The Elroi Academy Irregularity Policy (2026). It forms part of the Enrolment Terms. Read it together with our Code of Conduct.

1. Purpose

The purpose of this document is to provide policy guidelines on how irregularities should be dealt with in the Elroi Academy’s assessment policy, protocol, and procedures as a SACAI registered Distance Education Provider.

It details the appointment of the Elroi Academy’s Examination and Assessment Irregularity Committee (the CAIC), its jurisdiction, roles responsibilities and function.

The attached annexures detail the type of irregularities related to the conduct of the SBA mark as
well as the corrective measures and Sanctions that could be imposed by the CAIC or an impartial disciplinary committee.

2. GUIDELINES FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CENTRE ASSESSMENT IRREGULARITY COMMITTEE (CAIC)

2.1 APPOINTMENT

The CAIC is appointed by the head of Elroi Academy every five years.

The Committee consists of, at least…

• …the head of Elroi Academy (as appeal officer).
• …two members of the active teaching staff.
• …one administration staff.

2.2 DURATION

• The CAIC must be reconstituted every five years.
• All vacant posts must be filled in as soon as possible.

2.3 JURISDICTION

The CAIC will have jurisdiction in any reported alleged internal assessment irregularities relating to or occurring during the various stages of internal SBA processes, which includes:

• Compilation of SBA marks.
• Monitoring and moderation of SBA.
• Conditions under which educators conduct SBA
• Conditions under which learners are internally assessed.
• Capturing and processing of data in respect of the SBA.
• Setting and moderating of internal assessment of question papers
• Any other irregularity related to SBA.

2.4 ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES AND FUNCTIONS

The CAIC must:

INVESTIGATE

• Investigate all reported allegations of irregularities committed by educators in the internal assessment process.
• Investigate all reported allegations of irregularities committed by any other person involved in the internal assessment process.
• Investigate all reported allegations of irregularities committed by learners during the internal assessment process.
• Investigate any other reported allegations of internal assessment irregularity as and when requested by SACAI’s Examinations director or his or her nominee.
• Include reports on all internal assessment irregularities in Teacher files sent to SACAI for external moderation.

ADJUDICATE

Considering all the evidence, the CAIC will:

• Make an initial judgement on the allegations, based on the evidence provided.
• Decide on the appropriate corrective measures and sanctions according to the irregularity policy.

COMMUNICATE

• Communicate the assessment and irregularity policy to all staff members, invigilators and learners.
• Inform alleged persons and parents (in the case of minors) of the allegations.
• Clearly communicate to the involved parties, the protocol and procedures that comes into play when irregularities are being investigated and resolved
• Inform the parties involved of the alleged irregularity’s status and/or the decision(s) by the CAIC.
• Communicate to and /or inquire from SACAI in cases where additional guidance is necessary.

REPORT

• The CAIC must report all internal assessment irregularities and keep record of it in the related subject’s teacher files to be included in external moderation to SACAI.
• In cases where an irregularity requires an investigation, the initial reporting must be followed by a more detailed report on the current state or conclusion of the irregularity.
• Keep a detailed report of the alleged irregularities
• Keep a record of individual persons’ irregularities and verdicts.
• File reports appropriately.

3. COURSE OF ACTION FOR CAIC WHEN IRREGULARITIES OCCUR

3.1 ALLEGATION REPORTS

• When a teacher, moderator, Head of Department, Principal or any other responsible person identifies any irregularity that might compromise the fairness, validity or reliability of results, an irregularity allegation report is filled out.
• The allegation report is received by the CAIC.
• After the receiving the allegation report, an initial investigation is started

3.2 INITIAL INVESTIGATION AND DECISION TO PROCEED

• CAIC must decide whether the evidence is sufficient to accuse the alleged persons of the irregularity
• If sufficient evidence exists that the allegation of an irregularity could be true, all parties involved must be informed in writing within 7 working days of the alleged irregularity, the nature of the irregularity and the course of events to follow.

3.3 INVESTIGATION

• One or more Investigators are appointed that must consist of at least one person that is competent to investigate the allegations and evidence. It may be a member of the CAIC.
• Instructions are sent to all parties alleged to be involved or that may act as witnesses to the irregularity, to prepare written statements of the events and their involvement.
• The accused persons may request a copy of the original evidence report.
• All persons implicated in the alleged irregularity must prepare written statements about the allegations.
• Alleged offenders are requested to either confess to any wrongdoing or provide reasonable explanations for the evidence.
• If the alleged offender does not provide or confess a reasonable explanation for the evidence, the alleged offender will not be able to appeal the decision of the CAIC.
• The investigator(s) must present the evidence to the CAIC in a detailed formal report.

3.4 FIRST VERDICT

Since Elroi Academy is an online distance education provider with limited ability to do full investigations for each reported irregularity without overwhelming and delaying process, the intention with the first verdict is to deal with irregularities arising as soon as possible, by considering the most easily available and ready evidence and based on the integrity and experience of the CAIC members, make the quickest possible judgement. Here is the process described:

• The investigator(s) must assess the alleged offenders’ statements
• The investigator must present the evidence to the CAIC for consolidation.
• If the CAIC is
• sufficiently convinced by the evidence that an irregularity was committed, a guilty verdict must be rendered.
• not sufficiently convinced by the evidence for and against the allegation, a not-guilty verdict must be rendered.
• Sufficient evidence for a first verdict decision is given in Annexure C.
• In the case of a guilty verdict, the CAIC must deliberate on SANCTIONS and CORRECTIVE measures according to each individual incident.
• Sanctions and Corrective Measures must be in accordance with the Irregularity Policy Annexure B.
• Sanctions and Corrective measures must aim to sufficiently deter future violation as well as aim to correct the integrity of the results.
• The verdict, sanctions and corrective measures must be sent in a letter to the alleged offenders (and their parents, where applicable) via email. The head of the CAIC must receive a reply from the offender(s) / parents stating that they have received the outcome letter; non-replies must be followed-up.
• The investigator must inform the alleged offenders (and their parents, where applicable) of their right and opportunity to appeal the original guilty verdict should they wish to continue defending their innocence.

3.5 OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL

The opportunity to appeal is a chance for the alleged to demand a more thorough investigation. This means that the first decision is strongly opposed by the alleged persons (and/or their parents, where applicable), in order to ensure that more resources are allocated and evidence is considered to make the final decision.

• An appeal needs to be made within FIVE working days after receiving the guilty outcome letter.
• An appeal is submitted formally to the appeal committee, which consists of the Principal and Chairperson of the CAIC.
• An appeal will not be accepted if the alleged offender did not provide a written statement during the initial investigation.

4. APPEAL PROCESS

• The principal considers the evidence evaluated by the CAIC and allows further opportunity for the alleged person(s) seven days after the appeal was received, to submit more evidence to defend their innocence.
• Based on the evidence available, the principal will decide whether or not to approve the appeal and allow more time and resources to be spent on a full investigation.

4.1 FULL INVESTIGATION

• An independent investigator is appointed by the principal, who is competent to obtain evidence for the specific irregularity and has reasonable access to do the investigation.
• An independent adjudicator is appointed by the principal who is able to weigh the evidence in the matter free of bias. This person will serve as the chairperson for the Disciplinary Hearing.
• If the independent adjudicator is convinced that the evidence from the initial and full investigation is insufficient to prove the allegation, or demonstrates sufficiently that the alleged person is innocent, then the matter is concluded with a final verdict.
• If the independent adjudicator is convinced that the evidence from the initial and full investigation sufficiently demonstrates that the alleged person is guilty of an offence, then a Disciplinary Hearing will be scheduled.

4.2 DISCIPLINARY HEARING (IMPARTIAL CHAIRPERSON)

The purpose of a disciplinary hearing is for both parties, the CAIC and Alleged offender, to present their case and evidence to the Chairperson of the Disciplinary Hearing (the independent adjudicator).

• Both parties may present evidence and include witnesses to testify. Witnesses may include:
• Eye Witnesses
• Subject Specialists
• Character witnesses

4.3 FINAL VERDICT

The Chairperson will consider all the evidence and make a final decision based on the evidence and testimonies.

• If the alleged person is found to be innocent any prior decisions of the CAIC is nullified, including warning letters, suspensions and corrective measures applied.
• If the alleged person is found to be guilty based on the evidence, then all the CAIC decisions are ratified and additional or more severe consequences could be imposed by the Chairperson of the Disciplinary hearing under the council of the Principal, CAIC and possibly SACAI. This could include being held financially liable for additional expenses incurred for the cost of the further investigation and disciplinary hearing.

4.4 SACAI APPEAL

The alleged person has one more authority that may be appealed to in the event where the alleged person is not satisfied with the final decision of the Independent Disciplinary hearing.

In order to appeal to:

INVESTIGATING IRREGULARITIES

1. Initial Internal Evidence

2. Initial External Evidence

3. Alleged Person Testimonies

4. Witness Testimonies

DISCIPLINARY HEARING

5.1 PROCEDURES FOR THE HEARING

1. A hearing must be held is cases where:

• The evidence is not conclusive or convincing to the CAIC

• The alleged insists of his/her innocence

• legal counsel is involved by the any parties

2. Should the CAIC decide that a hearing must be held, such hearing must be held in terms of

the following procedure:

a) The hearings must be lawful, reasonable, timely and procedurally fair, and no rights of the individual should be infringed. The principle of openness and transparency of administrative action must be adhered to. The hearing must be presided over by a person that is not associated with the CAIC

b) Procedures for hearings vary according to circumstances and persons involved.

c) The following procedure must be followed in respect of written notifications:

i. A written notification must be submitted to the candidate involved in the alleged examination irregularity, or to the parent or guardian in the event of candidates being under the age of 18, as well to the Principal or Centre Manager of the institution.

ii. The written notification must be forwarded either by registered mail or be delivered to a particular individual who must acknowledge receipt of the notification.

iii. The written notification must state clearly that the absence of a reply will not delay the hearing in respect of the suspected examination irregularity.

d) Where a candidate, who is alleged to have committed an examination irregularity, or his or her parent or guardian or representative cannot be contacted, the Head of Elroi Academy or Centre Manager of the institution will be required to assist with contacting the candidate. If the Head of Elroi Academy or Centre Manager of the institution is unable to contact the candidate, he or she must accordingly inform the secretary of the PEIC in writing. The inability to make contact with the candidate concerned, or with his or her parent or guardian or representative, should not unnecessarily delay the processing of the irregularity.

e) All candidates suspected of an examination irregularity must be allowed the opportunity to respond to the invitation to attend a hearing regarding the alleged irregularity, within ten (10) working days of being notified of an irregularity investigation.

f) Candidates who do not wish to attend a hearing, have the option of making an admission of guilt in the form of a declaration, which must be forwarded to the secretary of the CAIC within ten (10) working days of being notified of an irregularity investigation.

g) In the event where a candidate is under 18 years of age, the candidate may be accompanied by his or her parent or guardian, the HOC (Head of Elroi Academy), or any other representative.

h) Should the candidate or his or her parent or guardian choose to make use of legal representation during the hearing, this will be allowed and the chairperson of the CAIC must be so informed at least three (3) working days prior to the scheduled hearing.

i) All hearings must be recorded and the recording must be kept until the matter has been finalised.

j) The findings of a hearing must be submitted to a full sitting of the CAIC, by the persons involved in the hearing process.

k) If the Head of a Centre is not satisfied with the CAIC report, and the dispute cannot be resolved, the Examinations director of the Assessment body must make a final decision.

l) Decisions and consequent recommendations by the CAIC, as approved by the Head of Elroi Academy or his or her representative, must be communicated, in writing, to the person, centre or learning institution under investigation, within thirty (30) working days of the completion of the hearing.

RATIFICATION OF SANCTIONS IMPOSED

All decisions taken by the CAIC, relating to irregularities in the above stages of the assessment process will be subject to final ratification by SACAI’s Irregularities Committee

CONCLUSION

The management of SBA irregularities is the responsibility of Elroi Academy Assessment Team.

The above systems have been put in place to ensure that Elroi Academy based assessment can be declared valid, fair and reliable by the SACAI as well as the external quality assurance body.

Annexure A

ASSESSMENT IRREGULARITIES THAT OCCUR DURING THE INTERNAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS

Examination/Assessment Irregularities must be categorised as follows:

1. ADMINISTRATIVE IRREGULARITIES

1.1. On the part of Learners

• A candidate who refuses to abide by any or all of the minimum requirements in respect of the compilation of a mark for internal assessment in a subject, with no valid reason. The CAIC must approve the validity of the reason presented.
• A learner writes the incorrect subject (especially with reference to Languages) / grade or question paper compromising the validity of the assessment.
• A learner will present to write an examination during the incorrect exam session, compromising the validity of the assessment.

1.2. On the part of Educators or Elroi Administration Staff

The assessment irregularities involving educators may include the following:

• The teacher wilfully and intentionally, without a valid reason, fails to satisfy the requirements or excludes one or more assessment tasks from the compilation of the final assessment marks.
• The incorrect subject / grade/ question paper is uploaded onto the Elroi portal resulting in learners writing an incorrect assessment or a sub-standard assessment.
• A test/ examination paper was made accessible to students (even if only a part of the group) prior to the assessment date.

2. BEHAVIOURAL OFFENCES

2.1. On the part of Learners

A candidate, who, in respect of a component of a mark for Internal Assessment that is completed under controlled conditions, does the following:

• Creates a disturbance, intimidates others, or behaves in an improper or unseemly manner despite a warning
• Is drunk or behaves in a disorderly manner
• Disregards the arrangements or reasonable instructions of the educator despite a warning; or
• Continues to disregard assessment regulations despite a warning

2.2. On the part of Educators or Examiners

The assessment irregularities involving educators may include the following:

• The teacher wilfully and intentionally, without a valid reason, fails to satisfy the requirements or excludes one or more assessment tasks from the compilation of the final assessment marks.
• Teachers or examiners not setting assessments according to the SACAI / CAPS assessment guidelines violates their professional responsibilities.
• Teachers or examiners that continue to set below standard or incorrect assessments NOT according to the SACAI / CAPS assessment guidelines.
• The teacher or examiner omits submitting future assessments for moderation, failing in their professional responsibilities.
• The teacher or examiner refuses to make changes to future assessments suggested by the moderator after various attempts. In cases like these, it is important to determine who is at fault – teacher/examiner or moderator.
• A teacher who does not complete teacher verifications for tasks and omits to check tests or exams on the Elroi portal two days prior to it being written.

3. ACTS OF DISHONESTY

3.1. On the part of Learners

A learner who presents work that is not his or her original work. This may take various forms and may include the following:

• Copying verbatim from another source. In this case, if the teacher is suspicious and has evidence that sections of or the complete assignment / project / test / examination has been lifted verbatim from another source or artificially (AI) generated.
• Two or more learners presenting work/answers/ calculations that are exactly the same.
• An assignment/project that is not his or her own effort. This may have been completed by another learner, his or her parent, or acquired from another source such as AI-generated.
• Reproduction of an assignment or project from another learner and there is evidence of such copying.
• Work that has been previously presented and for which credits were received, which could either be his or her own effort or that of another individual.
• The whole or part of a SBA file that is not his or her own but that of another learner from the same learning institution or from another centre/learning institution.
• A candidate who resorts to any dishonest act to mislead the educator in terms of the authenticity or originality of the SBA file presented.
• In cases where learners resorted to Artificial Intelligence for a task/essay/ any formal assessment, the teacher can report his/her suspicion based on the difference in writing or the level of intellect shown for the learner’s work presented throughout the year.
• When a learner’s answers are exactly the same / word-for-word as the teacher’s marking memo, with specific reference to essays, longer responses or special instructions for the teacher in the memorandum.

3.2. On the part of Educators

The assessment irregularities involving educators may include the following:

• The teacher alters, in other words, decreases or increases the marks of candidates without the approval of the Internal Moderator or head of the institution.
• The teacher wilfully provides assistance to a learner that advantages a learner unfairly in comparison to other learners.
• The teacher collaborates with a candidate who presents the whole or part of the SBA file that is not his or her own work.
• The teacher provides the answers / memo / part of the memo to learners prior to the assessment submission date.
• The teacher provides marks on the mark sheet for assessments that were not marked.

ANNEXURE B