.1 of the General Conditions of Recognition.

   13. v. Pearson did not take all reasonable steps to ensure that no Conflict of Interests, arising from the involvement of Senior Associates in both assessment content production and teaching, had an adverse effect in respect of 6 examiner papers for the following qualifications for the Summer 2023 series:

       1. (a) GCE economics

       2. (b) GCSE music

       3. (c) Two GCSE combined science papers  

       4. (d) Two GCSE biology papers

   14. This is contrary to Condition A4.3 of the General Conditions of Recognition.

1. 26. On 25 October 2024, 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 £250,000 in settlement of those breaches,

   3. c. Agreed to pay Ofqual’s reasonable legal costs in relation to this matter.

27. On 28 October 2024, Ofqual’s Enforcement Panel considered the evidence relating to the breaches set out above, alongside the admissions made by Pearson. The Enforcement Panel determined that Pearson has breached its Conditions of Recognition as per the allegations set out at paragraph 25 above.

28. The Enforcement Panel has considered the settlement proposal presented by Pearson. In determining whether or not a Monetary Penalty is an appropriate regulatory outcome in this case and if so what amount would be proportionate to impose, the Enforcement Panel has had regard to Ofqual’s Taking Regulatory Action policy (2012).

29. The Enforcement Panel notes the aggravating and mitigating factors set out below.

30. The failure to monitor or manage conflicts of interest arising from the involvement of Senior Associates in both assessment content production and teaching, led to a breach of confidentiality requirements. Pearson had all of the information it needed to put in place relevant safeguards arising from the involvement of associates in content production and teaching, supported by extant policies and processes which it did not adhere to.

31. In relation to examiners who also acted as tutors, Pearson’s over-reliance on associates’ own accurate declarations of conflicts of interest could have been negated by using the information it already held. Where examiners had also tutored for Pearson, the details of which centres they were allocated for tutoring (by Pearson) were also held but not used to identify conflicts of interest, which in turn informed marking allocations. Preventable risks arose where Pearson did not adhere to its own processes and policies, even where it had the necessary information it needed to do so.

32. While the differing contexts of the incidents concerning conflicts is acknowledged, they exemplify inadequate controls in preventing associates seeing materials which, according to Pearson’s own policy, they should not see.

33. Ofqual has on 3 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 later fines were imposed in November 2022 in the sum of £1,200,000 and £150,000 respectively. The first of these related to Pearson’s failings in its review of marking arrangements between 2016 and 2019. The second related to Pearson’s issuing of incorrect certificates in 2017 and 2018.

34. The breaches of Ofqual’s General Conditions of Recognition, as set out in this Notice of Intention, were identified following Pearson’s notifications to Ofqual through the event notification process. Pearson has engaged and co-operated fully with Ofqual both during the handling of these notifications, as well as the enforcement process.

35. Pearson accepted the breaches at the first opportunity, expressing recognition of, and regret for, the non-compliance.

36. Pearson did not benefit in any material way from any of the activities that were not carried out in accordance with Ofqual’s Conditions of Recognition.

37. While these incidents of non-compliance demonstrate processes not being followed, there is no evidence of any adverse effect on learners or centres.

38. These events took place following a period of unprecedented disruption due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

39. In respect of maintaining the confidentiality of live question papers, Pearson has processes in place that should make sure that multiple papers are in production where one of the senior examiners with sight of the paper is also teaching. This is to ensure that senior examiners do not know which paper will be used in any particular series. The failure always to follow that process in relation to summer 2023 was as a result of human error.

40. By way of context, the affected papers were all commissioned in early 2022, as staff were returning to a more normal way of working, after the exceptional arrangements put in place when exams were cancelled. Many staff were new and so a return to business-as-usual processes meant staff needed to learn new processes. As a result, some staff were not sufficiently familiar with the need to check conflicts across the whole senior examining team, and to review those conflicts when roles changed.

41. Pearson acknowledges that this created an unacceptable level of risk to the confidentiality and integrity of live papers. Pearson further acknowledges the inherent tension between, on the one hand, not allowing teachers to write live papers, and on the other hand, managing the risk of teachers having knowledge of the questions that will appear in any exam series.

42. Pearson has since put in place additional training for staff, and has revised its process, so that any proposed changes to the senior associates involved in question paper production will trigger additional checks for potential conflicts before any contracts are issued or changes implemented. Pearson now checks potential conflicts with associates more regularly and any change in teaching status triggers additional checks.

1. 43. Pearson believes that the risk of a conflict situation arising in practice was low, in this scenario, for the following reasons:

   1. a) The greatest risk to standards arising from the conflict, which the  disclosures aim to prevent, is where an examiner is marking an item that they are aware has been written by one of their students.

   2. b) Over 90% of Pearson’s marking is completely anonymous and carried out on an item basis, so examiners do not know the centre or candidate details for responses they are marking.

   3. c) The nature of the tutoring programme is markedly different to a conventional student/teacher relationship. For example, students typically spend far less time with a tutor than a subject teacher meaning that the likelihood of a tutor being sufficiently familiar with a student’s handwriting to recognise it in a marking context is greatly reduced.

   4. d) The risk of recognition is also reduced when marking subjects like maths and science which include a substantial proportion of low-tariff items and less frequently require text-based responses. Of the 195 tutors identified in 2023, most (174, or 89%) were marking maths or science.

2. 44. In 2023, Pearson re-marked all affected responses before results were issued. It also took action to prevent recurrence. In summer 2024, Pearson used the data it had from the NTP to record conflicts for any of its tutors who are also associates. Pearson no longer offers a tutoring programme.

3. 45. Pearson had regularly reminded tutors of the need to declare conflicts and the correct process to follow through its Tutor Newsletters. The requirement to declare conflicts was confirmed to be an ongoing requirement on those accepting contracts with Pearson. Tutors represent a relatively small proportion of Pearson’s examining population. However, Pearson takes the approach that lessons learned can be applied to all. Pearson now require all examiners to make a declaration each series they are contracted for, either that they have no potential conflicts or to provide the centre details. If they do not, then their contracts are withdrawn.

4. 46. In summer 2024, there were 194 associates (out of a pool of around 16,000) who did not submit a return, despite repeated reminders, and their contracts were withdrawn.

47. In response to the incidents and issues which it has experienced, Pearson has, and continues to, invest significant resource - both money and staff time - to improve IT and to automate its processes wherever possible to improve controls and reduce risk.

48. Pearson has provided an Undertaking to Ofqual agreeing to submit its conflict of interest processes, relevant IT systems and procedures to an audit to test compliance, the results of which will be shared with Ofqual.

1. 49. 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. Pearson’s relative size and turnover as an awarding organisation;

   5. e. the admissions made by Pearson, its engagement with the enforcement process and its proposals for the settlement of this action.

1. 50. Taking all of the above into account, the Enforcement Panel has decided that it intends to accept a settlement proposal from Pearson in terms that Pearson:

   1. a) admits all the breaches set out in this Notice;

   2. b) agrees to pay the Monetary Penalty of £250,000;

   3. c) agrees to pay Ofqual’s reasonable legal costs in respect of this matter.

2. 51. The figure of £250,000 reflects the fact that a settlement proposal has been put forward by Pearson.

3. 52. The Enforcement Panel is satisfied, in accordance with section 151B of the 2009 Act, that a Monetary Penalty in the sum of £250,000 would not exceed 10% of Pearson’s total annual turnover.

4. 53. Accordingly, Ofqual gives notice that it intends to impose on Pearson a Monetary Penalty in the sum of £250,000.

54. Pearson has confirmed that it will not make representations in respect of Ofqual’s intention to impose a Monetary Penalty, as part of its settlement proposal.

55. Interested parties may make representations in respect of Ofqual’s proposal to accept a settlement proposal from Pearson and impose a monetary penalty in the sum of £250,000. Any such representations must be sent by email to EnforcementCommittee@ofqual.gov.uk and must be received before 4pm on 14 February 2025.

56. The Enforcement Panel will consider this case again on or after 17 February 2025.

57. The Enforcement Panel will consider any representations made as specified in this Notice and will decide whether to accept a settlement proposal from Pearson in the terms proposed or whether any other order should be made.