Report to COSHEP, CVCP, HHEW, SCOP, DENI, HEFCE and HEFCW

August 1999

Introduction

1. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) is required under the terms of its contracts with the HE representative bodies, the Department of Education Northern Ireland (DENI) and the English and Welsh funding councils (HEFCE and HEFCW) to provide progress reports to those bodies at the end of February and August each year. This is the fourth such report. It follows the style of the previous report and is in four parts: QAA Functions and Programmes; Developing the New Approach to Quality Assurance; QAA Governance and Management; and QAA Priorities in the coming period.

QAA functions and programmes

Reports to HEFCE

2. For each meeting of the HEFCE's Quality Assessment Committee the Agency provides the HEFCE with summary analyses of the outcomes of visits. The Agency also provides a weekly report in term time on the results of visits the previous week.

3. The Agency provides twice-yearly reports on the numbers of visits carried out, and reports published, measured against the targets set out in the QAA's contract with the funding council. The most recent report at the end of July 1999 showed that 235 visits had taken place in 1998-99 as scheduled, one had been cancelled in the light of up-to-date data, and one had been postponed. 93 per cent of reports from the Autumn term 1998 visits had been published by the target publication date.

4. The Agency continues to seek evaluation information on the preparation and conduct of visits from institutions, contract reviewers and subject reviewers. Reports were made to the HEFCE in September 1998 and January 1999. A further report will be made in September 1999, based on the evaluation returns from visits carried out in 1998-99.

Quality Assessments in Wales

5. The first 5 year cycle of quality assessments in Wales concluded with the publication of the final reports in 1998. The Agency has prepared an overview report covering the period 1993-98, the final draft of which will be reviewed by the HEFCW in September 1999. The report seeks to chronicle the distinctive features of the custom and practice adopted for quality assessment in Wales and provides a brief analysis and commentary on the overall findings.

6. The Agency has continued to work closely with HEFCW over the last six months. The liaison officer for Wales has attended meetings of the HEFCW Quality Assessment Committee, and a number of programmed meetings for the purpose of monitoring the current service level agreement have taken place. These channels have provided the means for reporting to HEFCW on the progress the Agency has made in developing the new framework and for providing feedback on the details of the service agreement, in particular the specific items identified in the payment schedule.

1997-98 Quality Assessments in England and Northern Ireland

7. The Agency carried out 304 assessment visits in England and Northern Ireland in 1997-98. All of the reports from those visits were published by March 1999. The subject overview reports - covering all visits in the group of 16 subjects reviewed between October 1996 and Summer 1998 - were published on schedule at the end of January 1999. The Agency is preparing an interim report on the conduct, findings and recommendations of quality assessments / subject reviews in England and Northern Ireland 1993-98.

1998-99 Quality Audits (including overseas audits)

8. Since February 1999, the Agency has carried out continuation audit visits in 13 UK universities. Overseas collaborative audit visits have been made to Ireland, Malaysia and South Africa. By the beginning of August 1999 all audit reports for visits carried out before the end of 1998 had been published. Nominations were sought for new auditors and audit secretaries. 32 auditors and 29 audit secretaries have been appointed, for whom training has been arranged for September 1999. Auditors' and audit secretaries' plenary meetings have been held as part of the continuing auditor development programme.

1998-2000 Subject Reviews in England and Northern Ireland

9. The Agency carried out 235 subject review visits in England and Northern Ireland in 13 subjects in 1998-99. In 1999-2000 - the second year of this round of reviews - there will be 375 visits.

1999-2001 Continuation Audit

10. The programme of continuation audit visits over the next fifteen months is in place. Thirteen visits are scheduled for Autumn 1999. The continuation audit programme for 2001 will be agreed to reflect the requirements of the QAA's emerging new method for assuring quality and standards. From January 2000 audit teams will begin to monitor institutional responses to the first section of QAA's Code of Practice for Quality Assurance.

2000-01 Subject Reviews in England and Northern Ireland

11. In Wales and Scotland, the published quality assessment programmes were completed in Summer 1998. The programme published by the HEFCE in 1995, however, runs to the end of the calendar year 2001. The HEFCE requires that the QAA should complete the published programme, using the current subject review method, but taking account of emerging elements of the new QAA model where possible. There will therefore be a programme of subject reviews in 11 subjects in England and Northern Ireland between October 2000 and December 2001, in line with the previously published timetable. The Agency asked institutions for information on their provision in these 11 subjects, and it is estimated at this stage that there will be around 400 visits in the academic year 2000-01.

12. The HEFCE will have additional funding responsibility for HNCs and other HE in FE colleges from 1999-2000. This means that the programme of subject reviews in 2000-01 will also cover provision in around 200 FE colleges with which the QAA has had no previous dealings. In total, therefore, around 280 FE colleges, as well as HEIs in England and Northern Ireland, were contacted for information on provision. The QAA is discussing with the HEFCE and the other partner organisations how the programme for 2000-01 is to be constructed. Certain aspects of the method as currently conducted, for example that there are no visits to provision with a student population below 30 FTE, may need to be reviewed.

13. Between 600 and 700 reviewers will be appointed and trained for the 2000-01 reviews. Training sessions will run between February and September 2000.

Special Reviews

14. The Scottish Office Education and Industry Department (SOEID) commissioned the Agency to carry out reviews of quality assurance at two institutions in Scotland, as part of SOEID's consideration of those institutions' applications for designation as an HE institution (which would make them eligible for funding from the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council)). The Agency has reported to SOEID (now the Scottish Executive Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Department - SEELLD) on one of the institutions and will submit the report on the other in December 1999.

Degree-awarding powers and university title

15. In the six months from February 1999 the Agency has been involved with the consideration of two applications for taught degree awarding powers. The DfEE had advised the Agency in 1998 that, in respect of applications received after the publication of the Government's response to the Dearing Report on 25 February 1998, the advice provided by the Agency should be in accordance with any new criteria that may be approved by the Government following the Agency's review (see paragraph 17 below). Consideration of five applications received before that date - three from institutions seeking taught degree awarding powers and two from institutions seeking research degree awarding powers - has, therefore, been temporarily suspended.

16. The Agency has been invited to provide advice with respect to two applications for university title. Working with a small group of experienced institutional assessors, the Agency-appointed Scrutiny Panels are presently reviewing the operations of the institutions with a view to providing guidance to the Privy Council by the end of 1999 and 2000 respectively.

17. The Agency carried out a thorough review, commissioned by the Secretary of State for Education, of the criteria for the grant of degree awarding powers and university title. The QAA Board forwarded its report and recommendations to the DfEE at the end of January 1999. The DfEE is currently considering the responses to its consultation on the proposed revised criteria.

Access Courses Recognition

18. The QAA Recognition Scheme for Access to HE in England, Wales and Northern Ireland was formally launched in London in March 1999. Speakers included the Minister for Higher Education, the QAA Chief Executive, the Chair of the QAA's Access Recognition and Licensing Committee (ARLC), and several former students with direct experience of the Access route into Higher Education. Speakers were able to highlight newly released statistics which had been prepared for the Agency about the progression of Access students into and through HE. At the same event, a new logo for the scheme was launched to act as an identifier for licensed authorised validating agencies (AVAs), recognised Access to HE programmes and certified achievement on an Access programme.

19. Since the introduction of the new Recognition Scheme the Agency has been able to implement the approved process for the licensing and review of AVAs. Reviewer recruitment and induction has taken place, with further training planned for September 1999. The first four reviews of AVAs to be undertaken by the Agency were completed between March and June. Reports for the first two reviews were received by the ARLC in June, and the Committee endorsed the reviewers' recommendations to re-license both AVAs, making the licence subject to conditions in each case. Reports from the other two reviews will be received by the ARLC at its September meeting. A further three AVA reviews, and consideration of an application for a new AVA licence, are planned for the Autumn of 1999. Liaison with other bodies with an interest in Access to HE has continued, and in May a new service level agreement was signed with UCAS to secure the continued operation of the database of Access to Higher Education programmes. Discussions with HEFCE about the development of the statistical picture for Access have also taken place recently.

International Liaison

20. The Agency receives a large number of requests to brief international visitors, speak at conferences, take part in overseas collaborative projects. The Board's policy is that the relevance of an international activity to the Agency's core business should be central to any decisions on involvement in that activity. It identified four areas of international activity in which the Agency should be involved: supporting overseas audit; learning from experience overseas; keeping a watching brief on international developments that could impact on the Agency's work or on UK HE more broadly; and, subject to resources, briefing international visitors and providing speakers for conferences.

21. In the last six months the Agency has provided briefings for overseas educators and government/public officials from Australia, Bahrain, Botswana, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, India, Japan, Lithuania, Oman, Romania , South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine and the USA. The Agency is providing consultancy support for projects on qualitative evaluation of higher education in India and Indonesia, including the recruitment and training of external reviewers. It has advised Government departments and agencies in Malaysia and Thailand on the development of new quality assurance systems as part of wide-ranging HE reforms in those countries.

22. At their meeting in March 1999 members of the Board had the opportunity to meet Dr Christian Thune, Director of the Centre for Quality Assurance and Evaluation of Higher Education, Denmark, who provided a full and informative overview of approaches to quality assurance across Europe. The Board has subsequently received a copy of Evaluation of European Higher Education: A Status Report prepared for the European Commission.

23. The Agency was represented at the Biennial Conference of the International Network of Quality Assurance Agencies (INQAAHE) in May 1999 by the Chief Executive and Director of Development. Considerable interest was expressed in the new quality assurance method being developed in the UK. The Chief Executive was elected to the Board of INQAAHE.

Relationships with Professional and Statutory Bodies

24. The professional and statutory bodies (PSBs) have continued to express interest in the developments which the Agency is undertaking with the HE sector. A series of well-attended meetings were held in Gloucester in May - July 1999 to discuss QAA developments with representatives of PSBs and employer groups. PSBs have also been involved in discussions about the formation of subject benchmarking groups, the qualifications framework, programme specification, and codes of practice. The Agency has continued to promote collaborative ways of working with PSBs in order to minimise duplication in the requirements placed on HE institutions. The subject review programme in 1998-2000 involves collaboration with several of the health regulatory bodies, including the General Medical Council (GMC), General Dental Council (GDC) and the English and Northern Irish National Boards for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting (ENB and NBNI). 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. These experiences of collaboration will be built on in the forthcoming pilots of the new quality assurance arrangements.

25. The Agency welcomes the recent Government commitment to strengthen effective working relationships between the NHS and the HE institutions through partnership with the QAA and health regulatory bodies (Making the Difference 1999, 4.17). The joint committee established between the Agency and the NHS Executive has continued to discuss ways to promote effectiveness and minimise duplication in the quality assurance of HE provision in health professional areas. A summary of the Committee's work is given in Annex B.

Scotland

26. The QAA Scottish Office and the Advisory Committee for Scotland (ACS) continue both to play a full part in various of the Agency's UK-wide activities and general programme of work, and to ensure that Agency's policies and practices are informed by, and take account of, the needs and characteristics of the higher education sector in Scotland. The ACS recently appointed a student to its membership (paralleling the inclusion of a student member on the Board). This now brings the Committee membership to full strength.

27. The Office and the ACS have responsibility for liaison in Scotland, in particular with COSHEP, SHEFC, SEELLD (the Scottish Executive Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Department), and SQA and with professional bodies with respect to the development of the new model for the assurance of quality and standards.

28. The Office and the Committee have made early contact with the new Scottish Parliament's Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and with the relevant Parliamentary Committee. The Head of the Office will join the Chair of the Committee and the QAA Chief Executive in a briefing meeting with the Minister in early September. A briefing paper has been sent to the Committee on Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, and separate information packs have been sent to individual members of the Committee.

29. Regular liaison with SQA continues to focus on the development of credit and qualification frameworks and the potential articulation of QAA and SQA quality assurance arrangements. Officers of QAA Scottish Office and SHEFC have continued to maintain good links and meet to discuss a range of issues of joint interest to SHEFC and QAA, including issues of access to higher education, the SCOTCAT Framework and the Government's Lifelong Learning Agenda in Scotland.

30. Working with the ACS, which it services, the Scottish Office also undertakes a programme of work in Scotland and provides the first point of contact with the Agency for the higher education institutions and other bodies in Scotland.

Preparation for 2000-01

31. A particular and considerable challenge for the Committee and for the Office over the next six months and beyond will be supporting the sector in Scotland as it prepares for the implementation of the new arrangements for quality and standards in October 2000. As one part of its strategy, the office will be holding a series of monthly meetings for all institutions in Scotland. The meetings will be held from September 1999 to April 2000 and will provide an opportunity to keep the institutions fully informed of the progress towards implementation and to identify and discuss any emerging issues.

32. The Office will also be entering into discussion with individual institutions about their programme of reviews over the first cycle from 2000 to 2006. This is likely also to involve discussion with professional or statutory bodies to consider if and how the QAA programme reviews might relate to reviews and needs of these other bodies.

33. In support of the operation of Academic Review in Scotland from next year, the office will be recruiting a small number of additional staff (the total number of staff involved in Academic Review in Scotland will nevertheless be less than that previously involved in external quality assurance and assessment). Some of these staff will be in post around the end of the year to work with institutions in scheduling their individual review programmes. To accommodate the new staff, and because the lease on the current office is coming to an end, the Office will be moving to new premises in central Glasgow in September.

Trialling

34. A particular feature of the work over the last six months has been the work with the Development Directorate in the trialling of the new process for Academic Review. Staff of the office are providing a point of contact for the eleven departments in Scotland which are participating in the trials. With the departments and the teams of academic reviewers, the staff are contributing to the overall evaluation of the new process. The Office has established an ad hoc group of representatives of the departments involved in the trialling in Scotland which has met twice to provide the Agency with feedback and comment on the process of Academic Review. A further meeting will be held towards the end of the summer. The Office will also be involved in the next phase of developing the new processes - particularly where Scottish higher education institutions have agreed to be involved in the work.

Subject benchmarking

35. The ACS has an interest in ensuring that the Agency's subject benchmarking work is informed of and takes into account Scottish issues where these exist, and has sought the advice of subject communities in Scotland on these matters. Discussion are taking place with professional bodies in Scotland to explore how their subject specifications might relate to the information produced through QAA.

Credit and qualifications frameworks

36. Work in Scotland on credit and qualifications frameworks is proceeding along two main fronts - the higher education framework, and the wider Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework.

Higher education qualifications

37. The Scottish Qualifications Framework Development Group has now finalised most of its proposals which will be put to the ACS and the Board on the 'Garrick' framework of qualifications offered by higher education institutions in Scotland and which will be based on the SCOTCAT Framework.

38. The Group continues to work closely with the group for England, Wales and Northern Ireland on a common agenda and timetable for the development of the frameworks north and south of the border. A joint meeting of the two Groups was held on 11-12 August 1999 to consider a draft consultation paper before it goes to the ACS (on 9 September 1999) and to the Board (on 14 September 1999). The paper will be issued to the sector in October 1999.

39. Previous reports have referred to the joint project with the National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Scotland (NBS) to examine how the professional nursing qualification can be incorporated within the new qualifications framework. The outcomes of this work have now been published and will help inform the QAA in subsequent discussions with a range of professional and statutory bodies to identify how their needs can be met within the Framework (as recommend by the Garrick Report - recommendation 4). The QAA Scottish Office is now discussing with the NBS how this work can be taken further.

Integrated, comprehensive Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework

40. The higher education framework will be developed as an integral part of a wider Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF) which will embrace all Scottish qualifications at all levels. The creation of this Framework involves a partnership between COSHEP, QAA, SOEID and the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA). The consultation paper on the SCQF, published jointly by the development partners, elicited strong support for the aims and features of the SCQF. Discussions are now taking place with the development partners about the timetable for implementation of the framework; for establishing a joint advisory committee and for developing a programme of further work on some details of the framework and the ways in which it can be put into practice.

Continuation audit

41. Staff of the Scottish Office contribute to the QAA programme of continuation audits across the UK. The joint continuation audit of Napier University, Edinburgh (reported in the previous report), involving QAA, the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) and the National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting in Scotland (NBS) went ahead in June 1999. The report will be published later this year at which time the joint aspect of the exercise will be evaluated. Early feedback indicates that these joint arrangements did meet with considerable success. The next continuation audits of Scottish universities are scheduled for autumn 2000. The Scottish Office staff are currently involved in the co-ordination of a number of continuation audits in other parts of the UK.

Scottish Advisory Committee on Credit and Access (SACCA)

42. The Office continues to service SACCA. This is the joint COSHEP/QAA committee which advises the two organisations on issues of credit and access generally and on the higher education SCOTCAT Framework (which is scheduled to become an integral part of the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework). Following agreement with the Committee and with COSHEP the QAA is undertaking the review of the Committee's role and functions. As previously reported, the review is taking account of, amongst other things: the development of the higher education qualifications framework and the SCQF; the development of subject benchmark information; the establishment by SQA of its Subject Advisory Groups; and the Government's agenda for wider access and lifelong learning in Scotland. The outcomes of the review will be submitted to the Committee later this year.

43. The SACCA subject fora continue with their programmes of work to support institutions in developing the Garrick proposals in their subject areas. The Early Years Forum has continued its detailed discussion with the SEELLD, SQA, further education and employers about the development of a structure of qualifications and credit transfer and progression routes for carers and teachers of early years children which links qualifications in higher education with those in further education.

Wales

44. Six of the HE institutions in Wales participated in the trialling of Academic Review. Alongside the academic reviewers and the staff of the departments involved, officers of the Agency, including the liaison officer for Wales, are contributing to the evaluation project. The trials reflected the spectrum of provision in the 3 subjects involved and included in one institution programmes which were taught and examined in Welsh. The appropriate benchmark statement was translated for this purpose and a bilingual team of reviewers was recruited.

45. During the course of the trials arrangements were made for reviewers and participating departments to meet with Agency officers to discuss matters arising. The Chief Executive took the opportunity to also meet with representatives of all institutions in Wales, and, on the same occasion, to meet with HHEW. A number of concerns regarding the role of reviewers and the reporting arrangements were clarified during these meetings. Subsequently, reviewers and departments have been able to contribute to a number of regional seminars following completion of the trials.

46. During the last six month period, the liaison officer for Wales has maintained contact with institutions, with officers of the University of Wales and has liaised with the Wales Academic Development and Quality Committee. Contributions have been made to seminars arranged in institutions on the on-going 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.

47. The Agency has kept abreast of the structural and institutional change in Wales consequent upon the establishment of the Welsh Assembly. It has noted the HEFCW progress report to the Assembly (May 1999) and acknowledges the Agency's role with respect to what the Council intends to undertake in order to improve quality and standards in higher education in Wales in the future.

Developing the new approach to Quality Assurance

Consultation

48. In the March 1998 edition of Higher Quality, the QAA's bulletin, the Agency consulted on a wide range of proposals to develop a new framework for assuring quality and standards in higher education. The proposals were developed in the light of the 1997 Report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (NCIHE) (Dearing and Garrick). The Agency received 360 responses to its consultation from institutions, professional and statutory bodies, subject associations, bodies representing students and employers, other bodies with an interest in higher education, and a number of individuals.

49. The Agency reviewed its proposals in the light of the responses. An outline of the new method for assuring quality and standards, and details of the next stages in developing the various other policy areas, were published in Higher Quality 4 in November 1998. Much progress has been made since then on the various elements of the new model.

Benchmarking

50. During the 1998-99 trials the draft subject benchmark statements for chemistry, history and law were tested. An evaluation of academic reviewers' and trial institutions' perceptions of the utility of the statements is being undertaken and will be made available to the respective subject benchmarking groups. Statements for geography, engineering and business and management studies should be available shortly. With support from the funding councils a further sixteen subject benchmarking groups have recently been established to prepare the statements for the remaining subjects that will be reviewed during the first three years (2000-03) of the six year review cycle. The groups are working to a brief prepared in the light of the experiences of the first three benchmarking groups. These groups are due to produce draft statements by the end of 1999 and final statements, following a consultation period, by the end of March 2000.

51. More than 300 individuals from almost 100 institutions are contributing directly to the first stages of the benchmarking project; many more will participate in the consultation exercises for their particular subjects. The approach to identifying membership of the groups - which is a process for which the respective subject communities retain the main responsibility - together with the nature of their brief has been informed by an independent evaluation of the first benchmarking groups' work. The groups for the remaining subjects will be established in Spring 2000.

52. Subject benchmark information provides a set of principles shared by each subject community; it provides a basis for discourse when quality and standards are considered. The Agency will develop guidance for providers on how the information should be used as they develop and review programmes. The guidance will take into account the advice of the Advisory Group on Multi-Disciplinary and Modular Provision established by the Agency. This group of 15 people from a range of different institutions and 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.

Qualifications frameworks

53. The work of the two Qualifications Framework Development Groups - one for Scotland and one for England/Wales/Northern Ireland - has proceeded in parallel since April 1998, and is now coming together. The groups will shortly finalise their recommendations on the postgraduate framework in the light of the responses to the postgraduate consultation carried out between November 1998 and April 1999. In September 1999, the QAA Board will consider a draft consultation on the frameworks overall. This will deal with the postgraduate recommendations as well as all major aspects of the framework not already addressed through the postgraduate consultation. That consultation will run from October to the end of 1999. In March 2000 the Board will consider the recommendations of the two groups in the light of the consultation. The frameworks should be published by April 2000 and will form an integral part of the Agency's new model for quality assurance.

54. The Agency has been commissioned by the DfEE to look at the prevalence and characteristics of qualifications at levels H1 and H2 and to begin to establish level descriptors for them. The initial work has highlighted the wide range of current practice. This work is directly informing the overall development of the qualifications frameworks.

Programme Specifications

55. A series of projects involving more than a dozen institutions have been undertaken to support the development of an approach to programme specifications which will help make the outcomes of higher education more explicit and provide a framework for the review of learning outcomes. The trial exercise has also provided information on the ways by which programme specifications could be developed and used by providers and reviewers.

56. Groups of students and employer representatives have also contributed their views on the usefulness to them of programme specifications and the information derived from such statements. One of the projects has concentrated particularly on programmes accredited by professional or statutory bodies.

57. In the light of these projects, revised guidance for institutions on preparing programme specifications will be produced. The guidance will be refined, if necessary, during 1999-2000. The guidance will suggest that providers should follow one of two broad approaches to the specification of their programmes. The Agency will not be prescriptive about the way in which the information is presented, although standard headings will need to be used if programme specifications are to be effective. The development projects and the trials suggest that such an approach will be acceptable to institutions. It will ensure both that providers are encouraged to identify intended learning outcomes for their programmes and that information about different programmes is available to all stakeholders.

Developing and testing the new approach to review

58. Developing and trialling the academic review process is taking place over a two-year period, 1998 to 2000. A contract was signed with the funding councils and DENI to cover the direct costs of the 1998-99 trials.

59. In 1998-99 the focus of the trials has been on innovation - testing the capacity of the method to evaluate and produce reports on educational outcomes in Chemistry, History and Law, taking account of the benchmark information, programme specifications and other sources of information. 21 institutions - predominantly in Scotland and Wales - and 58 Academic Reviewers have taken part. The institutions' and reviewers' evaluations are currently being analysed and a report on the first year of the trials, prepared by the Department of Educational Studies at the University of Surrey, will be made available. Even before the evaluations are analysed, and the report prepared, it can already be stated with confidence that much has been learned about how to review educational outcomes and about the issues to be addressed further in 1999-2000, for example, further clarifying the relationship between the external examiner and academic reviewer roles, and the purpose of academic reviewer access to student work. This experience will feed directly into the second year of the trials.

60. In 1999-2000 the focus of activities will be on integrating the outcomes work trialled in 1998-99 with the review of quality of learning opportunities (at subject level) and the institutional review. This will be done on two phases. In the Autumn term 1999 there will be intensive, collaborative work with just five institutions, to work through all the details and implications of the method as it is emerging, drawing on the lessons and experience of the 1998-99 trials. A contract has been signed with the funding councils to support the Autumn term 1999 work. This process will generate detailed operational and implementation materials for the new method, that can then be refined in the Spring and Summer terms 2000 where the focus will be on carrying out pilot reviews of quality and standards at subject level in six institutions. A contract for the Spring and Summer 2000 work will be developed during Autumn 1999.

61. The purpose of the activities is to test the capacity of the model to meet the requirements placed on it. There will be no public reports on the institutions, or the provision in those institutions, arising from the trials or the intensive/collaborative work and pilots. The Agency is grateful for the enthusiastic participation of institutions and reviewers.

Transition

62. The timetable for transition from current quality assurance arrangements to the new approach will vary. In England and Northern Ireland there will be a full programme of subject reviews between October 2000 and December 2001; the new approach cannot therefore be introduced in those countries before the end of 2001. In Scotland and Wales, where the programmes of quality assessment finished in 1998, the working assumption is that the new model will be introduced from October 2000.

63. The Agency has submitted its formal proposals to the funding bodies on the framework, structure and outcomes of the new model for quality assurance. These proposals are being considered by the funding councils and their quality assessment committees in August and September. Once agreement is reached on them, the proposals will be published in Higher Quality and on the Agency's Website.

64. Assuming agreements with the funding bodies, the Agency will move to detailed discussions with institutions in Scotland and Wales in Autumn 1999 to determine the programmes and timings of reviews between 2000 and 2003. The Agency will also start to recruit reviewers, who will be trained in the Spring and Summer 2000. The training contract will be awarded after open tender.

Sounding Board

65. In developing its new approach to quality assurance over the past two years the Agency has benefited greatly from sharing ideas with the 'Sounding Board' group. This provides an informal setting for the Agency to discuss ideas and proposals with senior colleagues from the funding bodies - DENI, HEFCE, HEFCW and SHEFC - and the sector's representative bodies - COSHEP, CVCP, HHEW and SCOP. The Group's most recent meetings were in March and July 1999.

QAA Governance and Management

Board of the QAA

66. The Board of Directors has held seventeen meetings since April 1997. There have been no changes in its membership in the past six months. The current vacancy in the Board's membership will be filled in September. Details of the Board's current membership are given in Annex A.

HEFCE Audit

67. In October 1998 the Agency received an audit visit from the HEFCE Audit Service. The audit concentrated primarily on governance and management. The auditors' report was considered by the Board in January 1999. The Board agreed an action plan in March 1999 to address the recommendations and has been monitoring progress at each meeting since then.

Strategic Planning

68. The main priority for action identified by the HEFCE auditors related to the Agency's strategic planning processes. The report suggested that a more systematic approach should be adopted, particularly to the preparation of a robust three-year Business Plan. The Board and senior management took this matter seriously and initiated the development of the Agency's 1999-2002 Business Plan, using the strategic planning model identified in the HEFCE Audit Report as the starting point for developing its own business planning model and strategic planning cycle. This 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 1999-2000 Annual Operating Plan. This year the timescale for developing the Business Plan was heavily condensed (work started in February, the Plan was completed by the end of April); in future, the development of the Plan will flow much more directly from the review of the previous year's plan, and will start much earlier.

69. The Business Plan was delivered to the key partners in May. The Plan set out the Agency's strategic aims over the next three years, the Mission, the Corporate Objectives to deliver that Mission, and an Annual Operating Plan for 1999-2000. The Operating Plan identified the objectives to be achieved in 1999-2000 and the resources needed to deliver those objectives, and allowed the Agency to identify where additional resources were needed. The need for additional resources was driven both by increases in volumes of activity - 60 per cent increase in the number of subject review visits to be carried out for HEFCE/DENI; increase in the number of continuation audits - but also by the development of new activities - such as developing the codes of practice and qualifications frameworks, and the benchmarking and trialling work. After discussion and negotiation with the HEFCE, the contract price for the 1999-2000 subject review programme was reduced by £0.5 million, giving a total of £5.836 million to deliver 375 visits in England and Northern Ireland in 1999-2000 (for comparison in 1998-99 the totals were 235 visits and £4.245 million). On institutional subscriptions in 1999-2000, the Agency has not proposed a general increase. In Scotland, subscription levels have been increased to reflect any institutional mergers. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland some institutions have been moved into a higher subscription band, based on up-to-date student numbers; however, any increase in subscriptions has been cash-limited to £5312. In time for 2000-01 the Agency will carry out a thorough review of the basis for charging and calculating subscriptions.

70. The next steps for the Agency in developing its business planning capacity include developing the supporting resource strategies to allow the Agency to deliver its Plan, embedding progress monitoring and reporting systems, strengthening the links between organisational, directorate, team and individual objectives, and strengthening the links between planning and budgeting. The Plan was launched to QAA staff at the beginning of August, and the full planning cycle that will lead to next year's plan, including systems for reviewing progress against the targets in the 1999-2000 annual operating plan, has already been initiated.

Budget for 1999-2000

71. The Board has approved budgeted expenditure of £10.3 million for the 1999-2000 financial year. As one of the means of achieving savings in the 1999-2000 HEFCE contract price, the Agency agreed that some of its reserves might be used. Technically this involved forecasting a deficit, which will be financed from reserves. A deficit of £151,340 is forecast for 1999-2000. The Board has agreed that a required level of reserves should be systematically identified for the future, based on assessments of business risk. The Board would be required to authorise any actions that would take the level of reserves below the required level.

Code of Best Practice for Board Members

72. The Board has developed a Code of Best Practice for Board Members. It takes account of a wide range of expectations and obligations that Board members wish to satisfy - 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 - and also provides a public statement about the values of the QAA and its Board members. The Board reviewed the Code in the light of the HEFCE Audit Report. The Code has now been published on the Agency's Website and will be reviewed annually.

Register of Members' Interests

73. The Register of Members' Interests was updated in May 1999. The format and coverage of the Register were reviewed by the Board in the light of the HEFCE Audit Report. The Register now includes the chief executive, the four directors, and the two observers who attend Board meetings, as well as the Board members themselves. It is available to the public on request.

Establishment of Advisory Committees

74. The Board has established nine committees to advise it in its work. A brief update on the work of each of these groups is given in Annex B.

Year 2000

75. The Board considered the Year 2000 issue at its meeting in May 1999. The Agency has adopted the following statement:

The Agency recognises the importance of the millennium issue. All vulnerable business systems have been checked for Year 2000 conformity - including computers, network systems, software, data, telephone equipment, lifts, access controls, data from business partners and paper records. We are working with the BSI's DISC PD2000-1 definition of Year 2000 conformity, as follows: "Year 2000 conformity shall mean that neither performance nor functionality is affected by dates prior to, during and after the year 2000." The review of the Agency's systems at Glasgow and Gloucester has been completed, and we are not anticipating any business critical problems. Full assurance that all of our data, systems, services and other equipment are Year 2000 compliant is near completion. However, we are currently upgrading some database systems, so full conformity testing will need to await completion of this work. The Agency is seeking assurances and warranties from all key suppliers and business partners that they will continue to function properly as the year 2000 approaches, and during and after that year.

Annual Report and Accounts 1997-98

76. The Agency's first formal Annual Report and Accounts were published in March 1999, covering the period from the date of incorporation of the company (27 March 1997) to the end of the first financial reporting period (31 July 1998). The Annual Report was formally launched at a reception held on 17 March 1999 at the offices of the RICS in London.

Accounts for 1998-99

77. The accounts for 1998-99 are currently being prepared.

Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the Company's Members

78. The company's second Annual General Meeting (AGM) is likely to be held in January 2000.

Organisational Structure

79. The Agency's organisational structure has remained unchanged, with four directorates: Programme Review (headed by Peter Milton); Institutional Review (headed by Peter Williams); Development (headed by Julie Swan); and Administration (headed by Stuart Bushell). The Chief Executive - John Randall - and the four heads of directorate form the Agency's senior executive group. The Agency's head office is in Gloucester. It also has an office in Glasgow. The current premises in Glasgow are inadequate to accommodate the increases in staff necessary as part of preparing to deliver the academic review programme in Scotland from Autumn 2000. Glasgow-based staff will move into new premises in September.

Communications

80. The Agency has made significant progress in the development of its Website. Access to all published subject review reports, and most continuation and overseas audit reports, is now available, as well as access to a range of other publications and some working papers, including codes of practice, benchmarking and trialling materials. On average, the Agency's site receives some 23,000 visits each week; and the NISS site - the current location of the subject review reports - receives some 17,000 visits per week.

Priorities

Looking back

81. In its report in February 1999 the Agency signalled a number of priorities over the coming months. Good progress has been made on all of these.

To complete and evaluate the 1998-99 trials.
The 1998-99 trials have been completed. The evaluations from institutions and academic reviewers are being analysed. A final report on the trials, incorporating external evaluation, will be available by the end of September 1999.
To plan the 1999-2000 development work.
This has been done. The 1999-2000 work will be in two parts. There will be intensive collaborative work with five institutions in the Autumn term 1999 to work on the detail and develop the supporting documentation and operational guidelines that will be needed. In the academic year 1999-2000 the method and the guidelines will be thoroughly piloted in time for their adoption from Autumn 2000.
To secure a contract with the funding bodies for financial support for the 1999-2000 development work.
The contract for the work in the Autumn term 1999 has been concluded. The contract for Spring and Summer 2000 will be developed during Autumn 1999.
To secure a contract with the funding bodies to support 16 subject benchmarking groups in 1999.
This has been done. The contract covers some 90 per cent of the direct costs of these groups. The QAA is covering the remaining costs from its subscription income.
To set up 19 subject benchmarking groups by June 1999, to complete their reports by early 2000.
Fifteen of the nineteen groups have now started work. There have been some delays in establishing the membership of the other groups. Nonetheless, all groups will be expected to meet their reporting targets, that is to say, a draft benchmark statement by early 2000 and a final statement by April 2000.
To analyse the data to be received from HEIs and FECs in England and Northern Ireland on provision in the 11 subjects to be reviewed in England and NI between October 2000 and December 2001; to discuss the implications of the data with the HEFCE; to start to plan the 2000-01 programme of subject reviews.
This is a continuing job. There have been some problems in the data returns, requiring a lengthy and systematic process of data checking by telephone. The size of the subject review programme in England and Northern Ireland in the academic year 2000-01 is expected to be of the order of 400 visits.
To publish the overall review cycle between 2000 and 2006.
This was published in Higher Quality 5 in May 1999.
To plan out the process of agreeing individual review timetables with institutions.
This is continuing. Discussions with HEIs in Scotland and Wales will begin in the Autumn term 1999.
To develop the codes of practice on: students with disabilities; external examining; careers advice; and complaints and grievances.
The code of practice for students with disabilities was published for consultation in July. The code on complaints and grievances will be published for consultation in September 1999. The codes on external examining and careers advice will be published for consultation later in the Autumn.
To publish the Code of Practice on Collaborative Provision.
This was published in August 1999.
To prepare and agree the Business Plan 1999-2002 with our partner bodies.

This was done. The Business Plan was submitted to the funding councils and representative bodies in May. In the light of subsequent discussions with the various bodies, the Plan and budget were revised, and then endorsed by the Board at its meeting in July 1999.

82. The Agency also signalled in the February 1999 report a number of internal managerial priorities over the next year. Good progress has been made on these also:

To prepare an action plan to follow up the recommendations in the HEFCE Audit Report.
The Board considered the HEFCE Audit Report in January 1999, agreed an Action Plan in March 1999 and has received reports on progress at each meeting since then. There will be a follow-up meeting with the HEFCE auditors in September 1999.
To implement staff appraisal systems and move towards a formal IIP action plan.
The framework for a Personal Performance and Development Review (PPDR) process is well advanced and should be settled in the Autumn. Initial staff consultation has taken place. Training for all staff is scheduled for early September and the first round of reviews is planned to begin by the end of September. Continuing discussions with the Link Group (the local IIP advisers) on developing competency profiles based on occupational standards will ensure that the PPDR continues to develop in line with IIP practice.
To consult staff on harmonised terms and conditions of employment.
Proposals for harmonised terms and conditions have been put to the recognised trade union. Final comments are awaited.
To implement the revised finance system.
The new financial system was installed and operational from 1 August 1999.
To review the scope and coverage of the Board's Code of Practice and Register of Interests.
These have both been done. The Code has been published on the Agency's Website. The Register is available on request.
To review the basis for calculating institutional subscriptions to the Agency.

For 1999-2000 the Agency has applied up-to-date student numbers to the three-band structure inherited from HEQC for charging subscriptions to institutions in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Some 51 institutions will pay an additional sum that has been cash-limited to £5,312. In Scotland, where subscription rates are individually determined, no increases will be levied other than those consequent upon institutional mergers.

For 2000-01 the Agency intends to undertake a fundamental review of the basis for charging and calculating subscriptions, and to consult the sector.

Looking Ahead

83. Over the next few months the main priorities are:

To agree the new approach to quality assurance with the funding councils and the representative bodies.
To agree review programmes 2000-03 under the new method with institutions in Wales and Scotland.
To appoint a training organisation to train reviewers for the new method, after public tender.
To carry 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 six institutions in the Spring and Summer terms 2000.
To consult on the development of the qualifications frameworks.
To publish draft benchmark statements in 19 subjects by early 2000.
To agree the 2000-01 review programmes in England and Northern Ireland under the current subject review method.

84. The following are among the QAA's governance and management priorities over the coming period:

To complete the programme of action that the Board has adopted in response to the HECE Audit Report.
To set up appropriate Business Plan monitoring and review mechanisms, and initiate the annual cycle of activity that will lead to next year's plan.
To issue a Staff Handbook once final agreement has been reached with the trade union on harmonised terms and conditions of employment for all QAA staff.
To implement the Personal Performance and Development Review (PPDR) process and to develop competency profiles. To formalise personnel policies and procedures. To move towards a formal IIP action plan.
To carry out a thorough review of the basis for charging and calculating institutional subscriptions to the Agency, consult on proposals, and implement in 2000-01.
To review the use and deployment of space in Southgate House in the light of 18 months' experience.
To complete the removal of Glasgow-based staff into new office premises.

Annex A
Members of the Board of Directors

Mr Christopher Kenyon (Chairman)
Chairman, William Kenyon & Sons Limited and subsidiary companies; Chairman of the Council of the University of Manchester

Ms Maggie Deacon
Director of Finance, University of Brighton

Professor Hadyn Ellis
Professor of Psychology and Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Cardiff University

Professor Janet Finch, CBE
Vice-Chancellor, Keele University

Dr S Martin Gaskell
Rector, University College Northampton

Ms Catherine McLoughlin, CBE
Management Consultant and Chair, Bromley Health Authority

Sir Ronald Miller, CBE
Chairman of the Court of Napier University; formerly Chair of Dawson International plc

Dr Geoffrey Robinson, CBE
Director General and Chief Executive, Ordnance Survey

Dame Margaret Seward, DBE
President, General Dental Council

Mr Hugh Smith
Manager, Graduate Entry and External Accreditation, British Telecom

Mrs Valerie Stead, OBE
Formerly Deputy Vice-Chancellor, University of Greenwich

Professor Bill Stevely
Principal, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen

Professor Roger Williams
Vice-Chancellor, University of Reading

Annex B
QAA Advisory Committees

Access Recognition and Licensing Committee

The Access Recognition and Licensing Committee (ARLC) has continued to address matters relating to the oversight of Access Courses Recognition, and has begun to implement the QAA Recognition Scheme for Access to HE in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, through the processes of initial licensing and review of authorised validating agencies(AVAs).

The Committee has worked closely with the Access Recognition Advisory Committee (ARAC) which has been active in the development of statistics about Access to HE, and which has provided valuable advice on the development of policy and strategic matters. In its regulatory role, the Committee has addressed the question of the minimum age for those undertaking an Access to HE course, issuing guidelines in May to confirm that Access to HE courses should, in normal circumstances, be reserved for those aged 21 or over. The Committee has also considered the legal and constitutional status of AVAs, as holders of licences granted by QAA, to determine whether there is a need for guidance on this matter.

Advisory Committee on Degree Awarding Powers

The Committee advises the Board on applications, received via the Privy Council, from institutions seeking the grant of taught or research degree awarding powers or applications seeking the conferment of university title. Two applications for taught degree awarding powers and two for university title are currently under consideration. In December 1998 the Committee completed its review, commissioned by the Secretary of State for Education, of the criteria for the grant of degree awarding powers and university title. The Board endorsed the proposals in January 1999 and forwarded them to the Secretary of State. The DfEE is currently considering the responses to its consultation on the proposed revised criteria.

Advisory Committee for Scotland

The Advisory Committee for Scotland (ACS) has now held a total of nine meetings and has finalised its membership through the recent co-option of a student member. As part of the process of general liaison with the sector, the Committee now holds some of its meeting at higher education institutions in Scotland.

The Committee continues to be active in the discussions between QAA and the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council (SHEFC) about the new quality and standards framework and the ways in which this can meet the requirements of the Funding Council for information on the quality of learning opportunities in Scotland. It has played a full role in advising on the new arrangements including the new process of Academic Review and, at its meeting in September 1999 will consider the proposed consultation on qualifications frameworks - including the framework for Scotland. The proposals for Scotland were put forward by the Scottish Qualifications Framework Development Group which was established specifically to make recommendations to the ACS. The Group will continue its work on the framework including consideration of the outcomes of the consultation and the finalisation of recommendations on the framework.

A joint sub-group with the Board has been established to consider the reports of QAA review of organisations seeking designation as a higher education institution in Scotland.

Audit Committee

The Audit Committee has held 2 meetings in the past six months. It has reviewed its terms of reference and re-focused its work on the core business of an audit committee. Its membership is now up to full strength with the appointment of Mr Clive Halton, Treasurer of UWE and a Governor of Hartpury College, Gloucestershire, as its fifth member. Over the past six months it has concentrated on overseeing the Agency's strategic planning process, monitoring the Agency's progress with the 1998-99 audit recommendations, and evaluating the risks of the Agency's internal systems and controls. Its priorities over the coming period are reviewing the Agency's draft annual accounts, 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 overseeing the development of a Value for Money programme.

Committee for Wales

The Committee for Wales has met on three occasions and is chaired by Professor Roger Williams. In addition to reviewing progress reports on the implementation of the service level agreement with HEFCW, members have had the opportunity to discuss the proposals for the new academic review process and to consider other elements of the quality assurance framework including the work of the Qualification Framework Development Groups and the projects relating to programme specifications and subject benchmarking. The Committee has also received papers on Learning is for Everyone (Green Paper on Lifelong Learning: Welsh Office) and the implications of the Welsh Language Act 1993 for the work of the Agency in Wales. Members have been kept up to date with arrangements for, and the progress of, trialling in Wales in 1998-99. At its most recent meeting, members discussed the draft terms of reference of the Committee, and agreed that any changes would now have to be an interim measure, pending views that might emerge from the Assembly. For the short term, it was also agreed not to increase the membership of the Committee in light of any possible adjustments that might have to be considered in the post-Assembly context in Wales.

Institutional Review Advisory Group

The Group advises the Board on the development and practice of institutional review. It has held one meeting in the past six months. The Group has concentrated on a consideration of the audit reports produced as a result of continuation audit and the follow-up response from the institutions. Matters of process and procedure have also been considered by the Group, and changes have been endorsed.

Joint Committee with the National Health Service Executive

The Joint Committee established between the Agency and the NHS Executive reviews all matters in which the Agency and the Executive have a joint interest. The Committee met on two occasions in January - June 1999. It continues to discuss ways to promote effectiveness and minimise duplication in the quality assurance of HE provision in health professional areas, and a good basis for future working has been established. The Joint Committee will consider in due course the findings of the NHS-commissioned project to identify the scope for a possible future contract between the Agency and the Executive.

Nominations Committee

The 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. A recommendation to fill a current vacancy in the Board's 'independent' membership will be put to the Board in September.

Remuneration Committee

The 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 met in June 1999 and made its report and recommendations to the July Board meeting.

31.8.99