About the Agency
The mission of the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education is to promote public confidence that quality of provision and standards of awards in higher education are being safeguarded and enhanced.
The Agency does 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; and
- operating programmes of review of performance at
institutional and
programme levels.
Chairman's introduction
This third annual report records a further year of steady progress on a number of fronts. At institutional level through continuation audits and at subject level through subject reviews, the current programme of quality assurance has been brought towards its completion throughout the UK. In parallel, development work has continued on the new method of academic review, notably in relation to the qualifications frameworks, subject benchmark statements, Guidelines on preparing programme specifications, various sections of the Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education and the Handbook for academic review itself. These will be key reference points for the future.
We have now reached the stage where we are introducing academic review in Scotland during 2000-01, followed by the rest of the UK in 2001-02. After three years well spent in preparation, consultation and collaboration, we are committed to demonstrating the benefits which the sector and its stakeholders have been looking for. An emphasis on self-evaluation as the starting point for academic review is fundamental and represents an important and desirable shift in focus, offering the possibility of secure judgements from a less burdensome process. However, institutions need to be open in their discussion of strengths and weaknesses, and to focus on the issues that are central to the review process. Given that the process has an inherently lighter touch, institutions need not burden themselves with an over-cautious or defensive approach which fails to recognise the nature of the change from the previous method. In this way academic review can become both less intrusive and more flexible, while demonstrating that an increasingly diverse sector is united in its commitment to the maintenance of the highest standards of provision.
It has taken the combined efforts of a large number of people throughout the sector and beyond to carry forward the work of the Agency in such a positive way. This has been a source of encouragement and I am most grateful for all the advice and help we have received. I wish to express special thanks to all members of the Board and of the Board's committees for so willingly donating their skills and their experience; and on behalf of the Board I pay a warm tribute to the Chief Executive and to all members of the Agency's staff for their talented commitment.
Chief Executive's foreword
The United Kingdom has always set world class standards in higher education. Those standards can now be demonstrated in a transparent manner, with the publication by the Agency of the frameworks for higher education qualifications. The frameworks are a major achievement for the higher education sector. They represent a consensus about the nature of standards, and a commitment to the high quality of teaching and learning that is needed to deliver them.
The qualification descriptors that lie at the heart of the frameworks provide 'the explicitness and clarity about standards and the levels of achievement for different awards' called for by the Dearing Report. They set out expectations of a student's mastery of their field of study, and of the conceptual understanding needed to engage with current issues at the forefront of that field. The descriptors state the intellectual skills that the graduate will have developed, for example the ability critically to evaluate arguments, assumptions, abstract concepts and data. They apply these skills to the world of work, by emphasising their use in solving problems, and in reaching decisions in complex and uncertain circumstances.
The descriptors are not static. They recognise that academic expectations will develop over time, as research and development extend the frontiers of knowledge and understanding.
Knowledge and ideas know no boundaries, thus higher education has always been, and will always be, a global business. In a competitive, global market it is not enough merely to claim high standards, they must be readily apparent to any enquirer. The Bologna Declaration of 1999 seeks to establish a common European currency of qualifications at the Honours and Masters levels. The UK now leads the way in having explicit and verifiable outcomes associated with those qualification titles.
Increasingly, higher education is delivered across national boundaries, sometimes through partnerships between institutions, and sometime through direct delivery, often using new electronic technologies. The UK's advantage in this market is underpinned by the explicit and transparent standards that the qualifications frameworks provide.
The publication of the qualifications frameworks puts in place the last of the major points of reference that will be used in the new method of academic review. As we move to implementation of that method we will be able to demonstrate the benefits of a less burdensome process.
The Agency's reviews are carried out:
- to ensure accountability and value for public money;
- to provide public information on quality and standards;
and
- to promote enhancement of provision.
Vital as these purposes are, any external intervention in an institution is likely to be characterised as burdensome, insofar as it utilises time and resources that might otherwise be differently deployed. This means that it is important that it can be shown that any burden is commensurate with the benefit to the institution and its students in terms of enhancement, and the wider public benefit of accountability and information.
Universities and colleges have a reasonable expectation that the new review method will reach robust conclusions from a 'lighter touch' engagement, and that there will be some differentiation of approach, such that intervention is in inverse proportion to success.
When external review was first introduced, there was no previous experience that could be drawn upon to focus review activity or to inform any differential approach. A uniformity of treatment was seen as an important guarantor of consistency in judgements. We now have considerable experience that allows us to set out, with clarity and transparency, the nature of the evidence that is required to enable judgements to be made. Review activity can thus be focused with greater precision.
The Handbook for academic review, published during the year, sets out clearly the points of reference against which institutions should be able to demonstrate the effectiveness of their provision. For judgements about standards, these are provided by the qualifications frameworks and the appropriate subject benchmark statements. These documents express the expectations held within the sector generally about standards of provision. They are not externally imposed norms, they are expressions of a consensus, within the academic community, about standards.
The Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education, important sections of which were published during the year, is also a statement of good practice, based on the collective experience of the sector.
This clarity and transparency about evidence will make it easier for institutions to prepare, but not to over-prepare, for review. Matters that will be of interest to reviewers are matters that a well-run institution would wish to address anyway, through its own quality assurance processes.
It follows from this convergence of interest between external and internal review processes, that much of the supporting evidence likely to be required will already be in existence. Other than the self-evaluation document that lies at the heart of the review process, it should not be necessary for documentation to be specially prepared or separately assembled.
Overall, a 'lighter touch' comes from the combination of several factors. Flexibility in the review schedule provides opportunities for a more effective use of time in better, more considered dialogue with institutions. It also helps eliminate duplication of effort, as reviews can be timed to coincide with internal or professional body reviews. Making more judgements on a threshold basis will also reduce burden. The evidence needed to establish whether provision crosses a threshold is likely to be less than that required to reach a judgement about the extent to which a threshold has been exceeded. Reviewers will commence subject reviews with a greater knowledge of the track record of the institution. They will have information from previous subject reviews, and from audits of overall systems for the management of quality and standards. They will need to collect less evidence about overall systems used by the institution.
Central to the new method of review is the self-evaluation document. A reflective, evidence-based and genuinely evaluative document will provide reviewers with most of the information they will need to conduct the review. Documents that are merely descriptive, and which do not evaluate strengths and weaknesses, will raise more questions than they answer, and will cause reviewers to spend more time in dealing with staff of the institution to gather directly evidence on which to base their judgements. The early experience of subject review in Scotland shows that a good self-evaluation document is a major factor in ensuring that there can be a significantly less intrusive approach to review, as the focus becomes one of verifying the institution's own evaluation of its performance.
It is self-evaluation that enables the review process to bring about enhancement of provision. Effective change comes when those who must implement it take ownership of it. That ownership is most likely to be engendered by a process of reflection on current practice, and identification of improvements that could be made. Improvements that are internally generated are far more likely to succeed than those that are externally imposed. Through self-evaluation, the academic review method is able to act as a stimulus to enhancement. The points of reference of the qualifications frameworks and the Code of practice, that give judgements their transparency, serve also to prompt internal reflection on good practice.
The new method of academic review offers a lighter touch to all institutions, whilst ensuring that the public continues to have access to robust judgements and reliable information. It allows us to take the first steps towards a variation in the intensity of scrutiny that will be applied to different institutions. Increasingly, we will have regard to a track record that gives evidence of robust and effective internal systems for the management of quality and standards. Where these exist, we shall place greater reliance upon them.
The year under review has been one in which the Agency has achieved a great deal. We have published the new Handbook for academic review and those sections of the Code of practice that are central to the review process. We have commenced the second phase of subject benchmarking, and the work that has enabled us to sign a statement of intent with the Department of Health in England that will lead to the Agency reviewing the higher education provision funded by the department. We have published qualifications frameworks that lead the world in making higher education standards explicit.
None of this could have been done without the support and involvement of very many people. Hundreds of individuals from universities and colleges, and from professional and employer bodies, have taken part in the working groups and consultations that have shaped these documents. My colleagues on the staff of the Agency have worked long and hard to draft documents and analyse responses to consultations, often against tight deadlines. And all of this has been achieved alongside the successful delivery of our largest ever review programme. To everyone who has contributed to these achievements, I am most grateful.
Assuring quality and standards
Assuring the quality and standards of higher education is the core business of the Agency. Our review work is our main point of contact with the academic community: it gives rise to the reports that result in millions of hits on our web site every year, it generates the public information that is used by newspapers to construct league tables, and it accounts for the greater part of our annual expenditure.
During the year, over 1,000 people acted as reviewers. It is their expertise that gives a peer review process its credibility. Their institutions also benefit from that involvement, through the knowledge that reviewers acquire of good practice across the sector.
The year brought the challenge of running large-scale review programmes using current methods, whilst preparing for introduction of the new method of academic review, used for the first time in Scotland in the academic year 2000-01, and throughout the UK from the following year.
Managing quality and standards
In a knowledge-based economy, and in a society in which lifelong learning is becoming the norm, qualifications are a vital currency. Those institutions that have the power to design programmes, assess students and award degrees must be able to demonstrate that they exercise their responsibilities seriously and with care, and in a manner that commands public confidence. The Agency reviews the way in which universities and colleges manage the quality of their provision and the standards of their awards. We report publicly on this, so that there may be public confidence in the academic standards of UK qualifications.
In 1999-2000 we carried out 29 of 32 planned continuation audits - our reviews of institutional management of quality and standards. Two reviews were cancelled because of institutional mergers, and one was postponed. We completed the programme of follow-ups from the previous year's audits, trained reviewers for the 2000-01 programme, and agreed the forward schedule of visits for the next year.
We carried out four overseas audit visits. Many UK institutions deliver programmes leading to their awards through partnerships with colleges overseas. On a country by country basis, we review and report on a sample of these links. We assess the effectiveness of the arrangements made by the UK institution to ensure its overseas programmes achieve the same standards that are set by it in the UK. In this way we help promote confidence in the standards of UK provision in a competitive global market.
In 1999-2000 we reviewed links in Egypt, Cyprus and Spain, and visited China to carry out a scoping exercise in preparation for a full audit.
Following newspaper allegations about the way in which a university had operated a collaborative link with an Israeli college, we were invited by the university to undertake a special enquiry. Our report was published in July 2000.
The Agency advises Ministers on applications for the grant of degree awarding powers and university title. Our advice is based upon an exhaustive scrutiny of the effectiveness of academic management in an institution, against criteria agreed between the Agency and the Government. During the year we advised on an application for university title, and commenced reviews of a further university title application and several applications for taught degree awarding powers. We also advised the Scottish Executive on designation of two establishments as higher education institutions.
The Agency licenses and reviews the local agencies that validate Access to Higher Education courses in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. During the year we carried out eight reviews and gave consideration to two initial applications for a licence.
High quality programmes
Prospective students need information about the quality of courses they may wish to follow. Employers want to know about the standards achieved by graduates they may recruit. Billions of pounds of public money goes to support higher education programmes. The funding bodies require an assessment of the quality of the courses they support, to ensure that there is value for this substantial public investment. Students and employers alike need impartial and readily available information on which to base their choices about where to study, or from where to recruit.
The Agency carries out a major programme of subject reviews on behalf of the higher education funding councils. In 1999-2000 we carried out 354 subject reviews in England and Northern Ireland. Eighteen planned reviews were postponed, mostly as a result of industrial action by university teachers; three were cancelled as the providing institutions had merged or because the provision was being discontinued. In addition we carried out special reviews of 10 independent schools of drama and dance that were entering public funding arrangements for the first time.
We completed our preparation for the final programme of subject reviews in England and Northern Ireland under the current method of review. Between October 2000 and December 2001 we will carry out over 600 visits, our largest ever programme. We completed also the training of reviewers for the new academic review method in Scotland.
Our work in conducting subject reviews of higher education provision in further education colleges is increasing substantially. In part, this is because the subjects due to be reviewed in England in 2000-01 include many where there is significant provision in further education colleges. In part, it is because responsibility for funding HNCs has been transferred to the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). In preparation for this increase in activity we have taken part in seminars for further education colleges and recruited reviewers with experience of higher education in further education colleges.
Academic review
After two years of intensive consultation, trialling and piloting, 2000-01 sees the introduction of academic review in Scotland, followed by the rest of the UK in 2001-02.
Collaborative development work with five institutions during autumn 1999 contributed to an initial draft of the Handbook for academic review (the Handbook), which describes the method and procedures for carrying out academic review, both at subject and institutional level. Pilot exercises with seven institutions tested the draft, and it was made available for comment in February 2000. The Handbook was finally published in April 2000.
Following a public tender, the Universities' and Colleges' Staff Development Agency (UCoSDA) was appointed to carry out academic reviewer training, which started in Scotland in June 2000.
An initial step in establishing the 2000-01 academic review programme in Scotland involved collecting information from all Scottish higher education institutions on the scope and nature of their subject provision, and on their preferences for the timing of individual reviews within the period 2000-03. On the basis of some of this information, we will be carrying out 25 reviews in Scotland during 2000-01.
Institutions in Wales also returned scope and preference data, and a programme of review for the academic years 2001-02 and 2002-03 has been agreed in principle. No Welsh institution put provision forward for review in 2000-01.
In June 2000 the Agency initiated a similar survey for institutions in England and Northern Ireland. This data will be analysed to plan academic review programmes in those countries for 2001-02 and 2002-03.
Infrastructure and reference points
Development of an infrastructure and reference points for standards in higher education provided a focus for a major part of the Agency's activity over the past year. Working in close partnership with higher education institutions, professional and statutory bodies, employer bodies, and other stakeholders, our objective was to support institutions in their own work to make standards explicit.
Qualifications frameworks
The qualifications frameworks, one for Scotland and one for England, Wales and Northern Ireland (EWNI), will provide clear and consistent information about the meaning and level of the undergraduate and postgraduate awards made by higher education institutions in the UK.
In November 1999, we published a consultation paper on proposals for the two qualifications frameworks for EWNI and Scotland, together with a position statement on postgraduate awards. The Agency's Board and its Advisory Committee for Scotland, together with the two qualifications framework development groups, considered the issues arising from this consultation, and position statements were made available for comment in July 2000.
Taking these comments into account, further adjustments were made to the position statements, and final drafts of the frameworks were presented to a conference in November 2000. Views were invited on the detailed descriptors, and in the light of these, the frameworks were published in January 2001.
Subject benchmark statements
Subject benchmark statements set out the attributes and characteristics that may be expected of a typical graduate in a specific discipline. In this initiative, the Agency acts as facilitator for the subject communities, and we publish the statements.
Draft benchmark statements in chemistry, history and law were made available in October 1999, with drafts for a further 19 subjects circulated for comment in January 2000. All 22 statements were published in April 2000. Over 350 members of subject communities and professional and statutory bodies actively contributed to the working groups that defined benchmark standards for their relevant subject areas.
A further 23 draft benchmark statements will be made available for comment in 2000-01.
In May 2000 we hosted a national conference to explore the implications and use of benchmark statements, particularly in relation to programme design, student assessment, and meeting public information needs.
In Scotland, work continues with the General Teaching Council for Scotland, Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools and the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council (SHEFC) to develop arrangements for the collaborative review of initial teacher education in Scotland. A benchmark statement which incorporates both professional and academic requirements has been agreed and published.
Discussions were begun on the benchmarking of nursing and health-related subjects, supported by the National Health Service (NHS) bodies in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. A letter of intent was exchanged with the NHS Executive in England as a necessary precursor to entering into a contract to carry out, from 2001, prototype reviews of the provision that it funds in these subjects in England. Discussions continue with the appropriate bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Programme specifications
The Report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (the Dearing Report) recommended that higher education institutions should develop programme specifications to describe what students and employers might expect from a specific programme of study.
These specifications clarify what knowledge, understanding, skills and other attributes a student will have developed on successfully completing a programme; and among other things, provide details of teaching and learning methods, assessment, and subsequent career opportunities. The preparation of programme specifications also provides a stimulus to teaching teams to reflect on and clarify the aims and intended outcomes of their programmes.
In May 2000, we published a workbook, Guidelines on preparing programme specifications.
Many institutions are now providing programme specifications on their web sites.
Promoting good practice
The Agency seeks to promote and publish clear information about good practice to help institutions enhance the quality of their provision. As well as the insights that can be distilled from our review reports, the Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education (the Code) provides precepts and guidance for best practice across a range of institutional activities. Seven sections of the Code were published in 1999-2000, and the remaining planned sections will be published during 2001. A national conference in June 2000 launched publication of the section on academic appeals and student complaints on academic matters.
Plans for 2001 include a 'learning from audit' publication, and a similar publication on subject review.
Working together to promote quality and standards
Our work to promote and maintain quality and standards in UK higher education could not be achieved without the invaluable contribution made by the universities and colleges, and by the wide range of other bodies and individuals who have an interest in higher education.
Stakeholder collaboration
The development of academic review has provided many opportunities for collaboration with external stakeholders including representative bodies, employers, students, professional and statutory bodies (PSBs) and other national organisations. For example, work with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals (CVCP) and the Standing Conference of Principals (SCOP) on the use of progress files resulted in a joint policy statement in May 2000. The Association of Graduate Recruiters (AGR) and the Institute of Personnel Development were involved in developing approaches to progress files and programme specifications. The AGR is represented on the working group for the Code of practice on career guidance, and employer representatives are active members of a number of the subject benchmarking groups.
PSBs play an important role in many of the benchmarking groups, both in shaping their membership and progressing their work. The Engineering Council, the Engineering Employers' Federation, and the Engineering Professors' Council contributed to development of the benchmarking statement for engineering. PSBs have contributed also to the work on qualifications frameworks and programme specifications, including the H1/H2 project commissioned by the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) and a project on programme specification in health and social care undertaken by Kingston University and St George's Hospital Medical School. Where appropriate, reviews at subject or institutional level are carried out in collaboration with PSBs (eg the General Medical Council, General Dental Council and the National Boards for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting), and many have expressed interest in the scope for collaboration in reviews within the new academic review method. In February 2000, PSBs and employer groups took part in well-attended meetings in Gloucester and Glasgow to discuss the draft Handbook for academic review.
Close working relations were maintained with the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA), both at chairman/chief executive level, and through a joint forum. The forum, which met during the year to discuss matters of mutual interest relating to qualifications frameworks, includes representatives of the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA), the Qualifications Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales, and the Curriculum Council, Examinations and Assessment for Northern Ireland, as well as members from PSBs and higher education institutions. We are also represented on QCA working groups for health, financial services and engineering, and are developing a memorandum of understanding with QCA on Access to higher education.
A partnership with the NHS Executive (NHSE) led to agreement on benchmarking health-related subjects; and prototype reviews will be carried out under contract with the NHSE in England from 2001.
Our office in Glasgow maintained close contacts with stakeholder and related bodies in Scotland, for example through extensive work with the SQA on developing the qualifications framework for Scotland, and with the Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals (COSHEP) and SHEFC on the introduction of academic review. Work continues with the Scottish Advisory Committee on Credit and Access (SACCA), the Association of Scottish Colleges, and the Access Consortia on developing a strategy for access in Scotland in the context of the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework.
In Wales, we are working closely with representatives from higher education institutions to develop guidance to support institutions providing assessment in the Welsh language. The Committee for Wales has also provided opportunities to consider issues of particular importance to the sector in Wales.
Student involvement is an increasingly important feature of our work. All student unions receive Agency communications, and over the past year students have been represented on relevant working groups, for example on the group for the section of the Code of practice on academic appeals and student complaints, and on the group that is developing progress files. From time to time, informal meetings on specific issues have been held with officials from the National Union of Students. The student observers at meetings of both the Board and the Advisory Committee for Scotland facilitated our understanding of the student perspective on quality and standards.
At an international level, we are active in the European Network for Quality Assurance, and the Chief Executive serves on the Board of the International Network of Quality Assurance Agencies. In practice, much of our international work is conducted from our Gloucester office, where, between February and July 2000, we welcomed 23 parties of overseas visitors, mainly government officials or senior university staff.
The impact of the Bologna Declaration on UK higher education, in particular on the qualifications frameworks, led to discussions with European agencies in Denmark, Germany, Spain, Switzerland and The Netherlands. We maintained close contact with the DfEE, the lead government department on the Declaration, and also hosted a conference in November 2000 at which UK initiatives were considered in the context of European developments in response to the Bologna Declaration.
The British Council has continued to provide support for our overseas audit programme through its local offices, and we are grateful for this assistance. In November 1999, it met the cost of the Chief Executive's visit to Kuala Lumpur for meetings with Government bodies and a press conference to launch the publication of a series of reports on UK/Malaysia links. The Agency has provided expert speakers for British Council events in the UK and for events sponsored by overseas governments or evaluation agencies in some 15 countries. About half of these overseas events have been within Europe, where our strategic priority has been to promote an understanding of the UK approach to qualifications, in the light of the development of our own qualifications frameworks, and the initiatives taken in other countries to implement the Bologna Declaration.
Most of the other overseas events have been in developing countries in South America, the Far East and southern Africa. In these cases the strategic aim has been to help build confidence in the quality and standards of UK higher education, usually through workshops that explain the UK approach to quality assurance. Most events have taken place in countries where UK higher education has a significant actual or potential interest, either through recruitment of students to programmes in the UK, or in delivery of programmes through local partners. Agency staff have also acted as tutors on staff development programmes sponsored by the British Council and the World Bank for evaluation agencies in India and Indonesia.
Working effectively
Business planning and an annual budgeting process underpin our objective of achieving efficiency, effectiveness and value for money. Our work is submitted to close scrutiny by the funding and representative bodies, and by KPMG, external auditors.
Reporting
We communicate progress and achievement of objectives through a variety of means. Written reports are provided to the funding and representative bodies on a six-monthly basis, and regular discussions are held with them through their quality assessment committees and Quality and Standards Group respectively. Higher quality, the Agency bulletin, and the Annual report are distributed widely.
Institutional subscriptions
During 1999-2000 we consulted the sector on a revised structure for institutional subscriptions. Our proposals were accepted, and details finalised with the representative bodies in spring 2000. Subscription invoices for 2000-01 were issued in July 2000.
Business planning and supporting strategies
Each year we identify a programme of work for the coming year, set out in a costed, annual operating plan. The plan's proposals are discussed with the funding and representative bodies, and undergo intensive examination. Our remit to deliver the agreed programme of work is captured in contracts with the funding bodies, and in subscription levels agreed with the representative bodies.
Over the period of this Annual report, we strengthened our business planning capacity. Work on an information strategy is well advanced, and work on human resources and finance strategies is proceeding. We have also undertaken to develop strategies for achieving value for money and risk management.
Providing public information
Development of initiatives to demonstrate our commitment to making information about the quality and standards of UK higher education publicly available has continued over the past year. For example, as a result of a report commissioned by the HEFCE, Providing public information on HE quality and standards, and following a sector-wide consultation in December 1999, it was agreed that each report from the new academic review method will include a one-page summary, to provide clear and accessible information about the institution's provision and about judgements on academic standards and the quality of the learning experience.
Media profile
Growing media interest in our work has helped to raise our profile within the sector and in the public domain, and our senior staff have been called on to provide both comment and features for the specialist and general consumer press.
Handling enquiries
To handle an increasing number of enquiries about Agency publications, a help desk facility was set up with our distribution agent, Linney Direct. A comprehensive training programme was arranged for the call centre staff before the help desk went live in May 2000. Enquiries are received mostly by phone and email, and total over 300 per month. The majority of enquiries are about subject review reports. The number of calls will be monitored closely over the next year. The publications help desk complements the general enquiry service handled via our email address, comms@qaa.ac.uk.
Web site
To provide a vehicle for more effective public communication, our web site underwent major redevelopment, with ease of navigability, enhanced search facilities and improved visual appeal in mind. The new site was launched in time for the commencement of the 2000-01 academic year. All our publications are now made available on the web, together with consultation papers and many working drafts. Hits on the site have grown rapidly and are now averaging over 2 million each month.
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'):
- Universities UK (formerly CVCP);
- Universities Scotland (formerly COSHEP);
- Higher Education Wales (HEW); and
- Standing Conference of Principals (SCOP).
Board of directors
The Agency's Board of directors has 14 members: four appointed by the representative bodies; four appointed by the higher education funding councils for England and Wales (HEFCE and HEFCW) and the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment (DHFETE) in Northern Ireland; and six independent members appointed by the Board itself. The chairman of the Board is drawn from the independent members. All directors are non-executive; they receive no 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 are given on page 31.
In January 2000 three of the Board's founder members - Professor Hadyn Ellis, Dr Martin Gaskell and Dr Geoffrey Robinson - retired from membership. Each had made a valuable and distinctive contribution to the work of the Board and the development of the Agency. These vacancies and an earlier vacancy were filled by Professor Antony Chapman, Principal of University of Wales Institute, Cardiff; Mr Graham Mackenzie OBE, Chief Executive of ASW Holdings plc; Professor Peter McKie CBE, former Chairman of Dupont UK; and Mr Philip Robinson, Director of University College Chichester. In March, Mr Hugh Smith, another founder member, retired. In May, the student observer, Mr Patrick Barron, from the University of Edinburgh, retired to pursue postgraduate studies.
During the year the Board held six meetings. Summaries of discussions at these meetings were included in Higher quality, which is available on the Agency's web site.
Annual general meeting
The second annual general meeting of the members of the company, held in January 2000, received the 1998-99 Directors' report and Annual accounts, and reappointed KPMG as the company's auditors.
Register of Board members' interests
The register of Board members' interests was updated in September 1999 and January 2000. As well as Board members, it includes the chief executive, the four heads of directorate, and the two observers (representing Government education departments and students). The register contains details of current employment, and connections with higher education institutions and other bodies. It is available to the public on request.
Audit committee
During the past year the audit committee held three meetings. It concentrated on approval of the Agency's financial statements; review of the Agency's systems and financial procedures; review of the internal audit programme; and review of progress with audit recommendations, and risk.
Nominations committee
The nominations committee's main role is to advise the Board on the procedures for appointing independent Board directors, and to make recommendations for their appointment. Two new independent members were appointed to the Board in the course of the year. The vacancy vice Hugh Smith was advertised in May and a recommendation went to the Board in January 2001.
Remuneration committee
The remuneration committee advises the Board on the performance and remuneration of the Chief Executive, and it advises the Chief Executive on the remuneration of his senior management colleagues. The committee reported to the Board meeting held in July 2000.
Year 2000
The Board approved a Year 2000 statement of compliance and programme of work in May 1999. This work continued to the end of the year, and contingency arrangements were made in case of emergency. The date change passed off without incident however, and regular monitoring has continued since January 2000.
Subscription rates
Having held the subscription rate for all institutions at the same level since the Agency took on the Higher Education Quality Council's responsibilities, we made a commitment to undertake a thorough review of the subscription structure during 1999-2000, to take effect from 2000-01. Following consultation with the sector, our proposals were accepted and details finalised in discussion with the representative bodies in spring 2000. For 2000-01 we have budgeted for a reduction in income from subscriptions.
Achievements and priorities
The Agency has achieved its priorities for 1999-2000
- A programme of over 350 subject reviews in England and Northern Ireland was carried out.
- A programme of 29 continuation audits in the UK and audit visits to four countries overseas were carried out.
- The planned programme of reviews of Access to Higher Education authorised validating agencies (AVAs) was carried out.
- Over 340 reports (subject reviews, continuation audits, overseas audits, AVA reviews) were published.
- Planning of the remaining programme of current method subject review visits for 2000-01 in England and Northern Ireland was completed.
- The development and trials of the new quality assurance method were completed.
- The Handbook for academic review was published.
- Planning of the 25 academic reviews in Scotland in 2000-01 was largely completed.
- Development of the national qualifications frameworks was brought to its final stages.
- Twenty two subject benchmark statements were published.
- Seven sections of the Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education were published.
- The 2000-03 Business plan and 2000-01 annual operating plan and budget were agreed with our partner bodies.
- Amendments to the structure and basis of institutional subscriptions were developed and consulted on. The revised structure was implemented from August 2000.
- Our web site was substantially redesigned and relaunched to improve ease of access and navigability.
- A full cycle of staff performance and development reviews was completed.
The Agency has a substantial programme of work in 2000 - 01
- Undertake a programme of 420 current method subject reviews in England and Northern Ireland.
- Carry out the first 25 academic reviews in Scotland.
- Undertake 24 continuation audit visits, and three overseas visits.
- Publish up to 450 reports (including subject reviews, subject overviews, continuation audits, overseas audits, and AVA reviews).
- Prepare for the first academic reviews in England, Northern Ireland and Wales from 2001-02.
- Select, train and appoint sufficient reviewers to carry out reviews in 2000-01 and 2001-02, both for the current method and the new method.
- Finalise the national qualifications frameworks.
- Work with the subject communities to prepare subject benchmark information in 23 subjects.
- Publish the next four sections of the Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education.
- Undertake preparatory work for prototype reviews of nursing and professions related to medicine, in England, under contract with the Department of Health.
- Publish the Business plan 2000-03.
Financial summary 1999-2000
The 1999-2000 Directors' Report and Financial Statements were approved by the Board, and by the company's members at the Annual General Meeting held on 10 January 2001. The Directors' Report and Financial Statements 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 financial statements prepared by the Agency and given an unqualified audit opinion by KPMG, the Agency's 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 Directors' Report, the full financial statements and the auditors' report on those financial statements 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 financial statements produced by the Agency for the year ended 1999-2000 and on which we have given an unqualified opinion dated 17 November 2000.
KPMG
Chartered Accountants, Registered Auditors
Statement of financial activities for the year ended 31 July 2000
Income and expenditure
Incoming resources
Main contracts with funding bodies - 5,979,560 (1999-2000 £); 4,401,685 (1998-1999 £)
Subscriptions - 3,501,030 (1999-2000 £); 3,245,386 (1998-1999 £)
Donations and gifts - 0 (1999-2000 £); 0 (1998-1999 £)
Applications for university title and degree awarding powers - 28,086 (1999-2000 £); 26,000 (1998-1999 £)
Project funding - 663,846 (1999-2000 £); 194,093 (1998-1999 £)
Investment income - 126,876 (1999-2000 £); 92,687 (1998-1999 £)
Sale of publications - 23,770 (1999-2000 £); 40,568 (1998-1999 £)
Other income - 26,345 (1999-2000 £); 177,453 (1998-1999 £)
Total incoming resources - 10,349,513 (1999-2000 £); 8,177,872 (1998-1999 £)
Resources
expended
Direct charitable expenditure - 8,609,185 (1999-2000 £); 6,673,906 (1998-1999 £)
Fundraising and publicity - 0 (1999-2000 £); 0 (1998-1999 £)
Management and administration costs - 1,225,382 (1999-2000 £); 998,250 (1998-1999 £)
Total resources expended - 9,834,567 (1999-2000 £); 7,672,156 (1998-1999 £)
Net incoming resources before transfers - 514,946 (1999-2000
£); 505,716 (1998-1999 £)
Fund balances brought forward - 902,356 (1999-2000 £); 396,640 (1998-1999 £)
Fund balances carried forward - 1,417,302 (1999-2000 £); 902,356 (1998-1999 £)
Fixed assets
Tangible assets - 650,688 (1999-2000 £); 572,786
(1998-1999 £)
Current assets
Debtors - 223,887 (1999-2000 £); 234,085 (1998-1999
£)
Cash at bank and in hand - 1,658,583 (1999-2000 £); 412,453 (1998-1999 £)
1,882,470 (1999-2000 £);
646,538 (1998-1999 £)
Creditors - amounts falling due within one year:
(1,064,700) (1999-2000 £); (282,864)
(1998-1999 £)
Net current assets - 517,770 (1999-2000 £); 363,674 (1998-1999 £)
Total assets less current liabilities - 1,468,458 (1999-2000 £); 936,460 (1998-1999 £)
Provisions for liabilities and charges - 51,156 (1999-2000 £); 34,104 (1998-1999 £)
Net assets - 1,417,302 (1999-2000 £); 902,356 (1998-1999 £)
Represented by:
Designated funds - 51,156 (1999-2000 £); 34,104
(1998-1999 £)
Unrestricted funds - 1,366,146 (1999-2000 £);
868,252 (1998-1999 £)
Total funds - 1,417,302 (1999-2000 £);
902,356 (1998-1999 £)
Cash flow statement for the year ended 31 July 2000
Net cash inflow/(outflow) from operating activities - 1,541,676 (1999-2000 £); (36,551) (1998-1999 £)
Returns on investments and servicing of finance
Investment income - 126,876 (1999-2000 £); 92,687 (1998-1999 £)
Capital expenditure
Purchase of fixed assets - (422,422) (1999-2000 £);
(215,729) (1998-1999 £)
Increase/(decrease) in net cash - 1,246,130 (1999-2000 £); (159,593) (1998-1999 £)
Additional Information
Direct charitable expenditure - 1999-2000: 2,276,232 (Pay costs £); 6,332,953 (Non pay costs £); 1999-2000: 1,976,264 (Pay costs £); 4,697,642 (Non pay costs £)
Management and administration costs - 1999-2000: 619,717 (Pay costs £); 605,665 (Non pay costs £); 1999-2000: 523,688 (Pay costs £); 474,562 (Non pay costs £)
Total - 1999-2000: 2,895,949 (Pay costs £); 6,938,618 (Non pay costs £); 1999-2000: 2,499,952 (Pay costs £); 5,172,204 (Non pay costs £)
Chief Executive's emoluments: 97,636 (1999-2000);
92,384 (1998-1999)
Banding of senior staff salaries excluding Chief
Executive
£40,000 - £49,999 - No of employees: 10 (1999-2000); 6 (1998-1999)
£50,000 - £59,999 - No of employees: 4 (1999-2000); 6 (1998-1999)
£60,000 - £69,999 - No of employees: 3 (1999-2000); 1 (1998-1999)
Average number of staff employed - 93 (1999-2000); 83 (1998-1999)
Top