Foreword
1 This document is a code of practice for academic appeals and student complaints on academic matters. It is one of a suite of inter-related documents which, taken together, will form an overall Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education for the guidance of higher education institutions subscribing to the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (the QAA).
2 The overall Code and its constituent sections are being prepared by the QAA in response both to the Reports of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education and its Scottish Committee (the 'Dearing' and 'Garrick' Reports) and to the consequent remodelling of the national arrangements for quality assurance in higher education. The completed Code will identify a comprehensive series of system-wide expectations covering matters relating to the management of academic quality and standards in higher education. In so doing, it will provide an authoritative reference point for institutions as they consciously, actively and systematically assure, the academic quality and standards of their programmes, awards and qualifications. The Code assumes that, taking into account nationally agreed principles and practices, each institution has its own systems for independent verification of its quality and standards and also of the effectiveness of its quality assurance systems. In developing the Code, extensive guidance is being sought from a range of knowledgeable practitioners.
3 Each section of the Code is being structured into a series of precepts and accompanying outline guidance. The precepts identify those key matters which the QAA expects an institution to be able to demonstrate it is addressing effectively through its own quality assurance mechanisms. The accompanying outline guidance is provided to assist institutions in maintaining and enhancing the quality of provision for students and other stakeholders. The guidance is not intended to be either prescriptive or exhaustive: its purpose is to offer a framework for quality assurance and control which institutions may wish to use, elaborate and adapt according to their own needs, traditions, cultures and decision-making processes. Nonetheless, in many institutions the guidance will constitute appropriate good practice. This is particularly the case in this section on academic complaints and appeals.
4 To assist users, the precepts are listed, without the associated guidance, in Appendix 1 to the code.
5 During the course of its quality assurance reviews, the QAA will consider the extent to which individual institutions are meeting the expectations of the precepts in sections of the Code of practice. The QAA will report on how effectively higher education institutions individually are meeting these expectations and are discharging their responsibilities for the academic standards and quality of their programmes and awards. In doing so it will focus on the precepts themselves, and not on the associated guidance: the latter may, however, provide a helpful starting point for discussion. The QAA expects that by May 2001 all institutions will be able to demonstrate that they are adhering to the precepts contained in this section of the Code.
Introduction
6 There is now a general and reasonable expectation that organisations providing services to the public should have effective systems for handling complaints. Students are entitled to no less effective a system to operate within higher education, than operates in other public services that they may use. This section of the QAA Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education is concerned with the ways in which institutions handle students' complaints about academic matters and also academic appeals. It has been drafted in the light of a number of other documents which have covered similar ground in recent years.
7 All these documents seek to reconcile the interests of students, staff and higher education institutions, while ensuring that wider expectations of fairness are met. They are concerned with both responsibilities and entitlements. For example, the entitlement of a student to raise a complaint has to be balanced by the legitimate requirement of an institution that its procedures should not be deliberately misused or its staff, or other students, abused.
8 Specific expectations about handling student complaints in higher education were set out in Recommendation 60 of the report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (the Dearing Report). This recommended that arrangements for handling complaints from students should reflect the principles of natural justice; be transparent and timely; include procedures for reconciliation and arbitration; include an independent, external element; and be managed by a senior member of staff. Drafting of this section of the Code has taken account of both the specific recommendations of the Dearing Report, and the general expectations about complaints handling in public services which are promulgated by, for example, the Committee on Standards in Public Life and Service First. So far as the 'independent, external element' is concerned, the QAA has reluctantly decided that at present it is not possible to formulate appropriate precepts or guidance for inclusion in the code. Appendix 2 explains why this is and sets out more fully the QAA's position on the matter.
9 This section of the Code has been produced prior to the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). It is not yet certain whether some or all higher education institutions are fully or partially included within the category of 'public authority' to which the Act applies. Whether, and if so to what extent, and how, the HRA applies to higher education institutions is a matter that can be determined only by the Courts through a case or cases testing the application of the Act. Such a determination could be some time away, and it would not be reasonable to delay promulgation of the code on account of a hypothetical future court case. However, it is the case that the law as it currently stands, whether through the HRA or other public or private law provisions, applies to the resolution of disputes involving students and their institutions. The QAA will keep the provisions of the code under review, and will amend them as necessary in the light of any definitive and applicable decisions of the Courts.
10 Higher education institutions cannot operate without a high level of goodwill and trust between staff and students. In the first instance difficulties and differences should be approached with this in mind. If the use of a complaints procedure is seen to be a common rather than a rather rare event, there may be a need for a more fundamental review of institutional relations and practices. As a general principle, recourse to formal complaints and appeals procedures should be necessary only as a last resort. Nevertheless, institutions should ensure that complaints and appeals from students, when they do arise, are handled through procedures that are clear, accessible, fair and applied consistently.
11 This code does not recommend a single right way in which higher education institutions should manage their student complaints and appeals processes. It does, however, identify in its precepts the general or most basic features which it would expect any set of procedures to be able to demonstrate. In addition, adherence to the precepts will generally involve institutions in careful consideration of the points covered in the guidance notes. It is in this spirit that the notes are prefaced with the phrase 'Institutions should...'.
12 For the purpose of this code, a 'complaint' is defined as any specific concern about the provision of a programme of study or related academic service, and an 'appeal' is defined as a request for a review of a decision of an academic body charged with making decisions on student progression, assessment, and awards. Because the QAA's remit is limited to matters of academic quality and standards, the code does not relate to non-academic complaints or appeals. Nevertheless, institutions will doubtless wish to ensure that there are no unjustifiable inconsistencies or incompatibilities between the way they deal with academic and non-academic complaints or appeals.
13 The absence of a complaints mechanism which can deal with academic matters as they arise may lead to an appeal in due course. It must however be emphasised that complaints are different in nature from appeals and this code assumes that institutions will have separate processes for dealing with them. Appeals are challenges by individuals to decisions that have been made and are by their nature more limited in their scope than complaints.
14 Because academic appeals are part of an institution's student assessment arrangements they are always likely to be dealt with in a formal way and their procedures and possible outcomes clearly framed in official regulations, codes or guidance documents. They may also be subject to a system of precedents, to ensure consistency of treatment. Complaints, by contrast, can be raised about a very wide range of events or activities and may involve single or multiple complainants. Complaints procedures therefore need to be flexible and responsive to ensure that a fair and just outcome is assured in each case.
15 In the interests of minimising the number of sections of the overall Code of practice, the present code has been devised to cover both complaints and appeals. Where appropriate, precepts and guidance points which refer exclusively to appeals or to complaints are grouped and/or otherwise indicated. Where no indication is given, it should be assumed that the precepts or guidance are equally applicable to complaints and appeals procedures.
16 The five sections of the code provide a structure which highlights the main aspects of complaints and appeals procedures for higher education. These are:
The sections have been informed by an overriding preference for complaints and appeals to be resolved as close as possible to their point of origin, with a minimum of formality, but in a way which a disinterested observer would find reasonable in all the circumstances. Clearly, not every complaint or appeal can be resolved in a way which gives satisfaction to all parties. Nevertheless, procedures should be designed and implemented so that if there is a disappointment at an outcome it is not aggravated by dissatisfaction with a process. The question of the 'independent external element', which appeared as a sixth section in drafts of the code, and which is now omitted, is dealt with in Appendix 2.
17 This section of the Code has been prepared with the assistance of a working group representing all sectors of higher education. The members of the working group are listed in Appendix 3.
Note: 'Students' are defined here as persons registered or enrolled in an institution to follow a programme of study which may or may not lead to an award or qualification of that institution. It will be for the institution to determine and announce explicitly and regularly whether any of its students fall outside the terms of its complaints and appeals procedures (eg by virtue of their not being formal 'members' of the institution under the terms of its articles of governance, which may be the case in respect of students registered elsewhere for the institution's programme or award). Students following franchised or validated programmes, for example, may find themselves subject on the one hand to the academic appeals procedures of the body responsible for the award, but on the other hand to the complaints procedures of the institution where they are registered and pursuing their studies. The extent of jurisdiction will need to be made clear in relevant documents. Users are also recommended to refer to Section 2 of the Code of practice which deals with collaborative provision.
Precepts and Guidance
General principles
1
Institutions should have effective procedures for resolving student complaints
and academic appeals. Students should have a full opportunity to raise, individually
or collectively, matters of proper concern to them without fear of disadvantage
and in the knowledge that privacy and confidentiality will be respected.
2
The procedures should be ratified by the governing body or other body with
ultimate corporate responsibility and should form a part of the institution's
overall framework for quality assurance.
3
Institutions should ensure that their procedures are fair and decisions are
reasonable and have regard to any applicable law.
4
Institutions should address student complaints and appeals in a timely manner,
using simple and transparent procedures. Informal resolution should be an
option at all stages of the complaints procedure which should operate, in
the first instance, at the level at which the matter arose.
Guidance/commentary
An institution should:
- define 'complaints' and 'appeals' in the context of its procedures;
- set out the scope of the procedures including, for example, formal and informal route(s) and their inter-relationship; and any special arrangements applying to particular groups of students, for example those engaged in research;
- set out the entitlements and responsibilities of the parties;
- explain the relationship, if any, between the procedures for complaints and appeals and other procedures such as those for disclosure in the public interest ('whistleblowing'), or harassment;
- facilitate access to information and documents material to a complaint or appeal; while having due regard to privacy, confidentiality and the reasonable interests of any relevant third parties;
- inform claimants that privacy and confidentiality will be assured unless disclosure is necessary to progress the complaint or appeal, in which case the claimant will be notified in advance of the disclosure;
- specify the time limits for each stage of the procedure, and the consequences if these are not met;
- ensure that the procedures are operated fairly and consistently, and in accordance with the equal opportunities policy of the institution;
- ensure that, in any collaborative arrangement with another institution, the respective jurisdictional authority of each institution in relation to student complaints and appeals is clearly defined. (See also the QAA Code of practice: Section 2: Collaborative provision.)
Information
5
Information on complaints and appeals procedures should be published, accurate,
complete, clearly presented, readily accessible and issued to students and
staff.
6
Sources of impartial help, advice, guidance and support should be advertised
widely within the institution.
Guidance/commentary
An institution should:
- describe in simple and clear terms how a complaint or appeal will be handled; including information about deadlines for written representations, any provision for oral representations, and the significance of each stage of the proceedings in terms of the availability of any future review or appeal provided for by the institution;
- provide information to students on entry and remind them of it periodically;
- assure students that they will not be disadvantaged because they make a complaint or lodge an appeal in good faith;
- give contact details for any designated appeals/complaints officer; and sources of help available to complainants/appellants, including the students' union.
Internal processes
7
The complaints and appeals procedures should identify the persons or bodies
from whom authoritative guidance may be sought on the applicability and operation
of the procedures.
8
Those responding to, investigating or adjudicating upon complaints or appeals
must, as required by law, do so impartially, and must not act in any matter
in which they have a material interest or in which any potential conflict
of interest might arise.
9
A complainant or appellant should be entitled to be accompanied at all stages
of the complaints or appeals process by a person of his or her choosing.
10
The documentation should indicate what further internal procedures, if any,
are open to a student dissatisfied with the response to a complaint or outcome
of an appeal.
Guidance/commentary
An institution should:
in respect of both complaints and appeals
- ensure that staff generally are aware of the procedures and the circumstances in which they may be used, and that staff responsible for the procedures are fully competent in their operation;
- decide in what circumstances a student may be heard in person by an officer or committee determining their application;
- make clear the extent to which an accompanying person has a right to be heard;
- decide how it will deal with a complaint or appeal in the voluntary or unavoidable absence of an applicant, and whether or not it will permit a proxy to be nominated to represent the applicant;
- provide for applications judged to be vexatious or frivolous to be rejected, at the earliest possible time, with reasons given in writing to the student, as to why the application is an abuse of process;
- exercise its discretion so as not to strike out complaints or appeals solely because of minor procedural deficiencies in the application;
in respect of complaints
-
provide for a formal written complaint:
i to be investigated by a designated member of staff, with no material interest in the complaint;
ii to receive a written response within a specified period of time; and
iii to be reviewed by a more senior member of staff should the student remain dissatisfied; - exercise its discretion in determining whether, and if so how, anonymous or third party complaints will be considered;
in respect of appeals
- ensure that the grounds upon which an appeal may be brought are clearly set out;
- ensure that the grounds (if any) on which review of a first instance decision on an appeal may be sought are clearly set out;
- promulgate time limits for the notification of appeals and also for the submission of written representations in relation to examinations or other academic assessments;
- specify those matters that are not susceptible to review through the
appeal procedure. These might include, for example:
i challenges to the academic judgements of examiners on an assessment outcome or the level of award recommended or granted*;
ii claiming that academic performance was adversely affected by factors such as ill-health, where there is no contemporaneous, independent, medical or other evidence to support the application;
- specify clearly the discretion remaining with examiners when a matter is remitted to them following a successful appeal;
- ensure that the University Senate, Academic Board or other similar body has an unambiguous power to annul a decision of the examiners and to substitute it with a decision of its own (normally following further advice from competent examiners), where circumstances make it appropriate for it to do so.
*Reference should also be made to precepts 11D and 11E , and associated guidance, in the QAA Code of practice on postgraduate research programmes.
Remedies
11
Institutions should ensure that where a complaint or appeal is upheld, appropriate
remedial action is implemented.
12
Institutions should meet reasonable and proportionate incidental expenses
necessarily incurred by a successful complainant or appellant.
Guidance/commentary
An institution should:
in respect of both complaints and appeals
- make clear to complainants, and those seeking review of academic decisions, any limitations or restrictions on the respective powers of officers and committees in relation to the grant of redress;
- ensure that the remedy is implemented speedily, including any decision to meet reasonable and proportionate incidental expenses of the successful complainant or appellant;
- inform the complainant or appellant of the outcome and any remedial action taken.
in respect of complaints
- recognise formally that many complaints can be resolved at the point at which they arise, by the member of staff concerned;
- empower designated staff to make decisions on redress in all appropriate complaints cases, in order to avoid protracted disputes;
- recognise that remedies available in respect of complaints might include adjustment of decisions affecting academic progress or award, financial compensation, disciplinary action against a member, or members, of staff, or a combination of these;
- invite complainants to indicate at the outset the form of remedy they are seeking, without prejudice to the final remedy determined.
Monitoring, evaluation and review
13
Institutions should have in place effective arrangements for the regular monitoring,
evaluation and review of complaints and appeals.
14
Institutions should keep their monitoring, evaluation and review arrangements
under scrutiny, taking into account current good practice.
Guidance/commentary
An institution should:
- have a reliable system of record keeping that tracks formal complaints and appeals and provides accurate information about the whole institution;
-
ensure that the monitoring arrangements record:
i the nature of the complaint or appeal;
ii how the matter was dealt with, and the time taken for each stage;
iii the outcome of the complaint or appeal;
iv ethnic origin and gender of applicants, and all such data required by the equal opportunities policy of the institution that the applicants have disclosed for this purpose; -
ensure that review and evaluation encompass the monitoring activities
and also the:
i adequacy of advice, guidance and support mechanisms for students;
ii adequacy of staff development and support for those operating complaints and review procedures;
iii level of understanding amongst staff and students of the procedures;
iv effectiveness of the overall procedures in meeting their stated aims.
- ensure that monitoring and evaluation procedures take full account of the normal schedule of review and evaluation cycles so that information about complaints and appeals can inform such activities as course design or postgraduate supervision;
- seek the participation of the relevant student and staff representative organisations in the review and evaluation process;
- identify any structural changes required to the complaints and appeals procedures as a result of review and evaluation;
- ensure that any common causes of those complaints and appeals upheld are rectified, and the performance of the institution over time, with regard to patterns of complaints and appeals, is kept under review;
- keep under review the implications of changes in legislation for complaints and appeals procedures;
- report regularly to the governing body, Senate, Academic Board, or other bodies with appropriate corporate responsibilities, on the outcomes of the monitoring and evaluation processes.
Appendix 1
The precepts
General principles
1
Institutions should have effective procedures for resolving student complaints
and academic appeals. Students should have a full opportunity to raise, individually
or collectively, matters of proper concern to them without fear of disadvantage
and in the knowledge that privacy and confidentiality will be respected.
2
The procedures should be ratified by the governing body or other body with
ultimate corporate responsibility and should form a part of the institution's
overall framework for quality assurance.
3
Institutions should ensure that their procedures are fair and decisions are
reasonable and have regard to any applicable law.
4
Institutions should address student complaints and appeals in a timely manner,
using simple and transparent procedures. Informal resolution should be an
option at all stages of the complaints procedure which should operate, in
the first instance, at the level at which the matter arose.
Information
5
Information on complaints and appeals procedures should be published, accurate,
complete, clearly presented, readily accessible and issued to students and
staff.
6
Sources of impartial help, advice, guidance and support should be advertised
widely within the institution.
Internal processes
7
The complaints and appeals procedures should identify the persons or bodies
from whom authoritative guidance may be sought on the applicability and operation
of the procedures.
8
Those responding to, investigating or adjudicating upon complaints or appeals
must, as required by law, do so impartially, and must not act in any matter
in which they have a material interest or in which any potential conflict
of interest might arise.
9
A complainant or appellant should be entitled to be accompanied at all stages
of the complaints or appeals process by a person of his or her choosing.
10
The documentation should indicate what further internal procedures, if any,
are open to a student dissatisfied with the response to a complaint or outcome
of an appeal.
Remedies
11
Institutions should ensure that where a complaint or appeal is upheld, appropriate
remedial action is implemented.
12
Institutions should meet reasonable and proportionate incidental expenses
necessarily incurred by a successful complainant or appellant.
Monitoring, evaluation and review
13
Institutions should have in place effective arrangements for the regular monitoring,
evaluation and review of complaints and appeals.
14
Institutions should keep their monitoring, evaluation and review arrangements
under scrutiny, taking into account current good practice.
Appendix 2
Independent external review of students complaints
The Report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (the Dearing Report) expressed the concern that students' complaints should, and should be seen to be taken seriously. The Report said:
'When the internal procedures within an institution are exhausted, the student should have access to an independent individual not involved in the original decision, who can review the way the case has been handled and, in non-academic matters, the decision that has been taken. Where the complaint is particularly serious, the independent individual should be drawn from outside the institution.'
The formal recommendation of the Report was that arrangements made by institutions for handling complaints from students should ensure that:
'they reflect the principles of natural justice; they are transparent and timely; they include procedures for reconciliation and arbitration; they include an independent, external element; and they are managed by a senior member of staff.' (Recommendation 60)
The QAA has been guided by the terms of the recommendation in preparing the section of its Code of practice dealing with student complaints and appeals. The QAA welcomes the support for the principle of an independent appeal stage from the bodies representing higher education institutions. To reflect fully the Dearing Report recommendation, the QAA would have wished to include precepts in the following terms:
- where the internal procedures within an institution are exhausted, and the student remains dissatisfied, the student should have access to an independent person or body with no prior involvement in the case, who can review the way in which the case has been handled and, except where an academic appeal is concerned, the decision that has been taken;
- institutions should ensure that all parties fully understand, before the start of any independent external review, the status of the review's findings and the extent to which any finding is, or is not, to be binding upon the parties;
- the independent person or body should be drawn from outside the institution;
- each party should have direct access to the independent person or body;
- the independent person or body should give reasons for their decision.
These precepts have not been included in the code, at the present time because of legal difficulties that some institutions would face in binding themselves to accept the outcome of independent review, and difficulties in reconciling such arrangements with the jurisdiction of the Visitor.
Consideration of the issues
The QAA has taken legal advice on the question of whether an institution constituted as a higher education corporation may agree to be bound by independent, external review of its decisions, other than by way of judicial review. The Courts have held higher education corporations to be public institutions, discharging public functions. Principles of public law mean that a public body cannot delegate matters for which it has no power to delegate, it cannot abnegate its decision making powers to outside bodies, it cannot fetter its own discretion. It would be improper for an authority to delegate wide discretionary powers to another authority over which it is incapable of exercising direct control, unless it is expressly empowered so to delegate.
For a higher education corporation to implement the arrangements for independent, external review envisaged in the above precepts, it would have to seek an amendment to its articles of government to provide the appropriate power. Such amendments are a matter for the Privy Council, which is advised on these matters by the relevant Government education department. It is reasonable to assume that Government would wish to take a view on the way in which such powers might be exercised, before recommending a series of similar amendments to the Privy Council. It is reasonable to expect that such powers might be exercised through procedures that are broadly comparable across institutions.
In those chartered universities with a Visitor, the Visitor is clearly both independent of and external to the university. In general, the Government departments or other offices that provide support to Visitors are not resourced to cope with any significant volume of complaints. In some cases, matters are processed expeditiously, in others there are criticisms concerning, for the most part, matters of procedure and delay. Review of the Visitor system is desirable, with the aim of ensuring that all individuals and holders of offices appointed as Visitors are able to deal with matters coming before them timeously, and through due process.
It would be possible for precepts to be drafted that did not fully meet the expectations of the Dearing recommendation. For chartered institutions with Visitors, this would involve accepting that the existing Visitor system met any reasonable expectation of effectiveness. For higher education corporations this would mean inserting the independent review stage to come before the final stage in an institution's internal process.
The QAA supports the Dearing recommendation, and notes that it was endorsed by Government. Accordingly, it does not think it right to propose arrangements that fall short of the recommendation. Equally, it would be unhelpful to promulgate precepts that institutions may not yet have competence to implement.
Review of the Visitor system, and general amendment of articles of government to provide for an independent, external element, raise similar issues about resourcing and due process. The QAA believes that Government should consider, with bodies representing higher education institutions, as a matter of public policy:
- the nature of amendments to the articles of government of higher education corporations, that would be appropriate to give effect to the Dearing recommendation; and
- the extent to which Visitorial arrangements may require reform if they are to be an effective means of providing an independent, external element in student complaints procedures, which meets the standards of due process set out in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
In the light of any such consideration, the QAA will review this code, with a view to including precepts similar to those set out above. In the meantime, the QAA hopes that those institutions that do not have an independent, external element in their procedures, and which have no constitutional barrier to the introduction of one, will consider introducing such an element.
Appendix 3
The working group
| Mr David Anderson-Evans | CVCP |
| Mr David Caldwell | COSHEP |
| Dr Dennis Farrington | University of Stirling |
| Dr Ewan Gillon | AUT |
| Mr Jeremy Hoad | NPC |
| Mr Janusz Karczewski-Slowikowski | The Manchester Metropolitan University |
| Mr Gareth Lewis | HHEW |
| Dr Sofija Opacic | NUS |
| Mr Don Staniford | |
| Mr Greg Wade | SCOP |
| Mr Peter Williams | QAA (chairman) |
Top