A2 Ict Coursework Examples Of Resignation
hi,. im currently doing an a2 ict coursework(AQA),. and im stucked at idntifying constraints imposed by the organisation.
i was asked by my client to create an electronic employment form(application form),.
btw my client is a manager in a store where they sell ink cartrdiges for fax,printers etc,..
im clueless on what to write so if anyone has an idea can u pls share it im really desperate, deadline is 4days from now,..
I taught this last year. This is the advice I gave my students. Hope this gives you some ideas.
2.1.2 Internal Constraints
In this section you need to set out any internal constraints.
An internal constraint is something that can limit your ability to complete the project, but is something that you may have some control over.
o Do you have particular software or hardware that you have to use and why? Perhaps the organisation has already licensed certain software and don’t want to buy other software or perhaps all their staff is already skilled in the software they specified.
o Do you have a budget to work to? There may be only a limited amount of money to complete the work.
o Do you have particular timescales in which to complete the work? For example, a till system would have to be complete by the date the shop opened.
o Staff may have skills in particular software so you have to use that software to produce the solution.
o You only have a certain number of staff available to you to complete the work.
o Are there any particular procedures or ways of doing things within the organisation that you have to comply with?
o Do you have any existing legacy systems that you have to integrate with?
2.1.3 External Constraints
In this section you need to set out any external constraints.
An external constraint is something that is outside of the business and that you may have no control over.
o Your work may be required to be compliant with acts of law such as the Data Protection Act, Copyright and Patents Act and Disability Discrimination Act. You could explain what parts of your system need to comply with these laws and in what way.
o You may have to wait for delivery/installation of something at some point in your plan. If that is delayed the project will be delayed. E.g. in a building project, the installation of the roof would be critical as inside work could not start until this is completed.
o Are there any external systems that you need to exchange data with in a particular format?
Things to consider for both internal and external constraints are:
o Communication technologies
o The format of information requirements
o Environmental factors
now i have something to start with ,..thanks very much sir,. it helped a lot,...
Jan Davidson (not her real name) was shocked when, in 2013, she discovered that teachers in her school had been falsely passing students’ coursework that didn’t deserve it. She thought long and hard before finally making a complaint to Edexcel, the exam board responsible for the qualification. But now, having risked her job to do the right thing and report it, she feels angry with the regulatory authorities because of the total secrecy around the outcomes.
“It’s appalling,” she says. “Everything is swept under the carpet. Serious irregularities were found and yet nothing is made public, so individuals can be free to continue what they have been doing, and the school can basically carry on as if nothing has happened. It’s shocking – and unacceptable.”
Davidson was on the staff at an academy in the south of England when she reported that students had been given passes for an entirely coursework-based qualification when the work did not merit it. The school was then investigated for malpractice by the Edexcel board.
Schools across England are under pressure to improve exam results, and if their results slide they face being failed by Ofsted, or taken over by academy chains. Heads have been knighted when their school’s grades soar. If they drop, however, the likelihood is the headteacher may “disappear”.
Davidson believes this scenario places great temptation on institutions to bend the rules. Schools have been caught out telling students what to write in their coursework and even falsifying the results data handed to the boards.
Statistics published in December by the exams regulator, Ofqual, show a 61% rise in the number of schools and colleges found guilty of malpractice last year, with 217 penalty notices issued, one for every 30 schools or colleges in the UK. Yet none has been named, as exam board rules say the details must be kept confidential.
Davidson says she, like many whistleblowers, went through great stress to raise her concerns with the exam board. But the outcome of the investigation has been kept secret and Davidson has not even been officially informed about the result. “I had done this whistleblowing, which is a very dangerous thing to do, and I was never even told officially whether the board agreed with what I was telling them or not.”
Eventually, she found out via an insider at the board that several members of staff had been “sanctioned” after being found guilty of malpractice. Some staff members were allowed to resign by the school and move on; the most junior was sacked for gross misconduct, Davidson found out via her source.
But the school’s name has not been revealed. In fact, Education Guardian has learned, the names of schools or colleges found guilty of systematic malpractice in exams are not routinely released by either the boards that investigate them or by the regulator, Ofqual.
Last March, this newspaper submitted a freedom of information request to Ofqual asking for correspondence provided by whistleblowers in relation to exam malpractice in the previous two years, including the names of schools and colleges involved. The regulator provided a list, with brief outline details of each case, without naming schools or colleges – even those found guilty. Ofqual says that would have risked identifying whistleblowers.
Ofqual has now given us confirmation of the outcome in one case following a further freedom of information request. This asked for the outcomes of two cases in which the media had already reported that a malpractice investigation had opened.
Ofqual told us that, in the case of Ravens Wood school, an academy in Bromley, south London, an investigation by Edexcel into grades awarded to 131 pupils on a BTec ICT qualification in 2013 found that the standard of work did not match the grade awarded by teachers. Edexcel’s malpractice committee had therefore penalised individuals and the school itself.
Four members of staff had received sanctions – though details of the penalties and individuals’ names were not disclosed – and Ravens Wood was barred from entering students for BTec ICT for a year and asked to put together an action plan setting out how it would avoid a recurrence of this malpractice.
The Ravens Wood Learning Trust, which runs Ravens Wood, says in a statement: “The school took extremely seriously Edexcel’s conclusions. The four individuals sanctioned … are no longer employed at Ravens Wood. This incident has now been resolved.”
In its report on qualifications delivery, Ofqual stated that it “closely monitored” exam boards’ handling of allegations of malpractice. However, Ofqual does not require the boards to report investigations into school-level malpractice to it.
We asked Ofqual for the outcome of another case already reported, an investigation into Harris academy Beckenham,in south London. In July 2013, the Guardian reported that Harris Beckenham was being investigated for alleged mishandling of coursework marked within the school. Following that report, Edexcel stated: “We have found no evidence to substantiate claims of malpractice. We are now working closely with the Harris Federation to improve aspects of their assessment practice”.
But Ofqual says it does not have the result of that inquiry, and has only one email on the entire case on its system.
Edexcel points out that guidance from the Joint Council for Qualifications – the umbrella body for exam boards – states such information should be confidential. There is also no requirement on schools to pass information about a staff member found guilty of exam malpractice to the National College for Teaching and Leadership, the government body that regulates teacher conduct.
Francesca West, policy director for the whistleblowing charity Public Concern at Work, says: “The incentives for schools to push the boundaries to raise results seem very strong, and yet the disincentives, in terms of penalties and publicity, seem weak.
“A regulation system that allows the boards basically to investigate themselves, and a regulator that does not necessarily look into these investigations, with no systematic way of publicising the results, seems to fail to send a message to future whistleblowers that these issues are taken seriously.
“This can penalise schools that have acted properly and then find themselves competing, through league tables, against others that may not have.”
Anastasia de Waal, director of family and education at the thinktank Civitas, who has written extensively on methods used by schools to raise results, says: “This seems to indicate that where serious problems are uncovered, the desire to do something about it, and to report that publicly, is very weak.
“If you were fiddling results in, say, the NHS or financial services, it would be dealt with very seriously, and there would be public repercussions. There would not be any possibility that someone could move on and start again.
“This seems to be a system which is only interested in schools getting high results; it is not interested in reporting publicly on methods used to achieve them.”
She adds: “On the part of the exam boards, there is a systemic problem that they are in a market, competing with each other. I don’t know that there is necessarily the will among them to take serious action that could prove unpopular with their customers, the schools concerned.”
Mark Deacon, principal lecturer in school education at the University of Roehampton, west London, who is researching school improvement, says: “If these investigation conclusions aren’t being published, parents are, in effect, being given incomplete information on schools.
“They are being given league-table data, but not information on how a school might have improved its results illegitimately. How can that be right? Parents are not being given the full picture.”
But an Ofqual spokesman says: “Malpractice is a serious issue for us. However, naming and shaming might inadvertently lead to less reporting of malpractice and damage students who have been legitimately awarded qualifications within a named school. The experience of other sectors, such as the NHS, is that naming and shaming has not always led to improvements.
“We fully support transparency. We do, whenever possible, provide information to those who whistleblow to us (and who give their details) so they know the outcome of any investigation we or the boards carry out. There are sometimes legal restrictions on what we are able to share.
“Some think we are not as transparent as we could be. But the exam system is complex and we do not regulate all aspects. We regulate 170 [exam board] organisations, not every individual event. But we do require all allegations to be considered by the relevant exam board.”
A Department for Education spokesman says that the DfE can bar staff from teaching if it receives information that they have been involved in serious exam maladministration, but does not provide any further information on whether exam boards or Ofqual are required to pass on information.