About the Agency
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.
Established in 1997 to provide an integrated quality assurance service for UK higher education, the Agency is an independent body funded by subscriptions from universities and colleges of higher education, and through contracts with the main funding bodies.
The Agency's core business is to review the quality and standards of higher education in universities and colleges. It does this by auditing institutional arrangements for managing quality and standards, including arrangements for collaboration with overseas partners, and by reviewing the quality and standards of teaching and learning at subject level.
These activities result in reports that are available to the public, as printed publications and on the Agency's web site.
To fulfil its remit to design a system that integrates reviews previously carried out separately at subject and institutional levels, the Agency has, following extensive consultation, developed a new method of quality assurance, endorsed by the main funding bodies. It is expected that the new method will be used in Scotland and Wales from the start of the academic year 2000-2001, and in England and Northern Ireland from January 2002. Review of NHS-funded provision in England will commence in 2001-2002.
Other work carried out by the Agency involves advising the government on applications for degree awarding powers and university title; and licensing the agencies that validate Access to Higher Education course provision in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and reviewing their quality assurance mechanisms.
Chairman's Introduction
During this past year the Agency has continued its work on shaping the proposed new quality assurance model with the support of the representative and funding bodies. A remarkably large number of institutions and of individuals have been involved in this development process, contributing a significantly broad range of views and experience.
There is now a realistic expectation that the new arrangements will achieve the balance necessary to ensure that the requirements of each of the stakeholders can be met without undue burden. It is important that the high standards which underpin the reputation of higher education throughout the UK are seen to be maintained, that there is every encouragement for continuous enhancement of the quality of teaching and learning, that the strengths of diversity are recognised, and that relevant and comparable information is available to those who need it.
At the same time the Agency has undertaken a heavy load of work in relation to quality assessments by subject in England and Northern Ireland and to quality audits by institution throughout the UK. This annual report is full of detail about this and other aspects of our activity. I think you may be surprised at the amount of ground that has been covered.
The Agency is part of a huge team effort aimed at providing public assurance and information about quality and standards in UK higher education. We are deeply grateful to the many people who are advising and helping us. I thank all members of the Board and of the Board's committees for their generous support; all those who willingly undertake responsibilities as assessors, as auditors and in other ways, for their expert assistance; our Chief Executive for his intelligent and energetic leadership, and each and every member of the Agency's staff for their commitment to meeting our goals.
Christopher Kenyon
Chairman of the Board
Chief Executive's foreword
The public cares about academic standards. Employers, parents and potential learners need to have confidence that high standards are set by universities and colleges, and are achieved by their students. And all stakeholders wish to know how those standards relate to their needs for skilled staff, for successful careers, and for personal fulfilment.
Academic standards are not a private matter for institutions of higher education. Explaining what standards mean, how they are set, and how they are achieved by students, is a central part of the accountability of higher education to the society that it serves.
During the year, the Agency has been working with the higher education sector to develop ways of expressing standards, both to enable them to be assessed and to make them explicit to the wider community. Twenty-two subject benchmark groups were established to produce broad statements representing general expectations about standards for the award of honours degrees in their subject areas.
Benchmarking is not about listing specific knowledge; that is a matter for institutions in designing individual programmes. It is about the conceptual framework that gives a discipline its coherence and identity; about the intellectual capability and understanding that students should achieve; the techniques and skills that study of a discipline should develop; and the level of intellectual demand and challenge that is appropriate to honours degree study. Above all, these attributes must be expressed in accessible language, and highlight those intellectual skills that are transferable to employment and other non-academic settings.
Levels of achievement are expressed, for subjects, in benchmark statements, but more generally through the titles of qualifications. To the lay observer the proliferation of titles of academic awards is at best confusing, and at worst misleading. The public is entitled to expect that higher education qualifications bearing similar titles should reflect broadly comparable levels of achievement. The Agency's work on this matter culminated in a consultation paper on qualifications frameworks, published in the autumn of 1999.
A framework for the review and assessment of both standards and quality is provided by the Code of practice being developed by the Agency, the first sections of which were published during the year. A code of practice does more than promulgate good practice; it provides a transparency to review of institutional systems of management of quality and standards. By setting out shared expectations about approaches to safeguarding standards, a code of practice enables institutions to demonstrate how their systems have equivalent effect. For students, it provides an indication of the level of service they can reasonably expect in relation to such issues as complaints procedures.
The year was marked by intensive and participative development of a new quality assurance method, with an emphasis on standards. Trials of new procedures took place in over 20 institutions, and demonstrated that reliable and consistent judgements can be made about the achievement of academic standards.
The tasks of trialling, preparing benchmark statements and drafting sections of the Code of practice have involved over 300 academic staff, drawn from nearly 100 universities and colleges.
Representatives of students, employers and professional bodies have also contributed. They have given freely of their time, and the Agency is grateful to all of them. Their involvement ensures that we will move forward with a system that has secured the ownership and support of those affected by it.
The standards agenda is not a purely domestic concern. Throughout the world, in both developed and developing countries, higher education is moving towards mass participation. Growth in numbers and limitations on public funding lead to innovative, student-centred learning, and often to an increased participation of the private sector as funder or provider. In this climate of change and growth, there is public demand for assurance that standards are being maintained. The UK is regarded as a world leader in the development of quality assurance systems for higher education, and the Agency's work on standards provides a reference point for many other countries. In the last year, we received visitors from 26 countries, and provided expert speakers to 17 conferences and training events abroad.
The UK is one of the very few countries to accept responsibility for the quality and standards of the academic programmes that it exports for delivery through overseas partners. The Agency carried out three audits of overseas provision, including a major review of engineering programmes in Malaysia. We found examples of excellent provision, but also cases where more needs to be done to ensure that the high reputation of UK higher education is maintained.
Regionalisation and globalisation of higher education brings with it a need to ensure comparability of standards between countries, to facilitate student progression and mutual recognition of qualifications. The Bologna declaration on recognition of degrees within Europe is mirrored by similar developments in other regions of the world. The Agency's work on qualifications frameworks ensures that the UK is at the forefront of these developments.
Interest in the work of the Agency can be measured by the number of people, at home and abroad, who access the information held on our web site. At current rates of access, we expect to receive in excess of 3 million visits to the site in 2000.
At home, the Agency conducted over 250 reviews, which confirm the strength in depth of higher education throughout the UK. In our reviews of both subject provision and of the institutional management of quality and standards there has been much to commend.
At subject level, many institutions have secured high scores in all aspects of the graded profile that is used to report judgements. Inevitably, there are those who would sooner carp at, rather than celebrate success. Claims are made that improved results come from universities and colleges 'learning to play the game'. In this case the 'game' is about improving the quality of the learning opportunities available to the student and ensuring the maintenance of standards. If more providers are getting better at that game by taking seriously their responsibilities for quality and standards, then that is to be welcomed. It is also a confirmation that the enhancement role of quality assurance is alive and well, as institutions develop mechanisms to promulgate good practice internally.
Despite the generally good results of subject review, there remain areas of weakness. The more serious weaknesses relate to standards. There are failures of curriculum design, where the content or level fails to match intended outcomes of programmes. There are some weaknesses in assessment, characterised by a failure to ensure that assessment adequately measures achievement of intended learning outcomes.
Regrettably, these failings are found disproportionately in higher education programmes delivered through further education colleges. In some cases this must give rise to a question of whether the college has the capacity to deliver such programmes.
This is not to say that the further education sector has no role to play in the delivery of higher education. Further education colleges can provide an important gateway to higher education for many who do not have ready access to a university. And the best further education colleges do very well indeed: one of the few institutions to secure the highest marks in every aspect of review in art and design was from the further education sector. The models for successful delivery of higher education in further education colleges are there; those whose performance is now disappointing must take urgent steps to emulate them.
The new quality assurance method, with its emphasis on standards, will give a sharp focus to these issues, and should provide a major stimulus to improvement where that is needed. It will help also to promote the lifelong learning agenda. In reviewing standards we will check that the content of the curriculum is appropriate to each stage of the programme. A properly paced and structured programme is vital in a world where many students will study part-time or through distance learning and may intersperse periods of study with periods of work. Intermediate exit points, and associated awards, require a well-structured curriculum.
We have strengthened and developed our links with the National Health Service. The NHS is now a major funder of higher education. In the summer, Government announced that the Department of Health, in discharging its responsibility for assuring the quality of the higher education that it funds, will work in partnership with the Agency. As a first step in that partnership, the Agency will work with the NHS to develop benchmark statements in the health-related disciplines.
The year saw major constitutional change in the UK. Devolved government became a reality in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Agency works on a UK-wide basis and has to adapt and be sensitive to a devolution of decision-making that has the potential to lead to differing emphases of policy in different parts of the UK. Graduates are mobile across national boundaries within the UK, and it is UK higher education as a whole that is a global brand. That is why it remains important that there should be a consistency of academic standards throughout the UK and a common approach to the assurance of those standards. Nevertheless, within that approach there is ample scope to accommodate the distinctive characteristics and priorities of higher education in the different parts of the UK. Where differences arise on a national basis, they should not be seen as a threat or a problem, but as a manifestation of the diversity and innovation that has always been one of the strengths of UK higher education.
As the Agency moves from development of the new method of quality assurance to its implementation, striking the balance between UK-wide reporting and meeting national priorities will be put to a practical test. The first signs are that we have that balance right. The Scottish Higher Education Funding Council will contract with the Agency for subject review from 2000, as will the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales. The Higher Education Funding Council for England has also approved the principles of the new method for use from the following academic year.
The Agency looks forward to working with all our partners to secure a successful implementation of the new quality assurance method in the year ahead, and demonstrating that the UK continues to lead the world in providing public assurance of the quality and standards of higher education provision.
John Randall
Chief Executive
Quality reviews 1998 - 1999
During 1998-99 the Agency completed its programme of reviews at subject and institutional level: 235 subject reviews in England and Northern Ireland, 17 first round and continuation quality audits across the UK, and a small number of overseas audits and special reviews.
At Government's request, the Agency carried out a review of the criteria for degree awarding powers and university title. Ongoing consideration of a small number of applications continued while government departments consulted on the proposed new criteria.
As part of its Access to Higher Education responsibilities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Agency established a scheme covering Access recognition and licensing and instituted a programme of reviews of authorised validating agencies (AVAs). These are the bodies licensed by the Agency to approve Access to Higher Education courses and to award Agency 'kitemarked' certificates of national recognition.
Subject review in England and Northern Ireland
During 1998-99 the Agency carried out 232 subject review visits in England and Northern Ireland. Three revisits were also undertaken.
Reporting to funding councils and representative bodies
In February 1999 the Agency made its regular six-monthly report to the funding councils and representative bodies. The report included the number of visits carried out and reports published, measured against the targets set out in the Agency's contract with the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) / Department of Education Northern Ireland (DENI).
For each meeting of the HEFCE's Quality Assessment Committee the Agency provided summary analyses of visit outcomes, and, during the academic terms, reported weekly on visit results.
Appeal against subject grading
Following a subject review in 1998, the Agency received a formal representation from an institution appealing against a grade 1 in one aspect of the graded profile. A grade 1 in any of the six aspects of provision that are assessed during each review means that the quality of provision in the subject area cannot be approved. If the grade is confirmed, a reassessment takes place within 12 months. After careful consideration by a sub-group of Board members reporting to the full Board, and in line with the procedures inherited from the HEFCE, the representation was rejected.
Evaluation of the review process
Institutions, contract reviewers and subject reviewers are asked regularly by the Agency to evaluate how it prepares for and conducts visits. In this context, reports were made to the HEFCE in September 1998 and January 1999, with a further report in September 1999, based on evaluation returns from all visits carried out during 1998-99.
Publication of reports
Publication of all reports from the review visits carried out in England and Northern Ireland during 1997-98 was completed by March 1999. Subject overview reports, covering all visits for the 16 subjects reviewed between 1996 and 1998, were published on schedule in January 1999. Ninety three per cent of reports from visits undertaken during the Autumn term 1998 were published by the target publication date. Of the remainder (five reports), four were held up by delays in institutional checking of the draft reports.
Quality assessment in Wales
All quality assessment reports for Wales were published by February 1999 following completion of the final year of a five-year cycle of quality assessments in 1997-98. The Agency has prepared an overview report for the period 1993-1998 for publication by the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (HEFCW).
Quality audit in the UK and overseas
The Agency carried out 17 first round and continuation audit visits to UK colleges and universities. Overseas visits to review collaborative provision were made to Ireland and Malaysia. All audit reports for visits carried out during 1998-99 have been published.
In preparation for a full schedule of visits in 1999-2000, and in accordance with its nomination and selection process, the Agency appointed 32 auditors and 29 audit secretaries. Training was arranged for September 1999. As part of the ongoing audit development programme, auditors and audit secretaries took part in plenary meetings.
Special reviews
To assist the Scottish Office Education and Industry Department's (SOEID) consideration of applications for designation as a higher education institution, the Agency was commissioned to carry out reviews of quality assurance at two institutions in Scotland. Designation as a higher education institution would make them eligible for funding from the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council (SHEFC). The Agency reported to SOEID, now the Scottish Executive Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Department (SEELLD), on one of the institutions in July 1999 and on the other institution in December 1999.
Degree awarding powers and university title
As part of its remit to advise the government on applications for degree awarding powers and university title, the Agency advised the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) on an application from Chichester Institute of Higher Education for the power to award taught degrees. The Privy Council granted taught degree awarding powers to the Institute in January 1999.
In response to a commission by the Secretary of State for Education, the Agency carried out a thorough review of the criteria for the grant of degree awarding powers and university title. The Board forwarded its report and recommendations to the DfEE at the end of January 1999, and Government departments then consulted institutions on the proposed revised criteria.
Although consideration of new applications for degree awarding powers was suspended pending the announcement of revised criteria, the Agency continued to assess one application for taught degree awarding powers and two applications for university title which had been received prior to the criteria review.
Access to Higher Education
In response to a request by the Board to review the Access to Higher Education recognition scheme inherited from the former Higher Education Quality Council (HEQC), the Access Recognition and Licensing Committee (ARLC) developed a new scheme for the licensing and review of a national network of AVAs.
The QAA Recognition Scheme for Access to Higher Education in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, which places emphasis on assuring the quality and standards of Access provision, was formally launched in London in March 1999. Speakers included the Minister for Higher Education, the Agency's Chief Executive, the Chair of the ARLC and several former students with direct experience of the Access route into higher education.
Since the new scheme was introduced, the Agency has carried out recruitment, induction and training of reviewers, and has completed the first four AVA reviews. Review reports have been published.
Future arrangements for quality assurance
When it was established, the Agency inherited the different quality assessment systems used in England/Northern Ireland and Wales, and the quality audit system used by the former HEQC across the UK. Publication of the Joint Planning Group report in late 1996 and, more particularly, the Dearing and Garrick reports in 1997, set the scene for a thorough review to develop an integrated external quality assurance system that was appropriate for UK higher education.
Through its bulletin, Higher Quality 3 (March 1998), the Agency consulted on a wide range of proposals for a new framework for assuring quality and standards in higher education. An outline of the proposed new method was refined in the light of the consultation responses and published in Higher Quality 4 (November 1998), together with details of how supporting policy areas would be developed.
Trialling the new method
During 1998-99 much progress was made on developing the new method, which will aim to assure the quality and standards of higher education through effective and integrated use of evidence gathered at the most appropriate level subject or institutional and with appropriate, and variable, intensity of scrutiny.
After a two-year intensive trial period, the new method will be introduced in 2000-2001 in Scotland and Wales, and in January 2002 in England and Northern Ireland. Much has been achieved to meet the Dearing recommendations for greater transparency and clarity of outcomes in higher education: at programme level through programme specifications; at subject level through subject benchmark statements; and at award level through national qualifications frameworks. The Agency is also developing a Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education, covering many aspects of the management of quality and standards.
Programme specifications
Projects involving more than a dozen institutions, students, employers, and professional and statutory bodies, have informed the development of an approach to programme specifications which will help make the intended outcomes of higher education more explicit and provide a framework for the review of learning outcomes. Trialling in 1998-99 also provided valuable information on how programme specifications could be developed and used by providers and reviewers.
The Agency will not be prescriptive about how the information is presented, although standard headings will be necessary if the specifications are to be effective. The development projects and the trials suggest that this approach will be acceptable to institutions. Guidance for institutions will be refined during 1999-2000.
Subject benchmarking
Subject benchmarking statements are intended to provide clear indications of the characteristics, knowledge and skills of an honours graduate in the subject. Draft statements in chemistry, history and law were tested during the 1998-99 academic review trials. The statements were developed by benchmarking groups, membership of which was mainly the responsibility of the relevant subject communities.
Benchmarking groups for the remaining 19 subjects to be reviewed during the first three years (2000-2003) of the six-year academic review cycle of the new method are developing draft statements which will be issued for consultation at the beginning of 2000.
Final statements for all 22 subjects will be published at the end of April 2000.
Benchmarking groups for the remaining subjects those to be reviewed in the period 2003-2006 will be established in Spring 2000.
As the Agency develops guidance for subject providers on how benchmark information should be used in the development and review of programmes, it will take into account the advice of its Advisory Group on Multi-Disciplinary and Modular Provision. This group of 15 people from a range of institutions with particular interest in and experience of multi-disciplinary, inter-disciplinary and modular provision, has been considering how such provision should be regarded in the context of subject benchmark information.
The Agency is very grateful for the support of over 300 individuals from nearly 100 institutions who have contributed directly to the first stages of the benchmarking project.
National qualifications frameworks
The objective of national qualifications frameworks for higher education is to provide a consistent and robust framework for levels of awards and nomenclature, based on volumes of credit at identified levels. A qualification will be defined in terms of its intended outcome, not in terms of its input, mode of delivery or period of study. It will be located in the frameworks by reference to level (intellectual demand, depth of study, learner autonomy) and credit (the volume of learning at a particular level).
Two Qualifications Framework Development Groups one for Scotland and one for England/Wales/Northern Ireland have been working in parallel since April 1998. Their recommendations on postgraduate qualifications were finalised in the light of responses to a consultation carried out between November 1998 and April 1999. Publication of the frameworks overall is planned for April 2000, following consultation on qualifications at other levels.
A qualifications framework for higher education in Scotland is being developed as part of a wider Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF) which will embrace all Scottish qualifications. The Agency is working with the Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals (COSHEP), the Scottish Qualifications Agency (SQA) and the Scottish Executive to deliver and implement this important development. A consultation in early 1999 confirmed the main features of the SCQF. Work continues to finalise the details and arrangements for implementation.
Progress files
In March 1999 the Agency published on its web site a discussion paper outlining ideas for the development of progress files for higher education. The progress file will provide a record of a student's learning and achievements, and will support personal development planning. The file is another part of the framework for making the learning outcomes of higher education more explicit.
The paper, which was discussed at conferences, workshops and focus groups involving both practitioners and potential users, was revised in the light of feedback and formed the basis of a consultation document issued jointly by the Agency, the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals (CVCP) and the Standing Conference of Principals (SCOP) in September 1999.
Code of practice
The Agency is developing a Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education to cover a wide range of aspects of effective management of quality and standards in higher education. Each section of the Code will address a particular issue, and will be developed in partnership with and through consultation with the sector and other interested parties. In 1998-99 the Agency published the first two sections of the Code on postgraduate research degree provision and on collaborative provision. The section of the Code on students with disabilities was published in October 1999, and the codes dealing with external examining and student complaints are nearing completion. Work is continuing on other sections of the Code.
Developing and testing the new method
Development and trialling of the new academic review process is taking place over a two-year period, from 1998 to 2000. A contract was signed with the three funding councils (HEFCE, HEFCW and SHEFC) and DENI to cover the direct costs of the 1998-99 trials.
The 1998-99 trials focused on testing the capacity of the method to evaluate and produce reports on educational outcomes in chemistry, history and law, taking account of benchmark information, programme specifications and other sources of information. Twenty-one institutions and 58 academic reviewers took part, predominantly in Scotland and Wales, and an evaluation report prepared by the Department of Educational Studies at the University of Surrey has been issued. The trials produced valuable information about how educational outcomes should be reviewed, and about the issues to be addressed further in 1999-2000. These include clarifying the relationship between external examiner and academic reviewer, and the purpose of academic reviewer access to student work.
In 1999-2000 the second year of the trials will focus on integrating the trials on educational outcomes with the review of quality of learning opportunities (at subject level) and institutional review. A contract has been signed with the funding councils and DENI to support this work.
As the purpose of the trials and pilots is to test the capacity of the model to meet the requirements placed on it, there will be no published reports.
The Agency is grateful for the enthusiastic and thoughtful participation of institutions and reviewers in the trials.
Partnerships
The Agency works in consultation and collaboration with a wide range of organisations: the funding bodies, the bodies that represent the heads of higher education institutions, professional and statutory bodies (PSBs), the National Union of Students, and the sector generally.
Regular 'sounding board' meetings organised by the Agency have brought together senior colleagues from partner organisations. These meetings have been particularly helpful in developing the new quality assurance method for higher education.
A series of well-attended meetings held in May to July 1999 discussed the Agency's activities with PSB representatives and employer groups. PSBs, such as the Royal Society of Chemistry, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting, have been involved also in discussions with subject benchmarking groups, in development of the qualifications frameworks and programme specifications, and in development of various sections of the Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education. The Agency continues to explore how it can work with PSBs to minimise duplication in the requirements placed on higher education institutions. For example, the 1998-2000 subject review programme in England and Northern Ireland involves collaboration with health regulatory bodies, including the General Medical Council, the General Dental Council and the English and Northern Irish National Boards for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting. In Scotland, a pilot project with the National Board for Nursing Midwifery and Health Visiting for Scotland (NBS) explored the links between the awards for which the NBS has responsibility and the emerging national qualifications frameworks.
The Agency has welcomed recent Government commitment to strengthen effective working relationships between the NHS and higher education institutions through partnership with the Agency and health regulatory bodies (Making the Difference, 1999). An Agency/NHS Executive joint committee has discussed how to promote effectiveness and minimise duplication in the quality assurance of higher education provision in health professional areas.
Development of the new method has been a process characterised by consultation and collaboration. Full details are described in this report, in Future arrangements for quality assurance, page 9ff.
One of two consultations during Autumn 1999 considered the format to be used for reporting judgements on the quality of provision at subject level. The other set out proposals for rationalising and updating the basis on which the Agency receives subscription payments from higher education institutions.
An Agency for the UK
The Agency was established as a UK-wide body. In all its work therefore it seeks to develop ideas and frameworks that can apply across the UK. But it strives also to take account of and accommodate the needs and characteristics of the different countries of the UK.
Scotland
The Agency's Glasgow office supports its work in Scotland. Both the Glasgow office and the Advisory Committee for Scotland (ACS) an advisory committee of the QAA Board play a full part in many of the Agency's UK-wide activities, as well as helping to ensure that Agency policies and practices take account of the requirements of the higher education sector in Scotland.
The Glasgow office and the ACS have specific responsibility for liaison in Scotland, in particular with COSHEP, SHEFC, SEELLD, SQA and PSBs, in respect of the development of the new academic review method. Introducing the new method in Scotland from October 2000, and helping institutions to prepare for it, will present particular challenges in 1999-2000.
During 1998-99 the Agency has continued to support the Scottish Credit Accumulation and Transfer (SCOTCAT) Framework and the joint Scottish Advisory Committee on Credit and Access (SACCA). With COSHEP, the Agency has been reviewing the role and remit of SACCA to see how best it can support the sector's needs in the context of the new SCQF and the Government's agenda for wider participation in lifelong learning in Scotland.
Northern Ireland
For Northern Ireland the Agency has a designated liaison officer based in its Glasgow office, and there is regular contact with DENI at Chief Executive level. From 1999-2000 the Agency will have a direct contractual relationship with DENI to carry out subject reviews in the two universities in Northern Ireland.
Wales
Liaison with Wales is conducted from the Agency's Gloucester office. The officer for Wales is responsible for maintaining contact with institutions, with officers of the University of Wales, and with the Wales Academic Development and Quality Committee. Valuable contributions have been made to seminars arranged in Welsh institutions on the ongoing development work of the Agency, and one institution has participated in a pilot project on programme specifications designed to explore the usefulness of such documentation to employers.
Six higher education institutions in Wales participated in the trialling of academic review in 1998-99, including one institution providing programmes taught and examined in Welsh. The benchmark statement appropriate for the trials in this institution was translated into Welsh, and a team of bilingual reviewers was appointed.
The Agency has kept abreast of structural and institutional change in Wales following establishment of the Welsh Assembly and has noted the progress report made by HEFCW to the Assembly in May 1999 in respect of HEFCW's plans to improve quality and standards in higher education in Wales.
International liaison
In 1998-99 the Agency provided briefings for educators and government/public officials from Australia, Bahrain, Botswana, Estonia, Germany, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Jamaica, Japan, Lithuania, Malaysia, Netherlands, Oman, Philippines, Romania, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine and the USA. Consultancy support is provided also for projects on qualitative evaluation of higher education in India and Indonesia, including the recruitment and training of external reviewers. The Agency has advised government departments and agencies in Malaysia and Thailand on the development of new quality assurance systems as part of wide-ranging higher education reforms in those countries.
At the Biennial Conference of the International Network of Quality Assurance Agencies (INQAAHE) in May 1999, the Agency was represented by the Chief Executive and Director of Development. Considerable interest was expressed in the academic review method being developed in the UK. The Chief Executive was elected to the Board of INQAAHE.
In Autumn 1998 the Agency contributed to the Scottish Education and Training (SET) mission to South Africa. The Chief Executive of the South African Qualifications Authority spoke at the SCOTCAT conference in January 1999.
The Agency has undertaken a review of selected audit reports produced by the Association of European Universities, and the Director of Institutional Review has been a member of a Planning Committee of the European Commission charged with developing a European Quality Network for Higher Education.
Governance and management
The Agency is a private company limited by guarantee and registered as a charity. The members of the company are the representative bodies of the heads of higher education institutions ('the representative bodies'): CVCP, COSHEP, SCOP and HHEW.
QAA Board of Directors
The Board of Directors has 14 members: four appointed by the representative bodies; four by the higher education funding councils for England and Wales (HEFCE and HEFCW) and DENI, (the 'funding councils'); and six independent members appointed by the Board itself. The Chairman of the Board is drawn from the independent members. No director receives any remuneration from the Agency apart from reimbursement of travel expenses incurred on Agency business. The Directors of the Company are also its Trustees under the terms of the Charities Act 1993. Details of the Board's membership in 1998-99 are given on page 31. During the year the Board held six meetings. Summaries of discussions at these meetings were included in Higher Quality, which is published in printed format and on the Agency's web site.
General Meetings of the members of the company
In 1998-99, the company's members held their first Annual General Meeting and an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM). At the EGM the members approved proposals for amendment of the company's articles to make it possible for a member of the Board to be re-appointed a second time if that were necessary to enable her/him to undertake or complete a term of office as chair. This would provide for greater continuity in the office of chair and for longer term succession planning for that office.
Annual Report and accounts 1997-98
The Agency's 1997-98 Annual Report and financial summary was published in March 1999. It provided a full overview of the Agency's work across all functions, a summary of the results of subject reviews and institutional reviews in 1997-98, and the summary accounts.
HEFCE audit
In October 1998 the Agency was audited by the HEFCE Audit Service. The auditors' report provided helpful suggestions and recommendations to strengthen the Agency's governance and management arrangements. The Board agreed an action plan to address the recommendations, and has monitored progress at each Board meeting. Discussions with the HEFCE auditors in September 1999 confirmed that they were satisfied with the solid progress that had been made in developing the Agency's governance and management arrangements and planning systems.
Code of best practice for Board members
The Board has adopted a Code of best practice for Board members. The Code takes account of a wide range of expectations about corporate and public life as set out, for example, in the Cadbury, Greenbury and Hampel reports on corporate governance and in the Nolan Committee's reports on standards in public life and best practice in public bodies. The Board reviewed the Code in the light of the HEFCE audit report, and will review it annually. The Code is published on the Agency's web site.
Register of Board members' interests
The Register of Board members' interests was updated in May 1999. The Board widened the register's format and coverage in the light of the HEFCE audit report to include the Chief Executive, his four senior management colleagues, and the two observers who attend Board meetings, as well as Board members themselves. The register is reviewed annually and whenever there are changes in the Board's membership. It is available to the public on request.
Audit Committee
During the past year the Audit Committee concentrated on: overseeing the development of the Agency's financial regulations; evaluating the risks of the Agency's internal systems and controls; overseeing the Agency's strategic planning process; reviewing the 1998-99 budget; and monitoring the Agency's progress with audit recommendations. Its current priorities are: responding to forthcoming reports from the Agency's internal and external auditors and managing any recommendations arising from those reports; overseeing the development of the Agency's risk management strategy and the resource strategies that underpin the Business Plan; and overseeing the development of a value for money programme.
Nominations Committee
The Nominations Committee's main role relates to advising the Board on the procedures to be followed in appointing independent directors to the Board, and making recommendations for the appointment of independent directors. The Committee considered a wide field of possible candidates to fill a vacancy in the Board's membership (an appointment was made to the vacancy in September 1999). It was also asked by the Board to make arrangements for the appointment of a student observer to attend Board meetings; as a result, the Board agreed to invite Mr Patrick Barron to be student observer for an initial year from January 1999.
Remuneration Committee
The Remuneration Committee advises the Board on the Chief Executive's remuneration, and advises the Chief Executive on the remuneration of his senior management colleagues. The Committee's report and recommendations were endorsed by the Board in July 1999.
Business Plan
Strengthening the Agency's strategic planning processes was the main priority for action identified in the HEFCE audit report. The Board and senior management initiated the development of the Agency's Business Plan 1999-2002, using the strategic planning model identified in the HEFCE audit report. The process involved undertaking a detailed analysis of the Agency's environment and key stakeholders, using this analysis to derive three-year corporate objectives from the Agency's mission statement, and developing from these the Agency's Annual Operating Plan 1999-2000 (AOP).
The Business Plan 1999-2002 was delivered to the funding councils and representative bodies in May 1999. It set out the Agency's strategic aims over the next three years, the mission, the corporate objectives to deliver that mission, and an AOP and budget for 1999-2000. The AOP identified the objectives to be achieved in 1999-2000 and the resources needed to deliver those objectives.
The next steps for the Agency in developing its business planning capacity will include: developing the supporting resource strategies to allow the Agency to deliver its Business Plan; embedding progress monitoring and reporting systems; and strengthening the links between organisational, directorate, team and individual objectives, and those between planning and budgeting.
Year 2000
In May and November 1999 the Board received reports on the steps being taken to ensure that the Agency's systems were Year 2000 compliant and would continue to function after the date change. The Board approved the Agency's Statement of Compliance.
Personal performance and development
A Personal Performance and Development (PPD) review process has been designed to provide a framework for the systematic review of the performance and development needs of staff, in the light of the organisational objectives in the Business Plan. The PPD review process will evolve in line with Investors in People practice. A training plan for the Agency will be developed.
Terms and conditions of staff employment
A Staff handbook was developed during the year. This sets out harmonised terms and conditions for all staff, whether transferees from the HEFCE, HEFCW and the former HEQC or staff directly recruited following establishment of the Agency's head office in Gloucester.
Finance and information systems
Neither the finance system inherited from the HEQC nor the subject review database inherited from the HEFCE were adequate to support the range of activities, planning and reporting requirements placed on the Agency. A new finance system was put in place for the beginning of the 1999-2000 financial year to provide an enhanced financial reporting capacity. A new database system to support all visits and review-related information and planning is also being developed.
Communications
The Agency has made significant progress in developing its web site. Access is available to all published subject review reports and most continuation and overseas audit reports, as well as to a range of other publications and some working papers, including sections of the Code of practice, benchmarking and trialling materials. On average, the Agency's site receives some 58,000 visits each week; and the National Information Services and Systems (NISS) site the current location of the subject review reports receives some 17,000 visits per week.
Office relocation
The Agency's head office is in Gloucester, and it has a Scottish office in Glasgow. During planning for the introduction of the new academic review method in Scotland from October 2000, it became clear that the premises in Glasgow would not be able to accommodate the necessary increase in staffing. Accordingly arrangements were made for the Scottish office to move to new premises in September 1999.
Achievements and priorities
The Agency has achieved its priorities for 1998-99.
- A full programme of subject reviews in England and Northern
Ireland was completed and reports published on
schedule.
- The planned programme of continuation audits and overseas
audits was carried out.
- A thorough review of the criteria for the grant of degree
awarding powers and university title was completed, and a
report and recommendations forwarded to Government.
- Revised arrangements for the recognition and licensing of
Access to Higher Education authorised validating agencies
were developed and implemented.
- Planning of the 1999-2000 programme of 375 subject review
visits was completed.
- The 1998-99 trials of the new academic review method were
completed and evaluated.
- The 1999-2000 academic review development work was planned
and arrangements put in place.
- A contract was concluded with the funding bodies for
financial support for the academic review development work in
the Autumn term 1999; a contract for the Spring and Summer
term 2000 work will be concluded in Autumn 1999.
- A further 19 subject benchmarking groups were established,
with financial support from the funding councils, to carry
out the next phase of benchmarking work.
- The overall academic review cycle covering 42 subjects
between 2000 and 2006 was published.
- A Business Plan 1999-2002, including the
1999-2000 annual operating plan and budget, was agreed with
the Agency's partner bodies in July 1999.
- An action plan in response to the HEFCE audit was agreed
by the Agency's Board and has been monitored at each Board
meeting.
- Arrangements for review of staff performance and
development were put in place; work on harmonising terms and
conditions of employment was almost completed.
There is a similarly heavy programme of work in 1999-2000.
- The Agency will undertake a major programme of subject
reviews in England and Northern Ireland in 1999-2000, with
375 visits to be carried out under the current subject review
method.
- The Agency is also preparing for the 2000-2001 subject
review programme in England and Northern Ireland. Over 600
reviewers will be appointed and trained: the training
sessions will run between February and September 2000.
- Reviewers to carry out the new academic review method in
Scotland and Wales from October 2000 will be selected and
trained.
- The forward programme of continuation audit visits until
December 2000 is in place, and 13 visits are scheduled for
Autumn 1999. From January 2000 audit teams will monitor
institutional responses to the first section of the Agency's
Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and
standards in higher education.
In addition the Agency will continue to develop and refine
the details of and guidance on the new method of academic
review to be introduced initially in Scotland and Wales from
2000-2001. This will involve:
- agreeing review programmes 2000-2003 under the new method
with institutions in Wales and Scotland;
- publication of a draft Handbook for Academic Review
in early 2000;
- carrying out a programme of intensive collaborative work
with five institutions in Autumn 1999, to develop operational
and implementation materials that can be tested and refined
in pilot reviews in seven institutions in the Spring and
Summer terms 2000;
- continued work on subject benchmarking, with publication
of draft statements in January 2000, and in final form by
April 2000;
- consultation on the reporting styles for academic review
of subjects;
- consultation on the national qualifications frameworks,
leading to publication of the frameworks by April 2000;
- appointment of a training organisation to carry out
training of reviewers in the new method;
- publication of further sections of the Code of practice
for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher
education.
The Agency will also work to set up appropriate mechanisms
for monitoring and reviewing the Business Plan, and
for developing the underpinning strategies information,
human resources, finance, and risk management. Another
priority task will be to review the basis and structure for
institutional subscriptions to the Agency, to consult on
proposals, and to implement changes in time for 2000-2001.
Financial summary 1998 - 99
Summary accounts
The Annual Accounts and Directors' Report were approved by the Board, and by the Company's Members, at the Annual General Meeting (AGM) held on 19 January 2000. The Accounts and Directors' Report were submitted to both the Registrar of Companies and the Charity Commission following the AGM.
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' 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 year
ending 31 July 1999
Income and expenditure
Incoming resources
Contracts - 4,401,685 (total unrestricted funds 1999
£); 4,185,251 (total 1998 £)
Subscriptions - 3,245,386 (total unrestricted funds 1999 £); 3,261,343 (total 1998 £)
Donations and gifts - 0 (total unrestricted funds 1999 £); 743,681 (total 1998 £)
Degree awarding powers - 26,000 (total unrestricted funds 1999 £); 42,000 (total 1998 £)
Project funding - 194,093 (total unrestricted funds 1999 £); 97,378 (total 1998 £)
Secondments and consultancy - 0 (total unrestricted funds 1999 £); 5,912 (total 1998 £)
Investment income - 92,687 (total unrestricted funds 1999 £); 159,690 (total 1998 £)
Sale of publications - 40,568 (total unrestricted funds 1999 £); 37,390 (total 1998 £)
Other (Including workshops and conferences) - 177,453 (total unrestricted funds 1999 £); 16,900 (total 1998 £)
Total incoming resources - 8,177,872 (total unrestricted funds 1999 £); 8,549,545 (total 1998 £)
Resources expended
Direct charitable expenditure - 5,280,712 (total
unrestricted funds 1999 £); 5,954,095 (total 1998
£)
Other expenditure
Management and administration - 2,391,444 (total
unrestricted funds 1999 £); 2,198,810 (total 1998
£)
Total resources expended - 7,672,156 (total
unrestricted funds 1999 £); 8,152,905 (total
1998 £)
Net incoming resources before transfers - 505,716
(total unrestricted funds 1999 £); 396,640 (total 1998
£)
Transfer between funds - 0 (total unrestricted funds 1999
£); 0 (total 1998 £)
Net incoming resources and net movements in funds - 505,716 (total unrestricted funds 1999 £); 396,640 (total 1998 £)
Fund balances brought forward 1 August 1998 - 396,640 (total unrestricted funds 1999 £); 0 (total 1998 £)
Fund balances carried forward 31 July 1999 - 396,640 (total 1998 £)
Balance sheet at 31 July 1999
Fixed assets
Tangible assets - 1999: 572,786
(£); 1998: 560,909 (£)
Current assets
Debtors - 234,085 (£); 1998: 138,184 (£)
Cash at bank and in hand - 412,453 (£); 1998: 572,046 (£)
Total current assets - 1999: 646,538 (£); 1998: 710,230 (£)
Creditors amounts falling due within one year - 1999: (282,864) (£); 1998: (857,447) (£)
Net current assets/(liabilities) - 1999: 363,674 (£); 1998: (147,217) (£)
Total assets less current liabilities - 1999: 936,460 (£); 1998: 413,692 (£)
Provisions for liabilities and charges - 1999: 34,104 (£); 1998: 17,052 (£)
Net assets - 1999: 902,356 (£); 1998:
396,640 (£)
Represented by
Funds unrestricted - 1999: 902,356 (£);
1998: 396,640 (£)
Additional Information
Chief Executive's pay - 82,000 (1999); 81,033 (1998)
Banding of senior staff salaries
(excluding Chief Executive)
£40,000 £49,999 - 1999: 6 (no of employees); 1998: 8 (no of employees)
£50,000 £59,999 - 1999: 6 (no of employees); 1998: 1 (no of employees)
£60,000 £69,999 - 1999: 1 (no of employees); 1998: 0 (no of employees)
Average number of staff employed - 1999: 83 (no of employees); 1998: 67 (no of employees)
Expenditure %
Programme review - 48
Institutional review and associated activities - 12
Development - 9
Administration -31
Administration staff costs -13.0
Premises - 5.0
Establishment costs -2.5
Depreciation - 2.5
Publications - 2.0
Other administration expenses - 6.0
Income %
Contracts - 54
Subscriptions - 40
Other income - 6
Project funding - 2.0
Other (incl workshops & conferences) - 2.0
Investment income - 1.0
Sale of publications - 0.6
Degree awarding powers - 0.4
Top