About the Agency
The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education was established in 1997 to provide an integrated quality assurance service for higher education institutions throughout the UK.
The Agency brings together the functions of the former Higher Education Quality Council and the quality assessment functions of the English and Welsh higher education funding councils.
The Agency is an independent body funded by subscriptions from universities and colleges of higher education, and through contracts with the English and Welsh funding councils. Discussions are continuing with the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council, Department of Education Northern Ireland, and the NHS Executive, with a view to these bodies contracting with the Agency in the future.
The Agency's main business is to review the performance of universities and colleges of higher education. It does this by visiting institutions to audit their overall academic management, including arrangements for collaboration with overseas partners; and to assess the quality and standards of teaching and learning at subject level.
These activities result in reports that are available to the public.
The Agency advises government on the grant of degree awarding powers and university title, and works with universities and colleges to support continuous improvement in quality and standards. It also operates mechanisms for recognition of Access to Higher Education courses.
Following an open consultation with the higher education sector and other stakeholders, the Agency is now piloting a new system for quality assurance in partnership with UK higher education institutions.
The Agency's mission
The Agency's mission is to promote public confidence that quality of provision and standards of awards in higher education are being safeguarded and enhanced. It will do this by:
- working with higher education institutions to promote and support continuous improvement in the quality and standards of provision;
- providing clear and accurate information to students, employers and others about the quality and standards of higher education provision;
- working with higher education institutions to develop and manage the qualifications framework;
- advising on the grant of degree awarding powers and university title;
- facilitating the development of benchmark information to guide subject standards;
promulgating codes of practice and examples of good practice;
operating programmes of review of performance at institutional and programme levels.
Chairman's introduction
The first 18 months of the Agency's existence have seen the creation of a unified organisation, combining the strengths of its inheritance from both the Higher Education Quality Council and the quality divisions of the English and Welsh funding councils with the new thinking deriving from the Joint Planning Group for Quality Assurance in Higher Education in 1996 and the influential Dearing and Garrick reports in 1997.
In the light of the major consultation exercise undertaken by the Agency in 1998, I am pleased that the proposals which emerged, outlining the potential shape of a new quality assurance model for higher education throughout the UK, have received the support in principle of the representative bodies and the funding councils.
The task now is to take forward the various elements of this model, including subject benchmarking, codes of practice and the role of academic reviewers, and to produce a coherent system which is workable and effective, which focuses on the maintenance of standards with an element of enhancement, and which shifts the emphasis from the processes to the outcomes; doing so in a manner which is least bureaucratic and which respects the principles of peer review and institutional autonomy.
None of the Agency's achievements to date would have been possible without the help and advice of a very large number of people. I want to thank all members of the QAA Board, who have given most generously of their time; the Chief Executive and all the Agency staff, who have worked extremely hard to get us up and running; and most warmly, I wish to thank all those throughout the sector and well beyond who have been critical friends.
Christopher Kenyon
Chairman of the Board
Chief Executive's foreword
The transition of higher education from elite and exclusive to mass and inclusive provision has transformed its relationship with the society that it serves. There are new stakeholders with expectations to be met and information needs to be satisfied: families whose children are the first generation to go to university, employers recruiting in the graduate labour market for the first time, and mature students looking to higher education to equip them with the skills to cope with uncertain and rapidly changing job prospects.
Higher education consumes a substantial share of national resource. Those who make that investment, whether Government on behalf of the taxpayer or individuals paying their own fees, are entitled to expect value for money and an opportunity worth having.
Higher education is of immense economic significance both nationally and internationally. Its reputation, particularly in competitive global markets, depends solely on outstanding quality.
It was against this background that the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education was established. Our task is to provide public assurance that the quality and standards of UK higher education are being maintained and enhanced. The challenge we face is to provide assurance that learning opportunities are of good quality and that standards are being met, without subjecting institutions to a burden of scrutiny that diverts disproportionate resource from teaching and learning.
In its first year the Agency has reviewed 20 institutions in the UK plus a range of overseas partnerships, and assessed 294 programmes covering 16 subject areas. The reports paint a picture of a higher education system that is, overall, in good health.
We have found much to commend, and many examples of robust and rigorous systems for assuring quality and maintaining standards. Where criticism is justified we do not hesitate to make it, but only a small number of our reports have been adverse. In general, institutions find that our academic audits and subject reviews help them to focus on the strengths and weaknesses in their provision, thereby enhancing quality.
Very few programmes fail to meet the minimum standard for quality to be approved. However, in the last year seven programmes were found to have substantial room for improvement in half or more of the aspects of provision reviewed. Worryingly, six of these related to higher education programmes offered in further education colleges. Whilst only 29 such programmes were reviewed, for one fifth of them to have achieved such low ratings must be of particular concern at a time when the government is looking to the further education sector to provide some growth in higher education provision.
For the future, institutions of any type offering such weak programmes will be required to produce improvement plans for them, and these will be monitored by the Agency.
The most encouraging aspect of the Agency's inheritance from its predecessor bodies is the recognition of the importance of teaching and learning. There can be no doubt that subject review and academic audit have effectively raised the importance of the dissemination of knowledge, placing it on a par with the creation of knowledge through research. But funding mechanisms still place an emphasis on research that, if not corrected, can distort priorities. In many fields, the design and delivery of curriculum and assessment presents as much of an intellectual challenge as mainstream research, particularly as higher education meets wider needs.
A major task for the Agency has been to develop and trial a new and integrated model for assuring quality in the future. We have consulted extensively on proposals that are designed to work with the quality assurance systems of institutions to generate information that stakeholders will find useful and usable. We have sought to build on the strengths of the subject review and academic audit procedures we inherited from our predecessor bodies. Our proposals recognise the interdependence of quality assurance at institutional and programme levels.
What integrates these two levels is the awarding function of the institution. Those who complete a programme successfully receive an award that attests to their achievement, but which is also a public statement of the level of attainment represented by the awards of the institution generally. Ensuring that every individual who receives an award has achieved the standard the institution sets for itself must be a prime task of institutional quality assurance.
Universities and colleges with their own degree awarding powers set their own standards and make their own awards. This autonomy is fundamental to the maintenance of an environment in which scholarship and research can flourish. But it carries with it a responsibility to demonstrate that autonomous powers are used wisely and in a manner that can command public confidence.
The awarding function has grown in complexity. Academic programmes are delivered in many modes and at many locations at home and abroad. No matter how or where a programme is delivered, the institution retains the responsibility to ensure that it meets the standards it has set for itself. The Agency's scrutiny of institutional systems and individual programmes is intended to assist institutions in maintaining secure and robust controls over the standards of the awards they make.
A new focus on standards lies at the heart of the quality assurance method the Agency is developing. Stakeholders in the higher education system are concerned with the results it achieves, and institutions need robust means of demonstrating that intended outcomes are actually delivered. To help institutions develop clear programme specifications, work is underway on producing subject benchmark information and descriptors for the various levels of the higher education qualifications framework. These points of reference will assure students and employers that there are clear standards below which no provision will fall.
Nowhere is the maintenance of standards and the credibility of awards more important than in overseas markets. Universities are able to succeed in these competitive markets because of the value that is attached to the quality and standards of UK higher education. If that high standing is damaged, then the UK's position in the global market is undermined. A lapse from high standards by one institution in one overseas partnership can do disproportionate damage to the image of UK higher education generally.
Damage can be done not only by actual lapses, but also through any perception that standards are not being maintained. Advertising, often undertaken by overseas agents, is an area of concern, particularly if it appears to suggest that there are short cuts to qualifications or general exemptions from entry requirements. This may not be true in practice, but it is the impression that creates the mischief.
The auditing of overseas collaborative partnerships will continue to be a high priority for the Agency. Many foreign governments regard overseas audit as a practical manifestation of the UK commitment to quality, and as such it helps to hone the UK competitive edge.
An important function of the Agency is to advise Government on applications for the grant of degree awarding powers and university title. The Government invited the Agency to review the criteria used to assess such applications, and the Agency will report on these early in 1999.
In the meantime, the Agency is considering a number of applications for degree awarding powers and is applying the existing criteria to them in a manner that is both transparent and rigorous. Degree awarding status now carries the right to use the title 'university college' - for that title to be meaningful and respected the powers that it represents should be granted only to institutions that have shown themselves fully ready to assume an autonomous awarding function.
The year ahead brings new challenges for the Agency. The trialling of the new quality assurance method, and planning for its implementation, must be completed. We will develop new working relations with devolved government in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland that respect local decision-making whilst maintaining standards on a UK-wide basis. We will publish new guidance on collaborative provision, and continue the development of all levels of the qualifications framework. We will re-launch the recognition scheme for Access to Higher Education courses to facilitate widening participation.
I am confident that the Agency will rise to these challenges and continue to build on the firm foundations we have established in our first year. Our success is due in no small part to the support and commitment we have received from our partner organisations, our staff and our Board. To all of them I am most grateful.
John Randall
Chief Executive
Programme Review Directorate
One of the first tasks for the new Agency was to continue and develop the extensive schedule of subject assessment and report publication inherited from the Higher Education Funding Council for England.
Subject review, the main activity of the Programme Review Directorate, focuses on the common influences that shape the learning experiences and achievements of all students in higher education. The judgements made by the Agency in this process provide institutions with valuable feedback, and the public with a useful source of information, on the quality of provision in specific subject areas.
In line with aims and objectives, the curriculum provides access and choice, enables students to take responsibility for negotiating their own programme, develops critical awareness and self-management of learning and leads to attainment of transferable skills.
excerpt from a report on Food Science programmes
The curriculum content and delivery do not demonstrate sufficient analytical and critical depth to develop the intellectual ability beyond the minimum professional requirements and therefore do not equip students for further academic progression.
excerpt from a report on Town and Country Planning and Landscape programmes
The subject assessment process in England and Northern Ireland
Experienced academic and professional specialists employed by the Agency visit institutions to review quality at subject level. Using the institution's own aims and objectives as a starting point, the reviewers explore in depth the quality of provision in six core aspects:
- curriculum design, content and organisation;
- teaching, learning and assessment;
- student progression and achievement;
- student support and guidance;
- learning resources;
- quality assurance and enhancement.
Each of these aspects of provision is graded on a four-point scale from 1 (there are major shortcomings that must be rectified) to 4 (makes a full contribution to attainment of objectives). In the last year, 21 reviews (9% of the total) secured gradings of 4 in all six aspects.
A grade of 1 in any aspect of provision means that the quality of provision in the subject area cannot be approved, and a further review takes place within 12 months. Two reviews fell into this category.
A grade of 2 indicates that there is substantial room for improvement and an institution with a 2 in any profile should regard this as a weakness to be remedied. Scores of 2 in three or more of the six aspects are a matter of serious concern. To address this issue, the Agency now requires an institution with three 2s in any one profile to produce an improvement plan that will be monitored by the Agency.
A report is published by the Agency following each subject review visit. On completion of each subject assessment cycle, the Agency publishes subject overview reports which are distributed widely to schools, further education colleges, public libraries and careers services. Individual reports and subject overview reports are available to the public and on the World Wide Web.
During the period of this Annual Report, the Agency carried out 294 subject review visits to 235 universities, 30 colleges of higher education and 29 further education and specialist colleges.
The training of subject reviewers is carried out for the Agency by the Universities and Colleges Staff Development Agency.
Much of the observed teaching was of an exceptionally high quality, student participation was a regular feature and the enthusiasm of the staff was clear.
excerpt from a report on Middle Eastern and African Studies
Poor student progression seriously compromises the access and opportunity aims, and detracts significantly from the otherwise positive evidence.
excerpt from a report on General Engineering
Subject reviews for 1998 to 2000
The next cycle of subject review visits has now begun. Between 1998 and 2000 the Agency will carry out 595 subject review visits in 13 subjects. Initial planning has been undertaken for the trials of the proposed new method for the scrutiny of academic standards. The trials will take place during the 1998-99 and 1999-2000 academic years.
The Agency's commitment to consultation and collaboration is reflected in its links with a variety of external organisations, particularly with those professional and statutory bodies with an interest in the 1998-2000 subject reviews. Joint reviews will be undertaken with the General Medical Council, the General Dental Council, and the English Nursing Board. Helpful discussions with the National Health Service (NHS) Executive should lead to the Agency continuing to review health-related subjects when funding for these programmes passes to the NHS.
Students with disabilities and special needs are well catered for and supported in line with the University's clearly stated policy.
excerpt from a report on Mechanical, Aeronautical and Manufacturing Engineering programmes
New quality assurance processes are working well; the system of course reviews is particularly rigorous and self-critically robust.
excerpt from a report on History of Art, Architecture and Design programmes
Subject review visits 1997-98
Total no of visits - 235(Universities);30(Colleges of Higher Education); 29(Further Education & Specialist Colleges)
Grades awarded for aspects of provision
Six Grade 4 - 21 (9%) (Universities);0(Colleges of Higher Education); 0 (Further Education & Specialist Colleges)
Five Grade 4 - 26 (11%) (Universities);1 (3%)(Colleges of Higher Education); 4 (14%) (Further Education & Specialist Colleges)
One Grade 1 - 1 (0.4%) (Universities); 0 (Colleges of Higher Education); 1 (3%)(Further Education & Specialist Colleges)
One Grade 2 - 39 (17%) (Universities);9 (30%)(Colleges of Higher Education);8 (28%) (Further Education & Specialist Colleges)
Two Grade 2 - 6 (3%) (Universities); 3 (10%) (Colleges of Higher Education);2 (7%) (Further Education & Specialist Colleges)
Three or more Grade 2 - 1 (0.4%)(Universities); 0 (Colleges of Higher Education);6 (21%) (Further Education & Specialist Colleges)
Subject areas covered
Agriculture, Forestry and Agricultural Sciences
American Studies
Building
Civil Engineering
Communication and Media Studies
Drama, Dance and Cinematics
East and South Asian Studies
Electrical and Electronic Engineering
Food Science
General Engineering
History of Art, Architecture and Design
Land and Property Management
Materials Technology
Mechanical, Aeronautical and Manufacturing Engineering
Middle Eastern and African Studies
Town and Country Planning and Landscape
Clear and appropriate systems assure and enhance quality and take into account the views of students and external examiners.
excerpt from a report on Drama, Dance and Cinematics programmes
A significant proportion of students underachieve, as indicated by the number who do not pass at first attempt; absence from lectures and failure to submit coursework are contributing factors.
excerpt from a report on Electrical and Electronic Engineering
Institutional Review Directorate
The Institutional Review Directorate is responsible for three main areas of the Agency's activities:
- academic quality audit (to be renamed 'institutional review' from 2001), which includes overseas audit;
- the scheme for recognition of Access to Higher Education courses;
- advising the Department for Education and Employment on applications from higher education institutions for the granting of degree awarding powers and university title.
The Agency's international activities and development of the code of practice which will form part of the new national quality assurance process are also the responsibility of this Directorate.
Academic quality audits
The first academic quality audits took place in 1990 under the auspices of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. In 1992 responsibility was transferred to the Higher Education Quality Council (HEQC), and in 1997 to the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA).
The first round of audits reported on the procedures used by individual higher education institutions to assure the quality and standards of their academic programmes and awards. Between 1990 and 1997 all higher education institutions in the UK were audited. Some also received audits of their collaborative arrangements with other colleges or bodies.
In 1997, on successful completion of the first round of audits, a revised process - continuation audit - was developed.
Continuation audit aims to provide confidence to students, institutions, employers, and other interested parties, that higher education institutions have effective means of ensuring that all programme provision and awards made in their name are of an adequate quality and standard. It does this by establishing how far individual institutions are discharging effectively their responsibilities both for the standards of awards granted in their name and the quality of education they provide to enable students to attain those standards. Continuation audit focuses mainly on the management of each institution's awarding body function. It is not concerned with details of procedures or with individual subjects or programmes of study.
Continuation audit is a peer review process. Audit teams, mostly senior and experienced serving members of higher education institutions, assisted and guided by Agency staff, scrutinise a wide range of documentation including an analytical account produced by the institution, visit the institution over a period of three days, and produce a report. The report is published by the Agency and is available to the public.
During 1997-98, the final two first round audits were completed and 18 continuation audits undertaken. Of the institutions visited, most report that continuation audit provides a valuable review of the way they manage academic standards and quality, and is a positive aid to help identify and rectify any shortcomings.
Overall, the audit reports published by the Agency carry encouraging messages. Many of the institutions visited have been commended for the rigour and effectiveness with which they handle quality and standards.
Some reports however, observe that further work is needed to guarantee full confidence and reliance on internal processes. Audit teams have noted in particular the absence of proper feedback loops between those with responsibilities at institutional level and those with delegated authority; a lack of awareness of the responsibility that degree-awarding powers carry with them; and gaps between rhetoric and reality in the analytical account provided for the audit.
For a sector which has, and wishes to retain, local academic autonomy over its own awards, perhaps the most important observation is that some institutions rely heavily on external scrutiny to tell them whether or not their standards and quality are adequate. Institutions must guard against renouncing responsibility for determining, maintaining and defending the quality and standards of their programmes and awards. Complacency or unreflective compliance can rapidly undermine the strength of rigorous self-examination.
Overseas audits
The University is to be congratulated for having used the HEQC Code of Practice for Overseas Collaborative Provision in Higher Education to good effect and for taking so seriously its responsibilities and obligations for safeguarding the quality and standards of this partnership.
The apparent lack of any urgency at faculty level to discover what publicity and promotional material had been produced by its partner in India is a good example of how easily a standard clause in any Memorandum of Co-operation can sometimes go unobserved.
excerpts from reports of overseas audits
During the period under review, the Agency continued the programme of overseas audits instituted by HEQC in 1996. These scrutinise, on a country by country basis, how UK higher education institutions manage the sometimes difficult task of assuring the quality and standards of programmes of study offered in other countries which lead to the awards of a UK institution. Typically, arrangements involve sub-contracting or franchising programme provision to another college, or validation agreements where the partner college designs and delivers programmes which the UK institution approves as acceptable for the granting of its own award.
The quality assurance aspects of these overseas links have caused occasional concern, sometimes justified and sometimes as a result of misunderstandings about the rigour of the approval and monitoring procedures employed. In 1997 and 1998, aided by a revised code of practice on overseas collaborative provision published by HEQC in 1996, the Agency sampled a large number of these relationships in Europe, the Middle East and India. Our findings largely confirmed those of the earlier HEQC series. Many of the links examined were dependent on the commitment of a small number of people (sometimes just one), and there was a tendency for normal procedures to be diluted to assuage local academic sensitivities. In one or two cases this effectively amounted to a transfer of responsibility to the overseas partner. Other problems highlighted were associated with programmes delivered in languages other than English; the control of publicity and advertising; the lack of effective central control; and institutions whose overseas activities were being driven by their partners. But there were also encouraging indications that UK institutions operating overseas were becoming increasingly aware of the higher risks associated with these activities and the consequent need for robust quality assurance procedures.
The University exercised careful and effective control over the establishment of the partnership and undertook a rigorous process of institutional approval and programme validation. It is following this up by implementing a comprehensive quality assurance strategy.
excerpt from a report of an overseas audit
Special review of Thames Valley University
At the end of 1997 the Agency was asked by the Board of Governors of Thames Valley University to investigate press claims that the University had deliberately lowered its academic standards by allowing students who had failed resit examinations to be credited with a pass mark so that they could proceed with their studies. A preliminary enquiry found no evidence to support the charge, but it did recommend a full review of the University's quality assurance arrangements. The Board of Governors accepted this recommendation and subsequently the Agency conducted an extensive enquiry. The report of that enquiry, published after the period under review, was addressed to both the Board of Governors of Thames Valley University and the Board of Directors of QAA. It identified serious shortcomings in the academic management of the University. The Board of Governors accepted all the recommendations contained in the report.
The University has established clear and effective systems which enable the formulation of academic standards at the discipline or subject level which are then rigorously scrutinised at faculty and University level.
We found evidence that the University may have lost sight of some basic principles of quality assurance which should be commonplace in an institution with independent degree-awarding powers.
excerpts from reports of academic quality audits
Access to Higher Education courses recognition scheme
Under the Access to Higher Education courses scheme, further education colleges prepare mature students from under-represented groups for higher education. The Agency's role is to license and review the 34 Authorised Validating Agencies, independent consortia of FE and HE institutions, which approve new programmes and award certificates to students on the 1,382 recognised Access to Higher Education programmes.
During the period under review, the Agency's Board established the Access Recognition and Licensing Committee (ARLC) and work was begun on rewriting the main strategy document to reflect new circumstances and the changed emphases for Access to Higher Education recognition under QAA. The ARLC also established liaison with other organisations interested in Access matters.
To assist the ARLC the Agency established the Access Recognition Advisory Group which provides consultation and advice on policy matters, and an Assistant Director with responsibility for Access course recognition work was appointed to the Agency staff.
Degree awarding powers
Under current arrangements for granting of degree awarding powers to aspirant institutions, the Agency advises the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) on the merits of individual applications. In the light of this advice the Secretary of State makes recommendations to the Privy Council, which is empowered to decide whether an application is successful.
Following the Government's response in February 1998 to the Dearing Report, the Agency was approached by the Government to undertake a critical review of the present criteria and scrutiny procedures associated with the grant of degree awarding powers and university title. The Agency's recommendations will be presented to the Government early in 1999, and it is likely that the revised criteria and procedures will come into effect by summer 1999.
Between March 1997 and February 1998, the Agency was asked to advise on four applications for degree awarding powers. Following advice given to the DfEE, three institutions were granted research degree awarding powers during the period under review.
Pending the outcome of the review of degree awarding powers criteria, consideration of applications received by the Privy Council after the end of February 1998 was suspended.
Three applications for taught degree awarding powers were received before the February 1998 deadline and those are being dealt with by the Agency using the pre-existing criteria. A number of institutions, possibly prompted by legislative restrictions on the use of the title 'university college', signalled their intention to submit applications for taught degree awarding powers in 1999.
In July 1998, the Government asked the Agency to re-examine an application for university title which had been the subject of an unsuccessful application in the previous year. The Agency is carefully reviewing the operations of the institution, particularly in relation to the maintenance of academic standards, and is due to report to the Secretary of State for Education by the end of 1999.
Through firm but responsive leadership, it has managed to strike an effective balance between the respective strengths of central regulation and departmental culture.
The result is, generally speaking, an institution where academic quality and standards are addressed consciously and seriously, and in which confidence can readily be placed.
excerpts from reports of academic quality audits
International activities
In recent years international interest in quality assurance in higher education has developed rapidly. Many countries have their own national evaluation or assurance systems, and a private transnational accreditation agency has appeared on the scene. The European Union is interested in fostering closer links between the agencies of member states, and a worldwide network, the International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education, offers agencies an effective way of maintaining contacts and exchanging experience.
In the face of this international interest, the Board has agreed that the Agency should develop a strategy based on the relevance of international matters to its core activities. The Board has endorsed work in four areas: supporting overseas audit; learning from experience overseas; keeping a watching brief on international developments that could impact on the Agency's work or on UK higher education more broadly; and briefing international visitors. The Agency's reputation as a centre of national and international expertise means that our staff are in great demand to advise overseas governments and speak at international conferences. Unfortunately, more pressing calls on their time allow only a limited number of these invitations to be accepted.
Audit visits 1997 -98
First Round Audit
Henley Management College
London Business School
Continuation Audit
Loughborough University
The Open University
UMIST
University of Aberdeen
University of Bath
University of Bradford
University of Dundee
University of Durham
University of East Anglia
University of Essex
University of Exeter
University of Sheffield
University of Southampton
University of Strathclyde
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
University of Wales, Bangor
University of Wales, Lampeter
University of York
Special Review
Thames Valley University
Overseas Audits
Europe
India
Middle East
Development Directorate
The Development Directorate is responsible for quality enhancement and policy development. It has a major role in developing the new quality assurance method and the higher education qualifications frameworks.
At the beginning of the period under review, the Development Directorate's work embraced a variety of quality enhancement activities, but concentrated primarily on completing the Graduate Standards Programme and publishing the Programme's final report. The findings of that report were used as the basis for a range of developmental activities in preparation for the publication of the reports of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education and its Scottish Committee (the Dearing and Garrick Reports), and the consultation that would follow.
A cluster of 14 projects was set up designed specifically to explore, at subject level, three of the themes emerging from the Graduate Standards Programme: application of the concept of 'graduateness'; identification of graduate attributes; and strengthening of the external examiner system. Other developmental activities involved work on higher education awards (including parallels with other countries), credit, student assessment, a graduate outcomes profile, and links with professional and statutory bodies. Quality enhancement activities included provision of a forum for institutional evaluation; a collaborative project with the Engineering Professors' Council on academic management; and the benchmarking of assessment practice.
With the publication of the Dearing Report, the Development Directorate's work took on a new focus: to develop a programme of work in response to the recommendations of the report, while carrying existing projects through to completion.
National qualifications frameworks
In reply to the report's call for endorsement of its proposed National Qualifications Frameworks, the Agency set up two Qualifications Framework Development Groups. One of these, chaired by Professor David Swinfen, Vice-Principal of the University of Dundee, is responsible for the Scottish framework. The other, chaired by Professor Ivor Crewe, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Essex, is responsible for the framework for the rest of the UK. During the first half of 1998, this work on qualifications was strengthened and extended by the creation of a joint forum between the Agency and the recently-established Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, designed to facilitate co-operation between the two bodies.
In 1996, the Harris Report on postgraduate education had recommended the development of a typology of postgraduate awards. A Postgraduate Qualifications Steering Group, chaired by Dr David Fussey, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Greenwich, was established to guide this project. The postgraduate project was subsequently integrated with the programme of work on the qualifications frameworks as a whole.
Subject benchmarking
The Dearing Report had also recommended the setting of subject benchmarks - agreed national standards - in each subject. In response, the Agency established three pilot subject benchmarking groups, in Chemistry, History and Law. These groups were invited to develop statements that would set out the benchmarks needed to specify the minimum standard for an honours degree in each of their disciplines. By July 1998 advanced drafts had been prepared as a basis for consultation with a view to agreement on a final version by the end of that year. These final versions will form a key element of the trials of the new quality assurance method during 1998-99.
The subject benchmarking groups have also considered how the generic outcomes identified might relate to the wider discussion on key skills and related concepts.
Programme specifications
A project was also set up to help higher education institutions respond to the Dearing Report's recommendation that they should specify what outcomes students might expect from their programmes of study. The project drew on the HEQC's previous work on programme typologies and profiling. In its first stage it piloted a programme specification template in Chemistry, History and Law, in seven higher education institutions, with the aim of gaining experience that could be used to develop the consistent presentation of the programme specifications.
The second stage of the template project, extended to a further four institutions, concentrated mainly on using programme specifications in learner-managed and work-based programmes. Preparations were also undertaken to explore how the work on programme specifications might best contribute to establishing a student progress file which would record both a student's achievement and transcripts of attainments, another recommendation of the Dearing Report.
The Agency has welcomed the many and valued contributions from individuals and institutions to these projects. It looks forward to further input from the sector as it takes the projects forward.
The Agency's activities in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales
Scotland
The unique characteristics of higher education in Scotland and the implications for higher education of the Scottish Parliament were reflected in the Board's decision to confirm the establishment of the Agency's Scottish Office, supported by an Advisory Committee for Scotland that reports directly to the Board (see page 31). With advice from this Committee, the Scottish Office ensures that Agency policies and practices are developed and implemented in ways that are appropriate to Scotland. These activities embrace:
- work undertaken as an integral part of UK-wide developments;
- work undertaken in response to the needs of the sector in Scotland;
- work undertaken in liaison with other bodies in Scotland.
The close relationships the Scottish Office has built with statutory and other bodies in Scotland are reflected in, for example, the Agency's membership of the working group on future arrangements for the quality assurance of initial teacher education in Scotland. It is also engaged in ongoing discussions with the Scottish Qualifications Agency (SQA) and other statutory bodies to explore how the new quality assurance method can work to meet the needs of statutory bodies effectively and efficiently, without duplicating effort.
The Scottish Office is a first point of contact and information for higher education institutions and their stakeholders in Scotland. It is extensively involved in work to develop and trial the new quality assurance arrangements in Scotland.
Scottish higher education institutions are making a major contribution to the development of the quality assurance method. The Agency is grateful to those institutions participating in the trials and to those that have provided members of benchmarking groups.
In the context of setting agreed national standards at subject level, the Scottish Office, guided by the Advisory Committee for Scotland, has had specific responsibility for supporting the History subject benchmarking group set up by the Agency, and has put in place mechanisms to receive feedback on all these developments in a Scottish context.
Work by the Agency's Scottish Office on qualifications
frameworks falls into three major areas:
- work with the Scottish Advisory Committee on Credit and Access (SACCA) and the Scottish Credit Accumulation and Transfer (SCOTCAT) Framework;
- the new qualifications framework for higher education in Scotland;
- the wider Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework which will embrace all post-compulsory qualifications, academic and vocational, in Scotland from school to higher education.
As recommended in the Garrick Report, the Agency is working with the Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals (COSHEP), SACCA, the Scottish Office Education and Industry Department (SOEID) and SQA to develop the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework. A joint working group has developed the details of the framework and a senior Joint Advisory Committee will be established to co-ordinate the framework's further development and implementation. This committee will be chaired by an independent person invited to serve by the Scottish Minister for Education.
Closely related to the development of this wider framework, the Agency has established a Qualifications Framework Development Group for Scotland which will make recommendations to the Advisory Committee for Scotland and the Agency's Board on the qualifications framework for higher education in Scotland. The group plans to undertake a consultation with the sector in early summer 1999. To ensure parallel development, the Agency staff who support the development group for Scotland work closely with the group for the rest of the UK; there is overlapping membership between the two groups, and the two Chairs meet regularly.
Credit and access are continuing themes in Scottish higher education and both COSHEP and Agency staff are jointly responsible for the Scottish Advisory Committee on Credit and Access. This committee advises COSHEP and the Agency on issues of credit and access and has a particular remit to co-ordinate the SCOTCAT Framework, the national higher education credit framework for Scotland. During 1997-98, the Agency has produced guidelines on the credit rating of continuing education and guidelines on quality assurance of learning from experience and is working closely with the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council and SACCA to promote the use of SCOTCAT by higher education institutions.
Northern Ireland
Throughout the year, the Agency maintained close contact with universities in Northern Ireland, the Department for Education for Northern Ireland, and the Northern Ireland Higher Education Council. These links were developed through formal meetings and through a series of workshops, seminars and conferences.
The Agency is grateful to the universities in Northern Ireland for agreeing to participate in the trials for the new quality assurance method.
Colleagues from Northern Ireland have made a valuable contribution to the Agency's work through their involvement in a range of development groups and committees, in particular in relation to the development of credit-based qualifications frameworks. The Agency was particularly pleased to be involved in aspects of the Northern Ireland Credit Accumulation and Transfer initiative which will inform the development work on the national qualifications frameworks during 1998-99.
Subject reviews in Northern Ireland are carried out by the Agency under its contract with the Higher Education Funding Council for England, with whom the Department of Education Northern Ireland (DENI) has a service level agreement. Six reviews were carried out in the two Northern Ireland universities during 1997-98. From 1999 the Agency will contract directly with DENI for this work.
Wales
In October 1997, the functions of the Quality Assessment Division of the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (HEFCW) were transferred to the Agency, and the terms of a service agreement with the funding council were agreed.
The Agency's primary responsibility, in the first instance, was to ensure that the subject review cycle in Wales was completed smoothly. During the 1997-98 academic year 19 review visits were carried out, bringing to an end the full five-year subject review cycle in Wales.
The Board has established a Committee for Wales (see page 31). This Committee, chaired by Professor Roger Williams, first met in May 1998. It provides a forum for formal discussion with the HEFCW and the higher education sector in Wales, and advises the Board on the Agency's activities in Wales. Officers of the HEFCW attend meetings and the Welsh Office has observer status.
The Agency continues to work closely with the HEFCW and has observer status on the Council's Quality Assessment Committee.
At institutional level, the Agency has organised meetings and briefing sessions to explain its thinking and policy as they have developed following the recommendations of the Dearing Report. The Wales Academic Development and Quality Group - a network of senior staff with key responsibilities for quality assurance in institutions - provides an effective forum for discussing detailed aspects of emerging policy. Direct contact has also been maintained with representative and professional bodies which have a specific Wales remit, such as the Heads of Higher Education Wales, the Central Council for the Education and Training of Social Workers in Wales (CCETSW Cymru) and the Welsh National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.
As in Scotland, the completion of the subject review cycle in Wales before that in England provided a timely opportunity to work with higher education institutions in piloting the new quality assurance model during 1998-99. A sound basis for a collaborative approach to the trials was established at an early stage and the Agency is grateful to the institutions that have agreed to participate.
Financial summary 1997 - 98
Summary accounts
The Annual Accounts and Directors' Report were approved by the Board, and the Company's Members at the Annual General Meeting held on 13 January 1999. The Accounts and Directors' Report were submitted to both the Registrar of Companies and the Charity Commission following the Board's approval.
The summarised accounts contained in this report are extracted from the Annual Accounts prepared by the Agency and given an unqualified audit opinion by KPMG, External Auditors.
The summarised accounts may not contain sufficient information to allow for a full understanding of the financial affairs of the Agency. For further information the full Annual Accounts, the Auditors' Report on those accounts and the Directors' Annual Report should be consulted. Copies can be obtained from:
Director of Administration
The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education
Southgate House
Southgate Street
Gloucester
GL1 1UB
Statement of external auditors
The summarised accounts contained within the report are consistent with the full annual accounts produced by the Agency and on which we have given an unqualified opinion.
KPMG
External auditors
Statement of financial activities for the period ending 31 July 1998
Income and expenditure
Incoming resources
Service level agreements - 4,185,251 (unrestricted funds £); 4,185,251(total 1998 £)
Subscriptions - 3,261,343 (unrestricted funds £); 3,261,343(total 1998 £)
Donations and gifts - 697,371 (unrestricted funds £); 46,310 (restricted funds £); 743,681(total 1998 £)
Degree awarding powers - 42,000 (unrestricted funds £); 42,000 (total 1998 £)
Project Funding - 97,378 (unrestricted funds £); 97,378 (total 1998 £)
Secondments and consultancy - 5,912 (unrestricted funds £); 5,912 (total 1998 £)
Investment income - 159,690 (unrestricted funds £); 159,690 (total 1998 £)
Sale of publications - 37,390 (unrestricted funds £); 37,390 (total 1998 £)
Other (including workshops and conferences) - 16,900 (unrestricted funds £); 16,900 (total 1998 £)
Total incoming resources - 8,503,235 (unrestricted funds £); 46,310 (restricted funds £); 8,549,545 (total 1998 £)
Resources expended
Direct charitable expenditure - 5,954,095 (unrestricted funds £); 5,954,095(total 1998 £)
Other expenditure
Management and administration - 2,198,810(unrestricted funds £); 2,198,810 (total 1998 £)
Total resources expended - 8,152,905 (unrestricted funds £); 8,152,905(total 1998 £)
Net incoming resources before transfers - 350,330 (unrestricted funds £); 46,310 (restricted funds £); 396,640(total 1998 £)
Transfer between funds - 46,310 (unrestricted funds £); (46,310) (restricted funds £); 0(total 1998 £)
Net incoming resources and net movements in funds - 396,640 (unrestricted funds £); 0 (restricted funds £); 396,640 (total 1998 £)
Fund balances carried forward 31 July - 396,640 (unrestricted funds £); 0 (restricted funds £); 396,640 (total 1998 £)
Balance sheet as at 31 July 1998
Fixed assets
Tangible assets - 560,909(£)
Current assets
Debtors - 138,184 (£)
Cash at bank and in hand - 572,046(£)
Total current assets - 710,230(£)
Creditors - amounts falling due within one year - (85,447)(£)
Net current liabilities - (147,217) (£)
Total assets less current liabilities - 413,692(£)
Provisions for liabilities and charges - 17,052 (£)
Net assets - 396,640(£)
Represented by
Funds unrestricted - 396,640(£)
Additional information
Chief Executive's salary including performance related element - 81,033 (£)
Banding of senior staff salaries (excluding Chief Executive)
£40,000 to £49,999 - 8 (number)
£50,000 to £59,999 - 1 (number)
Average number of staff employed - 67
Programme Review - 52%
Institutional Review and associated activities - 13%
Development - 8%
Relocation - 3%
Administration 24%
Administration staff cost - 8% | Premises - 5% | Equipment - 2% | Depreciation - 3% | Bad Debt provision - 1% | Other administration/establishment expenses - 5%
Service level agreements - 49%
Subscriptions - 38%
Donations and gifts - 9%
Other income - 4%
Degree awarding powers - 0.5% | Secondments and consultancy - 0.1% | Investment income - 1.8% | Sale of publications - 0.4% | Other (including workshops and conferences) - 0.4%
Top