1. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) is required under the terms of its contracts with the HE representative bodies, DENI and the English and Welsh funding councils to provide progress reports to those bodies at the end of February and August each year. This is the third such report. It is in four parts: QAA functions and Programmes; Developing the new quality assurance model; QAA Governance and Management; and QAA Priorities in the coming period.
QAA functions and programmes
1997-98 Quality Assessments in England and Northern Ireland
2. The Agency carried out 304 assessment visits in England and Northern Ireland in 1997-98. Most of the individual assessment reports from these visits have now been published. All will have been published by the end of March 1999. There were some delays in publication of the reports, caused mainly by high staff turnover at the time of relocation to Gloucester and hold-ups at the design and printing stage. These difficulties are now behind us, the reports function is fully staffed, the design function is carried out in-house and our printing needs are being met by a number of firms. 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 for the period 1993-98.
3. The Agency provides the HEFCE with regular summary reports on the outcomes of visits, these reports being timed to coincide with meetings of the HEFCE's Quality Assessment Committee.
4. The Agency continues to seek evaluation information on the preparation and conduct of visits from institutions, contract reviewers and subject reviewers. A report was made to the HEFCE in September 1998 based on the evaluation returns from all assessment visits in 1996-98. A further report was provided in January 1999, based on the initial returns from the visits carried out in the Autumn term 1998. The evaluations continue to show a high degree of satisfaction with the planning and conduct of the quality assessment / subject review process.
1997-98 Assessments in Wales
5. In 1997-98 the Agency carried out 19 assessment visits in Wales. All reports have now been published. The Agency is preparing an overview report on the conduct and findings from quality assessments in Wales, 1993-98.
1998-99 Quality Audits (including overseas audits)
6. Since August 1998, the Agency has carried out continuation audit visits in 3 UK universities and two 'first round' audits in a private management college and a college of music and drama. By the beginning of March 1999 reports on all the institutional audits carried out before October 1998 will have been published as will most of the reports on the Israel visit. There has been no need to recruit new auditors during the year, although auditors' plenary meetings have been held as part of the continuing auditor development programme.
1998-2000 Subject Reviews
7. The Agency has scheduled 235 subject review visits in England and Northern Ireland in 13 subjects in 1998-99. The current estimate for the 1999-2000 programme is 375 (including a small number of visits postponed from 1998-99). The training for the 800 subject reviewers (40 training sessions) appointed to carry out this two-year programme was completed in November 1998. The Agency has appointed 18 new contract reviewers to contribute to managing the subject review teams in 1999-2000.p
1999-2001 Continuation Audit
8. The programme of continuation audit/institutional review visits over the next eighteen months is now largely in place with discussions taking place with institutions over the precise timing of visits. 13 visits are scheduled for Spring and Summer 1999 in addition to three audits of overseas links in Malaysia, Ireland and South Africa. The continuation audit programme will begin to evolve into the new institutional review process during 1999-2001 and will begin to monitor institutional responses to the first sections of QAA's Code of Practice for Quality Assurance during the Spring of 2000.
2000-01 Subject Reviews in England and Northern Ireland
9. 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 year 2001. The HEFCE has made clear that it wishes the published programme to be completed, using a method similar to the current subject review but taking account of emerging elements of the new QAA model where possible. This means that there will 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 has already asked institutions for information on their provision in these 11 subjects.
10. The HEFCE will have additional funding responsibility for HNCs and other HE in FE and specialist 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, have been contacted for information on provision; the information was due to be received by the end of February 1999. The QAA will need then to discuss 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.
Development
11. The Agency has continued to work with many institutions, subject associations, interest groups and networks to assist with, and promote, a range of initiatives. Agency staff accept numerous invitations to speak at external conferences and institutional events at which good practice and enhancement are considered. Some 160 subject associations were represented at a conference in December 1998 organised by the Agency. A main theme of the conference was subject benchmarking. The opportunity the benchmarking process provides to subject communities to develop a guide to and for their subject, of use to those concerned with assuring and enhancing quality and standards and to students and employers, was considered. One of the specific projects which the Agency is undertaking is reviewing the understanding of, and approaches to, 'key skills' in higher education. The relative advantages of particular approaches are also being considered. The findings of the report should be of interest to subject communities as they consider, through the benchmarking process, the nature of the skills and the intellectual attributes the study of a particular subject develops and the contribution this makes to the employability of graduates. The Agency is also working with CVCP and SCOP to take forward the development of progress files, incorporating transcripts and personal development plans.
Degree-awarding powers and university title
12. In the six months from July 1998 to December 1998, the Agency was involved with the consideration of three applications for taught degree awarding powers. Following a Scrutiny Panel visit in the Summer of 1998, the Agency offered its advice to the DfEE in respect of an application from Chichester Institute of Higher Education. The Privy Council conferred taught degree awarding powers upon the Institute in January 1999. Preliminary visits in respect of the two other applications for taught degree awarding powers were undertaken in the Autumn of 1998.
13. 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 15 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.
14. The Agency has been invited to provide further advice with respect to one application for university title. Working with a small group of experienced institutional assessors, the Agency-appointed Scrutiny Panel is presently reviewing the operations of the institution with a view to providing guidance to the Privy Council by the end of 1999.
15. The Agency has 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 to the DfEE at the end of January 1999 and it is presently expected that the revised criteria will be made available later in Spring 1999.
Access Courses Recognition
16. The Agency's work on Access Courses recognition has been overseen by the Access Recognition and Licensing Committee (ARLC), which has met three times. A revised recognition scheme for Access to HE has been developed and a new document describing the scheme has been produced. In November 1998, the Board received and endorsed a summary and overview of the scheme, and this will be published in March, when the new scheme is to be launched. Full documentation, including operational guidance for the Authorised Validating Agencies (AVAs), has been approved in draft by the ARLC, and the 34 AVAs have been informed of the new requirements for AVA reports to be submitted annually to QAA from 1999. Arrangements have been made for the review of four AVAs, and for the initial licensing of one new AVA, under the regulations of the new scheme for AVA Review. These have been scheduled for the summer of 1999, and reviewers have been appointed. In addition, the Agency has worked with UCAS and HESA to bring together statistics on Access to HE student applications and admission to, and progression in, higher education.
International Liaison
17. 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.
18. In the last six months the Agency has provided briefings for overseas educators and government/public officials from Australia, Hong Kong, Jamaica, Japan, Lithuania, Malaysia, the Netherlands, the Philippines and Romania. In the main, the briefings were given at the request of the British Council or at the request of authorities in the countries concerned. The QAA contributed to the SET (Scottish Education and Training) mission to South Africa in 1998, and the Chief Executive of the South African Qualifications Authority spoke at the SCOTCAT conference in January 1999. 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. The Agency is helping Malaysia and Thailand to develop new quality assurance systems as part of wide-ranging HE reforms in those countries.
Special review of a university
19. In the light of adverse press comment, and at the request of the Vice-Chancellor and Governors, the Agency advised Thames Valley University (TVU) in Spring 1998 on its academic management. An initial report, based on a preliminary investigation, revealed a serious breakdown in administrative systems, particularly those related to examinations and student assessment. The report advised further work by the Agency and was accepted by the TVU governing body. This further, more extensive, review of the quality assurance systems being used in TVU, and the management of these, was carried out in Summer 1998. The report was published in November 1998. The TVU governors accepted in full the findings of the special review.
Relationships with Professional and Statutory Bodies
20. In their responses to the consultation in 1998, many professional and statutory bodies (PSBs) continued to show interest in working with the Agency, to develop a new quality assurance framework that would secure the relative responsibilities of the Agency and the PSBs (which in some cases include statutory responsibilities) whilst streamlining the processes of external scrutiny of institutions. The Agency collaborated successfully with a number of professional and statutory bodies in the course of its 1997-1998 assessment visits. Similarly, agreements are in place with other professional and statutory bodies to collaborate in subject review activities during 1998-2000; these bodies include the General Medical Council, the General Dental Council and the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting. The agreements ensure that statutory responsibilities are respected and the integrity of the review process is upheld, but that the burden of external scrutiny on institutions can be reduced. The Agency will build on its experiences of collaborative activities and the willingness of professional and statutory bodies to work with the Agency as the new quality assurance model is developed. Appropriate professional and statutory bodies have been involved with the pilot benchmarking exercise and with the trials of the new review method. Others are involved with a project to explore the ways in which programme specifications can meet some of the needs of professional and statutory body accreditation requirements.
Scotland
21. The QAA Scottish Office continues 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 QAA Scottish Office and the Advisory Committee for Scotland (ACS) have responsibility for liaison in Scotland, in particular with COSHEP, SHEFC, SOEID, and SQA and with professional bodies with respect to the development of the new model for the assurance of quality and standards. Regular liaison with SQA continues to focus on the development of credit and qualifications frameworks and the potential articulation of QAA and SQA quality assurance arrangements. Officers of QAA Scottish Office and SHEFC have established 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.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. 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 of standards.
Trialling
22. Working with the Development Directorate, the QAA Scottish Office is fully involved in the 1999 trialling of 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. As part of this evaluation process the Office has established an ad hoc group of representatives of the departments involved in the trialling in Scotland which will meet throughout the trials to provide the Agency with feedback and comment on the process of Academic Review.
Subject benchmarking
23. 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.
Credit and qualifications frameworks
24. Work in Scotland on credit and qualifications frameworks is proceeding along two main fronts - higher education, and the wider Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework.
Higher education qualifications
25. The Scottish Qualifications Framework Development Group will make recommendations 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.
26. 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. The two groups worked closely together to produce the recently issued QAA consultation paper on postgraduate qualifications.
27. The Group has given initial consideration to issues of qualification nomenclature and credit values and has also established a small working party, with membership drawn from the Group; from SQA and from the Northern Ireland Credit Accumulation and Transfer (NICAT) Project, to draft qualification definitions and level descriptors. The overall timetable remains more or less on target with the intention to consult later this year on proposals for the undergraduate framework.
28. Alongside this work, the QAA Scottish office is involved in a 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. It is intended that outcomes from this work 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).
Integrated, comprehensive Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework
29. 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 joint group of officers from each of the partner organisations has developed proposals on the details of the Framework and these will now be published, with a foreword from the Minister, as a consultation paper in March 1999.
30. Planning is underway to create the Joint Advisory Committee (JAC) of senior representatives of the development partners, plus members from other key stakeholders in Scotland, to oversee the implementation and continuing development of the SCQF. In the meantime, and in the absence of the JAC, meetings of senior staff have provided a forum for taking forward the SCQF development.
Continuation audit
31. Staff of the Scottish office staff contribute to the QAA programme of continuation audits across the UK. The Office has also been in discussion with the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) and the National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting in Scotland (NBS) about ways in which QAA audit can provide the information which the two bodies require in order to inform their own consideration of the quality and standards operating in institution of higher education which offer their qualifications. Discussions with these two bodies and with Napier University, Edinburgh have resulted in an agreement that the forthcoming QAA continuation audit of the University will act as a pilot to explore these matters in more detail.
Scottish Advisory Committee on Credit and Access (SACCA)
32. The Office continues to service SACCA (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 in time will become an integral part of the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework). The QAA Scottish office has agreed with the Committee and COSHEP that it is now timely, seven years after the establishment of the Committee, for QAA to undertake a fundamental review of the Committee's role and functions. It has been agreed that the review should take 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.</>
33. The SACCA subject fora continue with their programmes of work to support institutions in developing the Garrick proposals in their subject areas. As an example, the Early Years Forum has been in detailed discussion with the SOEID, 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
34. Following the formal announcement of the academic review trials, representatives of the institutions and departments taking part attended a briefing seminar in Cardiff organised by the QAA. The Chief Executive and a number of senior officers presented short papers describing the rationale and nature of the review process that was to be trialled. Further details of the arrangements for the trials were discussed with each department concerned during a series of visits undertaken by the regional liaison officer. Initial contact or meetings between academic reviewers and the respective departments have now taken place.
Developing the new quality Assurance Model
Consultation
35. 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.
36. The consultation document outlined proposals in five broad areas of policy: developing qualifications frameworks; developing a programme specification template; subject benchmarking work; developing a code of practice; and proposals for assuring quality and standards, including changes in the external examiner system. The main points that emerged from the consultation were:
- Broad support for developing the qualifications frameworks and the code of practice as proposed in the consultation document.
- A more mixed response to the programme specification template and the subject benchmarking exercise (although these were both strongly supported by employers and students).
- Concerns that the benefits of the external examiner system as it currently operates might be compromised if externals were to have multiple reporting relationships - with the QAA, and possibly with the PSBs, as well as with the institutions - as proposed in Dearing and developed in the consultation document. There was therefore a strong preference for the idea of the 'Academic Reviewer' who would be appointed by the Agency to report on outcomes and could work alongside internal institutional reviews to report on some aspects of the quality of provision.
37. The Agency reviewed its proposals in the light of the responses. Details of the revised model for assuring quality and standards, and the next stages in developing the various other policy areas, were published in Higher Quality no.4 in November 1998.
Benchmarking
38. The first three benchmarking groups - in Chemistry, History and Law - have produced their reports and these have been made widely available. The utility of the information is being tested during the 1998-99 trialling of the Academic Reviewer role. The benchmarking process has been evaluated. The broadly positive findings in the evaluation report will inform future benchmarking activities.
39. Each of the first three benchmarking groups developed its own approach to the task. For future benchmarking work, starting in Spring 1999, it is proposed to focus the brief for the groups on two main themes: the typical ("what might the typical graduate in this subject be expected to know and be able to do ?") and the minimum ("what might all graduates in this subject be required to know and be able to do?"). The Agency has established an advisory group to consider the implications for benchmarking of modular and multi-disciplinary programmes.
40. Proposals have been put to the funding councils for funding to cover the costs of 33 benchmarking groups over the next 2-3 years. It is proposed that the costs of benchmarking in nine subject areas will be met by the Agency itself from its subscription income, including those of the three groups currently being established for business and management studies, engineering and geography.
Qualifications frameworks
41. Work is proceeding on the parallel development of qualifications frameworks for England/Northern Ireland/Wales and Scotland.
42. The Agency published in November 1998 a consultation paper on postgraduate qualifications frameworks, arising from follow-up work to the Harris Report. The paper explores a number of principles that could be applied at all levels of the frameworks. Responses have been invited by 26 April 1999. One of a series of four planned consultative conferences has been held.
43. The Agency has been commissioned by the DfEE to look at the prevalence and characteristics of qualifications at levels H1 and H2 and begin to establish level descriptors for them. This will directly inform the work on qualifications frameworks.
Programme Specifications
44. Developing the approach to programme specifications continues. A number of institutions have worked with the Agency to identify appropriate formats. It is encouraging that the majority of the institutions involved with the 1998-1999 trials have produced specifications for the programmes that are being reviewed during the trials. The Reviewers will be asked, as part of the evaluation of the trialling, to consider the utility of these different programme specifications. The Agency will be working over the coming months with a number of employers' representatives to explore how employers might make use of both programme specifications and progress files in their recruitment and development activities.
Trialling
45. Developing and trialling the Academic Reviewer role is central to the future model for quality assurance. The trialling will take place over a two-year period, 1998 to 2000. A contract has been signed with the funding councils and DENI to cover the direct costs of the 1998-99 trials. A contract to support the 1999-2000 trials will be discussed with the funding bodies in Spring 1999.
46. In 1998-99 the focus of the trials is on the capacity of the Academic Reviewer model to evaluate and produce reports on educational outcomes in Chemistry, History and Law, taking account of the benchmark information, the programme specifications and other sources of information, including external examiners' reports. 21 institutions - predominantly in Scotland and Wales - and 58 Academic Reviewers are taking part. Briefing and development days for the Academic Reviewers were held in Autumn 1998, in the light of which the brief for the Academic Reviewers was revised.
47. In 1999-2000 the focus of the trials 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.
48. The purpose of the trials 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. The Agency is grateful for the enthusiastic participation of institutions and reviewers in the trials. The trials will be evaluated in a variety of ways. The Academic Reviewers and the participating institutions will be asked to evaluate formally in writing and informally through de-brief and feedback sessions. The QAA officers will also carry out informal evaluation through their participation in the briefing and development sessions and through their liaison responsibilities with the participating institutions. An external element to the evaluation will be provided through the Department of Educational Studies at the University of Surrey.
Transition
49. The timetable for transition from current quality assurance arrangements to the new model will vary. In England and Northern Ireland there will be a full programme of subject reviews between October 2000 and December 2001; the new model cannot therefore be implemented fully before the end of 2001. In Scotland and Wales, where the programmes of quality assessment have now finished, the working assumption is that the new model will be introduced from October 2000; discussions are continuing with the HEFCW and SHEFC.
QAA Governance and Management
Board of the QAA
50. The Board of Directors has held fourteen meetings since April 1997. There have been several changes in its membership during the period covered by this report. Ms Maggie Deacon, Director of Finance at the University of Brighton, was appointed by the HEFCE, HEFCW and DENI to fill a vacancy created by the retirement of Dr Rab Telfer in March 1998. Professor Bill Stevely was appointed as a director by COSHEP, CVCP, HHEW and SCOP to fill a vacancy created by the retirement of Dr Ian Graham-Bryce in September 1998. The Board is expected to fill shortly a vacancy created by the retirement of Ms Judith Evans in September 1998. Details of the Board's current membership are given in Annex A.
Student Representative
51. The Board invited the representative student bodies, and the heads of institutions (through the CVCP's Quality and Standards Group) to put forward names of students who might be invited to attend QAA Board meetings, on an observer basis, to represent the student view. The Board's Nominations Committee reviewed the names put forward, interviewed four candidates, and invited Mr Patrick Barron, an undergraduate at the University of Edinburgh, to attend Board meetings for the balance of the calendar year 1999, with the option of renewal for a further year. Mr Barron has accepted the invitation.
HEFCE Audit
52. 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. In broad terms, both the Board and the Agency's management acknowledged most of the points made by the auditors. In many cases work was already proceeding along the lines suggested by the auditors, or plans were in place. The Board is developing an action plan to address the auditors' recommendations.
Strategic Planning
53. 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 1999-2002. The Board and senior management take this matter seriously and work has started. The Agency is committed to delivering the Business Plan to the key partners by the contractual deadline of 30 April 1999.
Code of Best Practice for Board Members
54. The Board has developed a draft 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.
55. The Board will review and revise the draft code in the light of experience in the past year, and taking account of the suggestions and recommendations in the HEFCE Audit Report. When finalised, the code will be available on the Agency's Website.
Register of Members' Interests
56. The Register of Members' Interests was updated in November 1998. It is available to the public on request. The format and coverage of the Register are being reviewed by the Board in the light of the HEFCE Audit Report.
Establishment of Advisory Committees
57. 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.
Appointment of Auditors
58. The Agency has appointed KPMG as its external financial auditors and Bishop Fleming of Bristol as its internal auditors.
Annual Report and Accounts
59. The Agency's first formal Annual Report and Accounts will be 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 will be formally launched at a reception to be held on 17 March 1999 at the offices of the RICS in London.
Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the Company's Members
60. The company's first AGM was opened on 15 September 1998. Having transacted the business that could be dealt with at that time - the appointment and re-appointment of directors, the re-appointment and remuneration of auditors - the meeting was adjourned to January 1999 when the Accounts for 1997-98 were laid before the company's Members. The Accounts showed a surplus for the period of around £350,000. This amount was transferred to reserves to begin to provide for a phased programme of medium term capital replacement. KPMG's report on the accounts was unqualified.
Budget for 1998-99
61. The Board has approved a budget of £7.91 million for the 1998-99 financial year.
Senior Appointments
62. Mrs Julie Swan was appointed as Director of Development from 1 January 1999 in succession to her appointment as Assistant Director in Programme Review. She succeeded Dr Peter Wright who had been Acting Director of Development since April 1998.</>
Organisational Structure
63. 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 also has a Scottish office in Glasgow.
Communications
64. Development of the Agency's Website continues. A new appointment has been made to the Agency's staff to lead this work.
Priorities
Looking Back
65. In its report in August 1998 the Agency signalled a number of priorities over the coming months. Good progress has been made on all of these:
- To publish the framework for assuring quality and standards, aspects of which are to be trialled in 1998-99.
- To publish details of the next steps in taking forward the various policy areas - qualifications framework, benchmarking, programme specification and codes of practice.
-
To prepare and make available a report on the consultation
responses.
Higher Quality number 4, published in November 1998, covered the points at a., b. and c. above.
-
To conclude a contract with the key partners to support the
Academic Reviewer trialling work in 20 institutions in
1998-99.
A contract with the three funding councils and DENI was signed in December 1998 (in fact, 21 institutions are taking part in the trials).
-
To review the Academic Reviewer role and the proposed new
model, in the light of the evaluation of the trialling.
The task and role of the Academic Reviewer were revised in the light of the discussions with the Reviewers at their briefing and development days in Autumn 1998. It will be further reviewed in the light of the experience and evaluation of the 1998-99 trials.
-
To develop arrangements that will allow for earlier
transition to the new model in Scotland and Wales than in
England without compromising the objective of achieving a
UK-wide system that will meet the stakeholders' needs,
including allowing the funding councils to meet their
statutory obligations under the FHE Act 1992.
In England and Northern Ireland the published quality assessment programme will be completed by carrying out subject reviews in 11 subjects between October 2000 and December 2001. The review method will be substantially the current subject review method, but informed where possible by elements of the emerging new model. Consequently, the new model cannot be implemented fully in England and Northern Ireland before the end of 2001. In Scotland and Wales discussions are continuing with SHEFC and HEFCW ; the working assumption is that the new model will be introduced from October 2000 in those countries.
-
To publish a discussion paper on postgraduate
qualifications in Autumn 1998.
A consultation paper was published in November 1998.
-
To promulgate the code of practice on postgraduate research
degree provision by the end of 1998.
The Code was published in February 1999.
-
To complete the drafting of the code of practice on
overseas and collaborative provision.
Interested parties were asked to comment on the draft code by early February 1999.
-
To review the overall timetable for the Agency's programme
of work taking account of the consultation responses, the
need to establish priorities, and the resources available.
The timetable was reviewed thoroughly and is updated regularly. A copy is attached as Annex C.
-
To agree a three year business plan with the key partners
that secures continuity of existing functions and allows
the developmental agenda to be taken forward.
The three-year Business Plan will be prepared by the end of April 1999 for discussion with the key partner organisations.
66. The Agency also signalled in the August 1998 report a number of internal managerial priorities over the next year. Again, good progress has been made:
-
To review and introduce new internal financial systems and
internal audit arrangements.
The finance system inherited from the HEQC is insufficient for the full range of the QAA's functions. A new finance system will be in place in time for the beginning of the 1999-2000 financial year. The internal audit function is being carried out by Bishop Fleming of Bristol.
-
To review and rationalise the inherited diversity of terms
and conditions of staff employment.
Discussions with the recognised Trade Union on harmonising contractual terms and conditions are proceeding.
-
To develop an action plan to achieve IIP status in the
medium term.
Initially the Agency is focusing on developing an appropriate staff appraisal system, to identify staff training needs, to underpin IIP.
-
To review its policy on publication of reports as its
Website develops.
This is ongoing. It will be reviewed in the light of the results of the consultancy project on public information needs commissioned by the funding councils and being undertaken by Segal Quince Wicksteed (SQW) of Cambridge. The consultants' report is due to be received in June 1999.
Looking ahead
67. Over the next few months the main priorities are:
-
To complete and evaluate the 1998-99 trials.
-
To plan the 1999-2000 trials.
-
To secure a contract with the funding bodies for financial
support for the 1999-2000 trials.
-
To secure a contract with the funding bodies to support 16
subject benchmarking groups in 1999.
-
To set up 19 subject benchmarking groups by June 1999, to
complete their reports by early 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.
-
To publish the overall review cycle between 2000 and
2006.
- To plan out the process of agreeing individual review timetables with institutions.
-
To develop the codes of practice on: students with
disabilities; external examining; careers advice; and
complaints and grievances.
-
To publish the Code of Practice on Collaborative
Provision.
-
To prepare and agree the Business Plan 1999-2002 with our
partner bodies.
68. The following are among the QAA's governance and management priorities over the coming period:
- To prepare an action plan to follow up the recommendations in the HEFCE Audit Report.
- To implement staff appraisal systems and move towards a formal IIP action plan.
- To consult staff on harmonised terms and conditions of employment.
- To implement the revised finance system.
- To review the scope and coverage of the Board's Code of Practice and Register of Interests.
- To review the basis for calculating institutional subscriptions to the Agency.
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 Committee oversees the Access Course Recognition framework and considers applications for AVA licenses from new bodies. It has reviewed existing access recognition arrangements, and has developed a revised QAA Recognition Scheme for Access to HE in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. This was endorsed by the Board in November 1998. The Committee is now developing the quality standards and operational procedures to support the scheme.
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. A number of applications are currently under consideration. In November 1998, the Board recommended to the Secretary of State that Chichester Institute of Higher Education be granted taught degree awarding powers. 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. It is presently expected that the revised criteria will be made available sometime in Spring 1999.
Advisory Committee for Scotland
The Advisory Committee for Scotland (ACS) has now held a total of seven meetings and has finalised its membership through the recent appointment of a second member from the employment sector, and a member from the further education sector. It has also agreed that, bearing in mind the importance of the student view on issues of quality and standards, it will co-opt a student member.
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. As planned at the time of the last biannual report, the Council has now nominated a member to the Committee and sends an observer to its meetings. A reciprocal invitation has been extended and the QAA has been invited to send an observer to meetings of the SHEFC Quality Assessment Committee.
The Advisory Committee for Scotland has begun to give serious consideration to the development of a QAA strategy to address the potential implications of the establishment of the Scottish Parliament and the exercising by the Parliament of its responsibility for all education in Scotland.
Audit Committee
The Audit Committee held its first meeting in May 1998. It considered presentations and tenders from two firms for appointment as the QAA's auditors. It made recommendations to the Board for the appointment of external auditors and to the Chief Executive for appointing internal auditors. These recommendations were accepted. More recently, the Committee reviewed and recommended to the Board the 1997-98 accounts, the 1998-99 budget, and a treasury management policy. The Committee is currently involved in developing the QAA's financial regulations. It has also been asked by the Board to oversee proposals for a QAA strategic planning process.
Committee for Wales
The Committee for Wales has met on two 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 have also received papers on Learning is for Everyone (Green Paper: 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 trialling in Wales 1999.
Institutional Review Advisory Group
The Group advises the Board on the development and practice of institutional review. It has held two meetings so far. The Group has identified the ways in which it wishes to monitor the reports and the outcomes.
Joint Committee with the National Health Service Executive
The joint committee keeps under review all matters in which the Agency and the Executive have a joint interest. The second meeting was held in February 1999. Matters under consideration include future arrangements for the review of the higher education provision that is funded through the Department of Health, and the progress of the current subject reviews in health professional subjects.
Nominations Committee
The Committee has met three times so far. Its 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. It is expected that a recommendation to fill a current vacancy in the Board's 'independent' membership will be made shortly. In November and December 1998 the Committee made a recommendation to the Board, after interviewing four candidates, that a student be invited to attend Board meetings. The Board accepted the recommendation and the student concerned has accepted the invitation.
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 January 1999 Board meeting received a report on the Committee's work up to November 1998.
Annex C
Outline QAA Development and Trialling Timetable, October 1998 - Summer 2000
October 1998 - Summer 1999
Continuing work on the development of qualifications frameworks
Phase 1 of trials, focusing on review of academic outcomes
October 1998
Publication of The Way Ahead (in Higher Quality No. 4) setting out details, post-consultation, of the revised framework for assuring quality and standards in higher education, to be trialled
Briefing on new framework (Dundee, in conjunction with COSHEP, 20 October)
Agreement with funding councils on the budget for the trials
Agreement with HEFCE on the timing of the review of the 11 subjects previously scheduled by HEFCE to be reviewed in the period October 2000-December 2001
Establishment of advisory group to consider the implications of benchmarking academic standards of modular and multidisciplinary programmes
Briefings for institutions taking part in the trials (22 October in Cardiff and 29 October in Glasgow)
November/December 1998
QAA support for institutions participating in the trials in the preparation of programme specifications
Agreement with HEFCE on the review method to be used for the review of the 11 subjects previously scheduled by HEFCE to be reviewed in the period October 2000-December 2001
November 1998
Briefings on new framework (3, 6 and 10 November in Bournemouth, Manchester and London)
Consultation on code of practice on overseas and collaborative provision
Work begins on code of practice on students with disabilities
Publication of consultation document on postgraduate qualifications
First three subject benchmarking groups compete their reports and consultation within subject communities
Development programmes (first two of three) for the academic reviewers taking part in the trials (19/20 and 26/27 November)
December 1998
Conference for subject bodies and subject associations (8 December, Manchester)
Final development programmes for the academic reviewers taking part in the trials (1/2 December)
Contract for 1998-99 trialling signed with funding councils
Teams of Academic Reviewers assembled and briefed for the first phase of the trials, January-July 1999, focusing on outcomes
Work begins on codes of practice on external examining and on complaints and grievances
January 1999 - April 2000
Preparation of benchmark information on 19 more subjects (i.e. those to be reviewed in the first half of the cycle, between 2000 and 2003)
January 1999
Preparation of guidelines for future benchmarking work, in the light of the experience and evaluation of the first three groups (subject to further review in the light of the experiences in the trials)
Publication of code of practice on postgraduate research programmes
Initial report on the trials covering: issues raised by participating HEIs and academic reviewers in the briefing and development/training events; description of the different ways the ARs will be deployed and the range of options/approaches being tested; description of the provision that is being reviewed for trial purposes
Spring 1999
Agreement with funding and representative bodies on a 6-year cycle of reviews starting in October 2000 and on the subjects to be reviewed in each part of the cycle
Mid-term meetings with the academic reviewers (three one-day events) - progress and feedback so far
Planning of Phase II of the trials (October 1999-March 2000)
Contract for Phase II of the trials signed with the funding councils
Work begins on code of practice on careers guidance
Consideration by Qualifications Framework Groups of subject benchmarking information
Publication of next steps in setting up the subject review (TQA) programme in England and Northern Ireland, October 2000-December 2001
May 1999
Report on early experiences of the ARs and initial feedback from institutions; review of expenditure to inform costing of Phase II of trials
Summer-Autumn 1999
Start of process of agreeing individual review timetables with institutions for the first 3 years of the new cycle
July 1999
De-brief meetings with the institutions that had participated in the trials (two one-day events, Wales and Scotland) and with the academic reviewers (three one-day events)
August 1999
Reports by ARs completed
Evaluation of Phase I trials
October 1999 - March 2000
Phase II of the trials, including a wider range of subject areas, and focusing on the integration of the outcomes work with the review of the quality of learning opportunities and the institutional review
Consultation on the main outlines of the qualifications frameworks
Spring 2000
Publication of detailed statement of methods and processes to be introduced from October 2000
Agreement of revised service level agreements with the funding and representative bodies
Publication of the main outlines of the qualifications frameworks, with the aim of progressive implementation from 2000-01.
Top