2. External Verification Report 2014/15
Food Manufacture
External Verification Report 2014/15

3. Verification
External Verification period 01 August 2014 to 31 July 2015.
Ten centre visits were undertaken. All centres were externally verified under the Quality Assurance Management System (QAMS).
Level 2
7 awards Old Pathways
12 awards New Pathways

4. Verification Level 3 4 Old Pathways 6 New Pathways
All awards were sampled at various stages of completion.
Two centres did not fully comply with some of the QAMS criteria (there were weaknesses identified for some of the criteria).

5. Approval & Development
Two Centre Approval Visits:
2 Awards at Level 2
1 Awards at Level 3
One Development visit.

6. QAV – Quality Approval Verification
All centres had the current sector Assessment Strategy.
Centres are aware of the Assessment Strategy requirements.
All Centres are aware of QAMS.
There is a significant increase in the uptake of Level 3 awards and Units, which is very encouraging.

7. Areas of Good Practice
Centres have developed high quality induction and learning resources, support material and guidance on malpractice for candidate induction.
Post-assessment feedback at some centres is very effective, which enables candidates to improve their performance and identify further development opportunities.

8. Good Practice
Centres are using a variety of training and learning resources, both paper and electronic material, that can be mapped to the VQ standards, adding value to centres training and development programmes.
Centres are using a diverse range of evidence and assessment methods as a result of the new pathways, for example photographic, video and voice recording.

9. Good Practice
Centres have assessors based in the same site as the candidates (in the workplace), this ensures they are competent in the food manufacturing area being assessed. Evidence to this effect was recorded in the assessors CPD documentation and Centre files.
Site checklists completed were of a high standard for sites where candidates are based.

10. Good Practice
There is an increase in the use of e-portfolios by Centres; electronic storage gives remote access for candidates, assessors and internal verifiers.
Centres provided external verifiers with remote access, allowing spontaneous sampling, prior to the external verifier visit.

11. Good Practice
Centres are to be commended for the investment in training and development.
Centres are commended for the increase in the number of candidates progressing after completion of Level 2 awards.

12. Good Practice
There is an increase in interest from Centres offering awards in Food Manufacturing Excellence Level 2 and Level 3, especially sites looking at Lean Manufacturing.
There was evidence of adequate CPD and standardisation meetings, however, centres should ensure that records of activities are detailed and relevant to Food Manufacture.

13. Areas for improvement
Candidates for Level 3 awards must be working at this level in a supervisory, or similar role, and have full support from their workplace.
For units at Level 3, observation of practice without supporting evidence is insufficient; candidates must be able to demonstrate they have a deeper knowledge and understanding.

14. Areas for improvement
At level 3, single word answers are insufficient; the assessor must ask probing questions, for example – to demonstrate that the candidate has an understanding of company policies, procedures and possible impact of legislation
For level 3 awards, Centres must ensure that assessors are fully competent in the food production area they are assessing. Competency should be included in CPD records.

15. QAMS
All centres were externally verified using QAMS. Some centre staff were not aware of the criteria to be met for QAMS. Where non-compliance was identified, this was resolved by the centre within the agreed timescale. All centres gave positive feedback on QAMS.

16. Visit Plan Part of Quality Audit Trail, copied to SQA.
Majority of centres met all requests on Visit Plan.
Visit plan issues - non availability of assessor, verifiers, candidates, portfolios requested. Please inform your External Verifier prior to the visit if a problem arises.

17. QAMS Green – Significant Strengths Amber - Insufficient Evidence
Red No Evidence
If Amber or Red, sanctions are applied by QAV team at SQA.

18. QAMS Examples of where Centres did not meet the criteria:
2.3 Documented evidence of CPD
Amber

19. QAMS
4.1 Assessment and verification procedures documented and implemented to meet qualification and SQA requirements.
Amber

20. QAMS 4.2 Assessments reliable, valid and fair. Amber
4.3 Candidate evidence accurately judged by assessors against SQA requirements.

21. Key Points
CPD records should be detailed, accurate, relevant for the awards and available for external verification visits and relevant external quality audits.
Centres should hold standardisation meetings for the awards. Centres should consider holding meetings mid and post completion of Units. Where possible, all assessors, internal verifiers and SQA Co-ordinators should attend these meetings.

22. Key points
The QAMS system and criteria should be discussed at the standardisation meetings.
Level 3 candidates would benefit from additional information before they start the awards.
Assessors should continue to provide candidates with constructive comments and feedback on their performance, along with suggestions on how they could enhance their performance.

23. Key points
Internal verifiers should continue to provide feedback to assessors on assessment decisions and support and guidance.
Centres should ensure that the candidates selected for Level 3 awards are working at this level and have full support from their workplace.
Assessment through observation of practice on it’s own is insufficient evidence of competency at Level 3.

24. Monitoring Standards
SQA Monitoring Standards over time activity for Food Manufacture was undertaken in 2015.
It compared candidate evidence from 2011 with evidence from 2014.
The standard of assessment evidence for 2014 was higher than evidence for 2011.

25. Monitoring Standards
The competence level of assessors was higher in 2014.
There was an increase in the number of candidates requiring a scribe for assessment

26. Changes 2015 - 2016 The criteria for QAMS have been reduced: Resources
Candidate Support
Internal Assessment and Verification
The overall risk rating is either High or Medium

27. Thank You
Overall, 2014/15 was a very positive year as a result of your efforts, well done!