Teaching Diploma Portfolio With Missing Consent
Mr Okafor is a candidate for an LCM Teaching Diploma. He submits a portfolio containing three students, two lesson videos, a scheme of work and reflective notes. Student A’s video is 18 minutes and shows a Grade 3 piano lesson. Student B’s video is 11 minutes and shows a beginner ukulele lesson taught over a video call. Student C’s parent refused consent to film, so Mr Okafor submits a 15-minute audio recording and a written case study instead. The syllabus requires video evidence of teaching across contrasting levels. One video shows only Mr Okafor’s face and the student’s hands; the other shows the student’s face but not the instrument. He asks whether to submit as it is or defer to the next session.
1. Identify the assessment and ethical issues in this portfolio and advise whether to submit or defer.
Read the worked answer
The ethical issue is consent. Student C’s parent has refused filming, and that refusal must be respected; Mr Okafor should not pressure the family or use covert footage. The assessment issue is that audio plus a written case study may not meet a requirement for video evidence of teaching across contrasting levels. Even if the board accepts audio in some circumstances, the candidate cannot assume it will, and the written case study is his account rather than direct evidence of his interaction with the student.
The two videos raise a separate evidential problem. One shows the teacher’s face and the student’s hands, which may evidence demonstration and feedback but not the student’s full response. The other shows the student’s face but not the instrument, so the examiner cannot see technique or hand position. Neither is necessarily invalid, but each leaves gaps. Given that the portfolio is already thin on contrasting video evidence, deferring is the safer judgement. Submitting as it is risks a failing judgement on evidence rather than on teaching ability.
2. What should Mr Okafor do about Student C, whose parent refuses consent?
Read the worked answer
He should thank the parent for considering the request and accept the refusal without negotiation or implied penalty. He should not film the child, even briefly, and should not ask the child to persuade the parent. If the board’s rules permit anonymised audio or a written case study as an alternative, he should check the current requirements and submit only what is allowed. If they do not, he should replace Student C with another consenting student at a contrasting level, or defer until he has suitable evidence.
The written case study can still be useful as supporting material if it is clearly labelled as his own reflection and not presented as video evidence. He should also check whether the parent’s refusal extends to audio; some families object to video but not to audio, and that conversation must be handled without pressure. The key judgement is that consent is not a bureaucratic obstacle to be worked around; it is a boundary that shapes what evidence can be collected.
3. How should the assessor judge the two videos that each omit either the teacher or the instrument?
Read the worked answer
The assessor should ask what each video actually evidences, not whether it looks professional. If the video showing the teacher’s face and the student’s hands captures instruction, modelling, feedback and the student’s response, it may support several criteria even without the student’s face. If the other shows the student’s face but not the instrument, it may evidence rapport and verbal feedback but not technique, posture or instrument handling. The assessor should credit what is visible and note what cannot be judged.
This is not an all-or-nothing decision. A portfolio can be weakened by evidential gaps without being automatically rejected. The assessor should apply the criteria, record which claims are supported and which are merely asserted, and consider whether the gaps are central to the diploma’s requirements. If the missing evidence goes to the core of teaching competence, the candidate should be advised to defer or resubmit rather than be failed on an ambiguity that could have been corrected.