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 Higher and Further Education Training and Employment (DHFETE) in Northern Ireland and the English and Welsh funding councils (HEFCE and HEFCW) to provide a report to those bodies in mid-September each year on performance against the objectives in the business plan; with an interim report against such objectives in mid-March. This report is the interim report that covers the period August 1999 to January 2000.
2. The QAA's business plan 1999-2002 and annual operating plan and budget 1999-2000 were finalised in July 1999. The style of this interim report follows the structure of the strategic aims and corporate objectives set out in the Business Plan, and summarises the main points from the Agency's monitoring against the objectives in this year's operating plan.
Reviewing the Awarding Function and Overall Academic Management
Corporate Objectives:
- To complete the programme of continuation audits and to introduce institutional review as an integral part of the new quality assurance method
- To promote confidence in UK higher education overseas by auditing collaborative arrangements with overseas partners
-
To advise Government on applications for degree-awarding
powers and university title.
Progress:
3. Two of the planned programme of 32 continuation audits have now been taken off the schedule as a result of institutional mergers; one of the planned 32 has been re-scheduled to the Autumn term 2000; the revised schedule for this year therefore has 29 continuation audits. The programme of follow-up visits from the previous year's audits is on target, as is the recruitment of auditors. The schedule of audits in 2000-1 has been agreed with institutions, and the draft schedule for 2001-02 is being developed.
4. The approach to the audit of collaborative arrangements with overseas partners has been reconsidered. Two of the four planned overseas audit visits (Egypt and Cyprus), will be undertaken as a single visit; the third planned visit (Spain) remains as originally planned. Arrangements for these visits are on track. The structure of the fourth - audit of collaborative arrangements with China - has been amended to take account of the current state of development of UK/China links. The Agency is developing a more strategic and targeted approach in planning future overseas collaborative audits, and this approach has informed the 2000-01 plan. A more active use of subject and programme elements has been included in the overseas audit process. This was done with the overseas audit to Malaysia, and details are in the published reports, which were launched by the Chief Executive in Malaysia in November 1999. 'Kitemarking' of overseas collaborative provision is another possible area of development; the Agency will shortly consider draft proposals.
5. The institutional review aspects of the academic review method were published on the Agency's Website, as part of the Academic Review Handbook, for comment by early March.
6. The Agency submitted recommendations to the Scottish Executive for the designation of two Scottish institutions as HE institutions. The Agency submitted its advice to the DfEE on an application for university title in November 1999. One other application for university title, and two applications for the grant of degree-awarding powers, are under consideration.
Reviewing the Quality and Standards of Academic Programmes
Corporate Objectives:
- To complete the programme of subject reviews in England and Northern Ireland up to 2001
- To complete successfully the planned trials of the new quality assurance method by 2000
- To introduce progressively, from October 2000, the new quality assurance method in the whole of the UK
- To plan for and introduce from October 2000, arrangements for reviewing higher education provision in further education colleges.
Progress:
7. The Agency planned to carry out 375 subject review visits in the current year. In the event, nine visits have had to be postponed as at the end of January due to AUT action. Otherwise the programme is proceeding as planned. The Agency was commissioned by the HEFCE to carry out quality reviews of provision in 10 independent schools of drama and dance; these reviews will be completed by the end of March 2000.
8. The Agency is recruiting and starting to train the reviewers for the final tranche of (current method) subject reviews in England and Northern Ireland between October 2000 and December 2001. Around 600 visits will be carried out in this four-term period. Visit schedules for most of the visits have now been agreed with the institutions. Contracts with HEFCE and DHFETE will be finalised in the Summer.
9. The details of the new Academic Review method were agreed in outline in September 1999, with final confirmation from the representative and funding bodies in January 2000, after a period of consultation specifically on the style of reporting judgements on quality. Developing the new academic review method has continued in 1999-2000 through trialling and consultation. The work has been carried out in two parts: a programme of intensive collaborative work with five institutions in the Autumn term 1999 to help to develop the materials (primarily a first draft of the Academic Review Handbook and guidance on programme specification) to underpin the academic review method; then, a programme of pilots with seven institutions in the Spring term 2000 to test out the draft Handbook and address any remaining issues. The report on the Autumn 1999 collaborative work was published at the end of February 2000. The draft Academic Review Handbook was published for comment in February 2000. The lessons from the pilots will feed into the final version of the Handbook, and into preparation of the materials for training academic reviewers. UCoSDA has been appointed, after public tender, to carry out the academic reviewer training, and is currently developing the necessary training materials. Reviewers are being recruited to carry out around 30 reviews in Scotland in 2000-01 (institutions in Wales have not proposed any provision for review in 2000-01). SHEFC and QAA are in the process of agreeing a contract to support academic review in Scotland from October 2000. Also in Scotland, the Agency is in discussion with the Scottish GTC, HMI and SHEFC on developing arrangements for the review of initial teacher training in Scotland. Regarding NHS-funded provision, the Agency has reached agreement with all NHS bodies (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) on benchmarking the subjects funded by the NHS; a formal contract will now be entered into. This work is a necessary precursor to entering into a subsequent contract with the NHS to carry out subject reviews from 2001.
10. The subject review method in England and Northern Ireland has always included a number of FE colleges in its scope - primarily those receiving direct funding from the HEFCE. The HEFCE now has funding responsibility for a wider range of provision in a greater number of FE colleges. This means that, in the round of subject reviews that will begin in October 2000, the Agency will be reviewing HE provision in around 280 FE colleges, rather than just in the 70 or so it has dealt with so far. Where necessary, the Agency will adapt the standard pattern of a review visit to fit the particular circumstances of an FE college. The Agency has participated in seminars run by HEFCE and FEDA to help orientate FECs to the subject review method and to the Agency's expectations, and to help the Agency understand the context and concerns in FE Colleges. The Agency is seeking to recruit reviewers with experience of HE in FE, although few nominations from this constituency have been received yet. The Agency is grateful to Farnborough College for agreeing to take part in the Spring term 2000 pilots so that the FE dimension can be taken into account in finalising the new academic review method. In Scotland, discussions are continuing with HMI and SFEFC on arrangements for the external review of programmes in Scottish FECs.
Providing the Infrastructure
Corporate Objectives:
- To develop and maintain the national qualifications frameworks
- To facilitate the production by subject communities of benchmark information for use in the new quality assurance method
-
To promote good practice to assist institutions in
enhancing the quality of their provision.
Progress:
11. In November 1999 the Agency published a position statement in the light of the consultation earlier in the year on postgraduate awards. At the same time the Agency consulted on a range of proposals and issues on the qualifications frameworks in England / Wales / Northern Ireland and in Scotland. An initial analysis of the results of that consultation was considered by the QAA Board in January 2000, and the two qualifications framework development groups (one for Scotland and one for the other countries in the UK) are considering a number of issues in the light of the consultation. Post-consultation recommendations from the development groups will go to the March 2000 QAA Board meeting. In Scotland work is progressing on target in developing SCOTCAT. However, development of the overall Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework is behind target, largely as a result of delay outside the Agency's control in appointing a chair of the proposed joint advisory group.
12. Benchmark statements in chemistry, history and law were made available in draft in October 1999. The draft statements in a further 19 subjects were published for consultation in January 2000. Planning for the next tranche of benchmarking will include benchmarking health-related subjects under contract with the NHS.
13. In terms of promoting good practice, the Agency is ahead of timetable in developing the various sections of the Code of Practice for the Assurance of Academic Quality and Standards in Higher Education - four have been published so far and five more are in the pipeline. The Agency is reviewing the findings from audit reports with a view to a 'learning from audit' style of publication by the end of the year. A similar review of subject review reports will take place once the current round of subject reviews is completed this Summer. The Agency is working with the CVCP and SCOP to develop the use of progress files by institutions; a policy statement should be published by the end of the year.
Working in Partnership
Corporate Objectives:
- To provide useful and useable public information on quality and standards in UK higher education
- To engage effectively with employers, students, professional and statutory bodies, regulators and other national stakeholders
- To provide a framework within which judgements may be made about the relative intensity of and weight of scrutiny to be applied to individual institutions
- To collaborate effectively with bodies, overseas and international, whose work relates to that of the Agency
-
To provide for the recognition of access to HE
courses.
Progress:
14. The Agency publishes several hundred reports on quality and standards in higher education each year. Nearly 350 are planned for 1999-2000. The great majority of these are on target to meet their publication schedules (over 90 per cent of the subject review reports due to be published by November 1999 were published on time). The Annual Accounts and Directors' Report were prepared on time for the company's AGM in January. The published Annual Report will be launched on 14 March. The next edition of Higher Quality will be published by the end of April; it is now unlikely that there will be a need for a further edition in July 2000.
15. The Agency works closely with a wide range of external stakeholders, including employers, students, professional and statutory bodies and other national stakeholders. The Association of Graduate Recruiters (AGR) and the Institute of Personnel Development have been involved in our work on progress files and programme specifications. The AGR is also represented on the working group developing the code of practice on careers guidance, and there are employer representatives on a number of the benchmarking groups.
16. The professional and statutory bodies have played an important role in many of the benchmarking groups, both in shaping their membership and progressing the work, for example the involvement of the Engineering Council, the Engineering Employers' Federation, the Engineering Professors' Council and other bodies in developing the benchmarking statement in engineering. PSB representatives have contributed to the work on qualifications frameworks and programme specification, including the H1/H2 project and the project on programme specification in health and social care being undertaken by Kingston University and St George's Hospital Medical School. Also, where relevant, collaborative reviews, at subject or institutional level, are carried out with professional and statutory bodies - for example, GMC, GDC and the National Boards for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting - and arrangements are being made now for collaboration in 2000-01 reviews. A series of well-attended meetings were held in Gloucester and Glasgow in February 2000 to discuss the draft Handbook for Academic Review with representatives of PSBs and employer groups. A wide range of PSBs have expressed interest in the scope for collaborative review within the new academic review method. Also, PSBs are to receive copies of all sections of the Code of Practice and invited to consider how they might wish to be involved in future joint activity.
17. Our relationship with the NHS is strengthening all the time: we have a joint liaison committee, we are working to finalise details of the method for benchmarking health-related subjects, to be funded primarily by the NHS, and we are discussing carrying out quality reviews under contract with the NHS from 2001.
18. The Agency is represented on QCA working groups (health;
finance; engineering) and is developing a memorandum of
understanding with QCA on Access. We have also responded to a
consultation by TOPSS (Training Organisation for the Personal
Social Services).
19. The QAA's Glasgow office maintains a wide range of
contacts with stakeholder and related bodies in Scotland, for
example with the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) on
developing qualifications frameworks.
20. All students unions receive QAA communications, and
there has been some student involvement in working groups,
for example the code of practice on complaints and progress
files. There have also been informal meetings with NUS
officials on specific issues. The student voice is heard at
QAA Board meetings through the student observer.
21. The framework for determining relative intensity and
weight of external scrutiny was set out in Higher Quality
6 in November 1999, with further details in the
Handbook for Academic Review published in draft in
February 2000.
22. In terms of relations with overseas and international
bodies, the Agency is active in the European Quality
Assurance Network and in developing bilateral relationships
with overseas quality agencies, such as the
Evalueringscenteret in Denmark. At the international level,
the Chief Executive has been appointed to the Board of the
International Network of Quality Assurance Agencies
(INQAAHE). In practice, much of the Agency's international
work is conducted from its offices in Gloucester. Thirteen
parties of overseas visitors were received in Gloucester
between September 1999 and January 2000 - mainly overseas
government officials or senior university staff - from
Australia (x2), China, Mexico, Qatar, Singapore, Slovakia,
South Africa, Sri Lanka (x2), Sweden, Switzerland and
Thailand.
23. On recognition and quality assurance of Access to the
courses, the Agency is on track with its plan, and there is
much goodwill in the sector for the Agency's Access work. The
number of reviews of Authorised Validating Agencies (AVAs)
will be increased from six to eight. Work with the Scottish
Advisory Committee on Credit and Access (SACCA) in developing
a revised strategy for access in Scotland is proceeding.
Working Effectively
Corporate Objectives:
- To communicate effectively the mission, functions and achievements of the Agency
- To achieve efficiency, effectiveness and economy in all of the activities of the Agency
- To ensure that the Agency's organisational structures remain appropriate to the discharge of its responsibilities
Progress:
24. The Agency communicates through a variety of means. As well as written reports such as this one, regular discussions are held with the funding and representative bodies through the Sounding Board group (most recent meeting in January 2000) and through attendance at meetings of the representative bodies' Quality and Standards Group and the funding councils' quality assessment committees. The Agency's Website is being extensively developed as a vehicle for effective public communication - all published reports and many working papers and drafts are publicly available; at current rates of access we can expect to receive in excess of three million visits to the site in 2000. The Agency has taken account of the Segal Quince Wicksteed report on providing public information on quality and standards and has, for example, decided that each academic review in the new method should generate a one-page summary report as well as a full report; these summary reports should be of particular assistance to external stakeholders. Higher Quality and the Agency's Annual Report receive a wide distribution and some press coverage. The Chief Executive, the heads of directorate and assistant directors engage regularly with institutions, subject associations and professional and statutory bodies through speaking at conferences, providing briefings, attending meetings. The Board adopted a media relations strategy in November 1999 and work is proceeding to develop marketing and publications strategies.
25. The Agency's business planning and budgeting process underpins much of our work in achieving efficiency, effectiveness and economy. The identification of a programme of work for the coming year, set out in a costed annual operating plan, is discussed with the funding and representative bodies. Those bodies have a legitimate expectation of efficiency and economy in our work and submit our proposals to close scrutiny. The agreements reached with those bodies are subsequently captured in contracts (with the funding councils) and agreed subscription levels (with the representative bodies), to deliver the agreed programme of work. In 1999-2000 the Agency was able to achieve a reduction of 17 per cent (from £18,157 to £15,022) in the average full cost of the subject reviews carried out under contract with the HEFCE and DHFETE. The Agency's business planning capacity is being strengthened through the development of a range of resource strategies to ensure that the Agency has, and makes the best use of, the resources it needs to deliver its objectives. Work on developing an information strategy is well-advanced, and work on human resources and finance strategies is underway. Work will also be undertaken to develop a value for money strategy and a risk management strategy, to strengthen the financial regulations, to implement the policy on procurement, and to develop our performance measurement systems.
26. Organisational structures are reviewed each year at an
early stage in the business planning process. Measures are
now in place through the Personal Performance and Development
(PPD) review process to measure the performance of staff and
to identify training and development needs. This will help to
ensure that staffing levels and skills are appropriate to the
Agency's needs. A training and development plan will be
developed by the end of the year. The Agency is working
towards recognition as an Investor in People.
27. In January three of the Board's founder members -
Professor Hadyn Ellis, Dr Martin Gaskell and Dr Geoffrey
Robinson - retired from membership. Each had made a valuable
and distinctive contribution to the work of the Board and the
development of the Agency since April 1997. The new members
who have joined the Board - filling the three vacancies above
and an earlier unfilled vacancy - are: Professor Antony
Chapman, Principal of University of Wales Institute, Cardiff;
Mr Graham Mackenzie, Chief Executive of ASW Holdings plc;
Professor Peter McKie, formerly Chairman of Dupont UK; and Mr
Philip Robinson, Director of University College Chichester.
An up-to-date list of Board members is attached.
28. The Agency's Glasgow-based staff moved into new office premises in Glasgow in September in order to accommodate the necessary increases in staffing to support the introduction of the academic review method.
Board of Directors, January 2000
Mr Christopher Kenyon (Chairman)
Chairman, William Kenyon & Sons Limited; Chairman of
Council, University of Manchester
Professor Antony Chapman
Principal, University of
Wales Institute, Cardiff
Ms Maggie Deacon
Director of Finance, University
of Brighton
Professor Janet Finch, CBE
Vice-Chancellor, Keele
University
Mr Graham Mackenzie, OBE
Chief Executive, ASW
Holdings plc
Professor Peter McKie, CBE
Former Chairman, Du
Pont (UK) Ltd
Ms Catherine McLoughlin, CBE
Management
Consultant and Chair, St George's Healthcare NHS Trust
Sir Ronald Miller, CBE
Chairman of the Court,
Napier University; formerly Chair, Dawson International plc
Mr Philip Robinson
Director, University College
Chichester
Dame Margaret Seward, DBE
Former President,
General Dental Council
Mrs Valerie Stead, OBE
Director of Quality
Assurance, Kent Institute of Art and Design
Professor Bill Stevely
Principal, Robert Gordon
University, Aberdeen
Professor Roger Williams
Vice-Chancellor,
University of Reading
Mr Paul Cohen
Invited observer representing Government Education
Departments
Top