section photograph

Report to the funding and representative bodies

September 2000

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 Further and Higher Education Training and Employment (DFHETE) in Northern Ireland and the English, Scottish and Welsh funding councils (HEFCE, SHEFC and HEFCW) to provide a report to those bodies in mid-September each year on performance against the objectives in the previous year’s business plan.  This is the report for the year 1999-2000.

2. The QAA’s business plan 1999-2002 and annual operating plan and budget 1999-2000 were finalised in July 1999. This 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 of achievement against those objectives.

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.

Achievement:

3. The Agency carried out 29 continuation audits in 1999-2000. Two of the planned programme of 32 continuation audits were cancelled as a result of institutional mergers and one was re-scheduled to the Autumn term 2000.  The Agency also carried out a special review of the University of Derby arising from allegations about the management of its collaborative arrangements with an institution in Israel (the report was published in July 2000). The programme of follow-up visits from the previous year’s audits was completed, as was the recruitment of auditors for the 2000-01 programme. The schedule of 24 audits in 2000-01 has been agreed with institutions.

4. Two of the four planned overseas audits (Egypt and Cyprus) were undertaken as a single event to ensure greater cost-effectiveness; the third planned visit (Spain) remained as originally planned.  The structure of the fourth – audit of collaborative arrangements with China – was amended to take account of the current state of development of UK/China links. This involved placing a greater emphasis on the UK side of partnerships, with the visits to Chinese institutions being of a fact-finding nature. 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 for three overseas audits.  A more active use of subject and programme elements is now part of the overseas audit process. ‘Kitemarking’ of overseas collaborative provision is a possible area of future development; initial informal soundings about the idea will be taken in Autumn 2000.

5. The institutional review aspects of the academic review method were published on the Agency’s Website, as part of the Handbook for academic review, for comment by early March 2000 and in final form at the end of April 2000.

6. The Agency submitted recommendations to the Scottish Executive for the designation of two Scottish institutions as HE institutions.  Both recommendations were accepted.  The Agency submitted its advice to the DfEE on an application for university title in November 1999; at the time of writing (September 2000) no announcement has yet been made. One other application for university title, and several applications for the grant of degree-awarding powers, are under consideration by the Agency.  Also, initial consideration has been given to a number of applications in the early stages of the degree-awarding powers process.

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.

Achievement:

7. The Agency carried out 354 subject review visits in England and Northern Ireland in 1999-2000. Eighteen scheduled visits had to be postponed to 2000-01, most as a result of AUT industrial action, and three were cancelled in the light of up-to-date information on size and nature of the provision.  The Agency was also commissioned by the HEFCE to carry out reviews of the quality of provision in 10 independent schools of drama and dance; these reviews were completed and reports published by the end of March 2000.

8. The Agency has recruited sufficient reviewers for the final tranche of (current method) subject reviews in England and Northern Ireland between October 2000 and December 2001.  Over 600 visits will be carried out in this four-term period. Visit schedules have been agreed with the institutions. The contract with HEFCE for reviews in the academic year 2000-01 was signed in July 2000 (the contract also covers preparations for academic review in the following year). The 2000-01 programme of reviews in Northern Ireland has been agreed with DFHETE and the contract will be finalised shortly.

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 in Autumn 1999 specifically on the style of reporting judgements on quality. The 1999-2000 developmental work was carried out in two parts: a programme of intensive collaborative work with five institutions in the Autumn term 1999 to help to develop the operational materials (primarily an initial draft of the Handbook for academic review and draft 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 Handbook was published for comment in February 2000 and in final form in April 2000. The lessons from the pilots informed both the final version of the Handbook, and the preparation of the materials for training academic reviewers. UCoSDA was appointed, after public tender, to carry out the academic reviewer training, which started in Scotland in June 2000.

10. As a first step in establishing the 2000-01 programme of academic reviews in Scotland, the Agency collected information in Autumn 1999 from all Scottish institutions on the scope and nature of their provision in the subjects to be reviewed in the three-year period 2000 to 2003, and on their preferences for the timing of individual reviews within that period. On the basis of the information provided the Agency has agreed the programme of reviews with Scottish HEIs for that period, starting with 25 reviews in 2000-01. Institutions in Wales also returned ‘scope and preference’ data in Autumn 1999, and programmes of reviews in 2001-02 and 2002-03 have been agreed (no Welsh institution put provision forward for review             in 2000-01). In June 2000 the Agency initiated a ‘scope and preference’ survey for English and Northern Irish institutions. The data will be analysed in Autumn 2000 with a view to establishing academic review programmes in England and Northern Ireland in 2001-02 and 2002-03.

11. SHEFC and QAA have agreed a contract to carry out academic reviews in Scotland from October 2000. Reviewers have been recruited to carry out the 25 academic reviews in 2000-01. Also in Scotland, the Agency is working with the Scottish GTC, HMI and SHEFC on developing arrangements for the collaborative review of initial teacher education in Scotland; a draft benchmark statement has been agreed.

12. The Agency has reached agreement with all NHS bodies (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) on benchmarking nursing and health-related subjects; the project is underway. This work is a necessary precursor to entering into a subsequent contract with the NHSE to carry out subject reviews in these subjects in England from 2001. Discussions continue on arrangements for subject review with the appropriate bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

13. The subject review method in England and Northern Ireland has always included a number of FE colleges (FECs) 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, with consequent implications for the extent of the Agency’s work with FECs in England. Where necessary, the Agency will adapt the standard pattern of a review visit to fit the particular circumstances of provision in an FE college (for example, if provision is delivered mainly in the evenings).  In practice, the Agency will carry out 116 reviews in FE colleges in 2000-01, of which half will be carried out in adapted mode. 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 has recruited a number of reviewers with experience of HE in FE. 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.

Achievement:

14. 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 (EWNI) 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 EWNI) gave further consideration to a number of issues in the light of the consultation. Post-consultation recommendations from the development groups were considered at the March and May 2000 QAA Board meetings.  In July the Agency published two position statements (one for Scotland and one for EWNI) for final comment by the end of September 2000. The frameworks will be published in final form in November 2000.

15. Benchmark statements in chemistry, history and law were made widely available in draft in October 1999. The draft statements in a further 19 subjects were published for comment in January 2000. The 22 statements were published in final form in April 2000.  In May 2000 the Agency promoted a conference to look at the implications and use of benchmark statements in relation to programme design, student assessment, meeting public information needs, and as one of the reference points of the academic review method. The next tranche of benchmarking covers the subjects to be reviewed from 2003-04 and includes benchmarking nursing and health-related subjects under contract with the bodies that fund the provision in those subjects. 23 benchmark statements will be published in 2000-01.

16. 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 – seven sections have been published so far and three more are in the pipeline. In June 2000 the Agency promoted a conference to accompany publication of the section of the Code on student complaints. As well as sections of the Code the Agency has published guidelines on distance learning and on the preparation of programme specifications (building on the lessons from the new method trialling and piloting). The Agency has also worked with the CVCP and SCOP to develop the use of progress files by institutions; a joint policy statement was published in May 2000. The Agency is reviewing the findings from audit reports with a view to a ‘learning from audit’ style of publication in the coming year. A similar review of subject review reports will take place as the current subject review method comes to an end, with a view to publication of a report in  2001.

 

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.


Achievement:

17. The Agency publishes several hundred reports on quality and standards in higher education each year. Around 340 (subject review reports, continuation audit reports and reports on overseas collaborative provision) were planned for 1999-2000. Over 90 per cent of the reports were published on schedule. Delays in publication were largely a result of delays in agreeing a final text with the institution concerned. The Agency’s 1998-99 Annual Report was published on 14 March. Higher Quality 7 was published in April; the next edition will be in Autumn 2000.

18. The Agency works closely with a wide range of external stakeholders, including employers, students, professional and statutory bodies (PSBs) and other national stakeholders. The Association of Graduate Recruiters (AGR) and the Institute of Personnel Development have been involved in developing 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.

19. The professional and statutory bodies play 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. Representatives of PSBs have contributed to the work on qualifications frameworks and programme specification, including the H1/H2 project commissioned by the DfEE 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 have been made for collaborations 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.

20. The Agency maintains close working relations with QCA. A Joint Forum, under the chairmanship of Professor Ivor Crewe, met regularly during the year to discuss matters of mutual interest relating to qualifications frameworks and related matters. The Joint Forum includes representatives of the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA), the Qualifications Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales (ACCAC) and the Curriculum Council, Examinations and Assessment for Northern Ireland (CCEA), as well as members from professional bodies and higher education institutions.  In addition, there continued to be periodic liaison meetings between the Agency and QCA at Chairman/Chief Executive level. The Agency is also represented on QCA working groups (health; finance; engineering) and is developing a memorandum of understanding with QCA on Access.

21. A method for benchmarking health-related subjects, to be funded by the bodies that fund that provision in the different parts of the UK, has been agreed; prototype/pilot quality reviews will be carried out under contract with the NHSE in England from 2001.

22. The QAA’s Glasgow office maintains a wide range of contacts with stakeholder and related bodies in Scotland, for example with the SQA on developing qualifications frameworks, and with COSHEP and SHEFC on the development and introduction of academic review.

23. 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 the development of 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.

24. 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 in final form in April 2000.

25. In terms of relations with overseas and international bodies, the Agency is active in the European Network for Quality Assurance (ENQA) and the Chief Executive continues to serve on  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. Twenty-three parties of overseas visitors were received between February and July 2000 – mainly overseas government officials or senior university staff – from Albania, Australia (x2), Brazil, Cyprus, India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan (2), Korea, Kuwait, Netherlands, Norway (x2), Philippines, Saudi Arabia (x2), Singapore, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sri Lanka and Sweden. The Agency has also assisted other Agencies in Europe by providing the names of persons who might be willing to act as subject specialist reviewers.

26. The Agency has held, or has arranged, bilateral discussions with a number of other European agencies on the implications of the Bologna declaration. Discussions so far arranged include Denmark, Germany, Spain, Switzerland and The Netherlands. A meeting has also taken place with the CRE. The Agency maintains close contact with DfEE, as the lead government department on the Bologna declaration.

27. The Agency has a close working relationship with the British Council. The Agency is grateful to the British Council for the support provided by its local offices to the overseas audit programme. In November 1999 the British Council met the cost of the Chief Executive visiting Kuala Lumpur for meetings with Government bodies, and a press conference, to mark the publication of audit reports on UK/Malaysia links. The Agency has provided expert speakers for events organised or supported by the British Council in the UK and in Brazil, Colombia, Cyprus and Norway. Agency staff have also acted as tutors on British Council sponsored staff development programmes for evaluation agencies in India and Indonesia.

28. On recognition and quality assurance of Access to HE courses, the Agency carried out eight reviews of Authorised Validating Agencies (AVAs) in England in 1999-2000 as well as follow-up work from the previous year’s reviews. Consideration was also given to two initial applications for a license. Work with the Scottish Advisory Committee on Credit and Access (SACCA) in developing a revised strategy for access in Scotland is proceeding.

 

Working in 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.


Achievement:

29. The Agency communicates through a variety 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 April 2000) and through attendance at meetings of the representative bodies’ Quality and Standards Group and the funding councils’ quality assessment committees. The Agency has taken account of the 1999 Segal Quince Wicksteed report on Providing public information on HE 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.

30. The Agency’s Website has been extensively re-developed as a vehicle for effective public communication, and was re-launched in August 2000. All published reports – subject, institutional, subject overview – are publicly available on the Website, as well as other publications such as the benchmark statements, the sections of the Code of Practice, consultation papers, and many working drafts. At current rates of access the Agency can expect to receive eight to nine million visits to the site over the next year. The site has been re-designed with ease of navigability, enhanced search facilities and improved visual appeal in mind. It now hosts all the subject review reports that were previously hosted by NISS: this will facilitate faster hosting of new reports to the Website, simplify site management tasks and improve the speed of searches on the site. Site security, accessibility and robustness are also being improved. There will be an improved service to disabled users: a full text-only version of the site is being developed in parallel to address the needs of this group.

31. During 1999-2000 the Agency consulted the sector on a revised structure for institutional subscriptions. The Agency’s proposals were accepted by the sector and the details were finalised in discussion with the representative bodies in Spring 2000. Subscription invoices for 2000-01 were issued in July 2000. Overall, the Agency is budgeting on a small reduction in income from subscriptions in 2000-01.

32. 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 bodies) and agreed subscription levels (with the representative bodies), to deliver the agreed programme of work.  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 proceeding. 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, to introduce a system of approved suppliers, and to develop our performance measurement systems.

33. 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. The Agency’s HR strategy also requires the development of broad competency profiles for groups of Agency staff; these are currently being piloted. These initiatives will help to ensure that staffing levels and skills are appropriate to the Agency’s needs. A training and development plan is being developed. The Agency is working towards recognition as an Investor in People.

34. The Agency’s Glasgow-based staff moved into new office premises in Glasgow in September 1999 in order to accommodate the necessary increases in staffing to support the introduction of the academic review method in Scotland from October 2000.

35. 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 joined the Board – filling the three vacancies above and an earlier unfilled vacancy - were: 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) Ltd; and Mr Philip Robinson, Director of University College Chichester.  In March, another of the Board’s founder members – Mr Hugh Smith of BT - retired from membership. The Board’s Nominations Committee will bring a proposal for a replacement appointment to the November 2000 Board meeting.

36. In May 2000 Patrick Barron, a student at the University of Edinburgh, who had attended Board meetings since January 1999 as a representative of students, retired from the position. Patrick had made many helpful and thoughtful contributions to the Board’s discussions and the Board wished him well in his postgraduate studies at Harvard. The Nominations Committee has been charged with bringing a proposal to the Board for a new student observer to be invited to attend meetings from January 2001.

37. The current membership of the Board is shown overleaf.

 

Board of Directors, September 2000

Mr Christopher Kenyon (Chairman)
Chairman, William Kenyon & Sons Limited; Former 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

[Vacancy]

Invited observer representing Government Education Departments

Mr Paul Cohen
Invited observer representing students

[Vacancy]

TopTop