Open College of the North West
August 1999

Foreword

1 The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) is responsible to the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) for the recognition of Access to Higher Education courses. QAA exercises this responsibility through a national network of authorised validating agencies (AVAs), which are responsible for the processes of individual course recognition and the award of 'kitemarked' Access to HE certificates to students on QAA's behalf. QAA has developed a scheme for the licensing and review of the AVAs, the principles and processes of which are described in The QAA Recognition Scheme for Access to Higher Education in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Recognition Scheme is regulated and administered by the Access Recognition and Licensing Committee (ARLC), a sub-committee of the QAA Board of Directors.

2 This is a report of a major review of the AVA function of the Open College of the North West (OCNW) undertaken by QAA. The Agency is grateful to OCNW and to those who participated in the review for the willing co-operation provided to the review team.

Aims and objectives

3 The aims of the system of AVA review are:

i to provide the basis for an informed judgement by the ARLC about the fitness of the AVA to continue as a licensed agency;

ii to promote public confidence in Access to HE as a properly regulated and respected route into higher education by assuring

the quality and adequacy of AVAs' systems and procedures
the quality, comparability and range of AVAs' operations
the adequacy and comparability of AVAs' standards for approval, moderation and monitoring of programmes
consistency across AVAs in the operation of criteria for the granting of the Access to HE award
the sufficiency and consistency of standards achieved by students granted the Access to HE award;

iii to stimulate reflective and self-critical perspectives within AVAs, as an instrument to promote quality enhancement;

iv to provide an opportunity to identify and disseminate good practice of AVA operations;

v to provide a mechanism for ensuring necessary, and encouraging desirable, improvements and developments in AVAs.

4 The objectives of each AVA review are:

i to examine, assess and report on

the development of and changes in the AVA since its last review or initial licence, and its plans and targets for the future
the organisation's continuing viability and robustness and the ways in which the AVA demonstrates sound governance
the efficiency and effectiveness of the AVA's operational and quality assurance systems
the range and scope of the AVA's activities, and the appropriateness and value of these activities
the ways in which the AVA approves and monitors programmes and the ways in which these processes take account of the need for consistency and comparability
the ways in which the AVA satisfies itself of the adequacy and comparability of standards achieved by students gaining the 'kitemarked' Access award
the evidence available to indicate the AVA's success in achieving its aims and targets;

ii to identify and report on

strengths and good practice in procedures and operations
areas which would benefit from further development
areas requiring attention.

Outcomes

5 Following the review of an AVA, the reviewers' report is presented to the ARLC by a member of the review team. The Committee then makes one of the following decisions:

i unconditional confirmation of renewal of licence for a specified period;

iii conditional confirmation of licence with conditions to be met by specified date;

iv provisional confirmation of licence with conditions to be met and further review visit by specified date;

v suspension of licence until specified conditions are met;

vi withdrawal of licence for operation as an AVA;

vii temporary renewal of licence with request for further information by specified date (decision suspended).

The review process

6 The review was conducted in accordance with the process detailed in the QAA Recognition Scheme for Access to Higher Education in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and approved by the ARLC. The preparation for the review of OCNW included a preliminary visit to QAA offices by the Chief Executive of OCNW to discuss the requirements for the Critical Report and the process of the review; the preparation and submission by OCNW of its Critical Report, together with a selection of supporting documentation; a visit by the QAA Assistant Director to OCNW to discuss the arrangements for the review visit and to identify further documents for the review team; a meeting of the team to discuss the Critical Report and supporting documentation and to establish a draft programme for the review visit; and negotiations between the QAA and OCNW to finalise the programme and other arrangements for the review visit.

7 The review visit took place on 26 and 27 April 1999. The visit consisted principally of meetings between the review team and representatives of OCNW including: AVA officers and administrative staff; members of Council, the Policy, Planning and Finance Committee, the Quality Standards Committee and the Access Sub-Committee; the Chief Inspector and members of his team; moderators; principals from provider colleges; college Co-ordinators; programme tutors; HE admissions tutors; students and former students from Access to HE programmes.

8 The review team consisted of Professor Beverly Sand, Dean of Lifelong Learning, University of Derby and Dr Clive Linnett, Director of Access Programmes, Bradford and Ilkley Community College. The review was co-ordinated for QAA by Ms Kath Dentith, Assistant Director (Access), Institutional Review Directorate.

The AVA context

Membership

9 OCNW has 45 member institutions, 26 of which currently deliver Access provision. There are three higher education institutions (HEIs) in membership (Lancaster University, Edge Hill College of Higher Education and S Martin's College, Lancaster) all of which deliver Lancaster University degrees. The University of Central Lancashire which, according to the Critical Report, receives large numbers of OCNW students and provides many moderators, has indicated that it is considering rejoining OCNW as a full member. Formal links exist with Salford and Liverpool Universities.

10 Of OCNW's 26 member providers, 21 are FE colleges, the remaining members being sixth form colleges and community-based providers. As well as covering a large geographical region across Lancashire and other parts of north west England, expansion in recent years has approved provision in North and West Yorkshire, Cleveland and Essex.

Premises, staffing and finance

11 Based in the University of Lancaster's Department of Continuing Education premises, OCNW is staffed by the Chief Executive, the Director of Development, and a team of nine administrative and clerical staff, all of whom are employed by Lancaster University. Income for OCNW is derived from annual fees from institutions offering OCNW courses, annual contributions from member HEIs, contributions from LEAs, and student examination fees. OCNW has a turnover of around £400,000 per annum and has had a healthy surplus over the last two years.

Client groups, target groups and targeting policies and strategies

12 Statistics provided to the review team indicate that for 1998-9 enrolments on 'Stage As' are buoyant, totalling around 14,000, and show that there are also over 5,000 subject enrolments on 'Stage Bs', an estimated 1,200 students.

13 Since the QAA requirement to collect data on learner profile has been only recently introduced, specific detailed cohort information is not currently available. OCNW is aware of the continuing need to target its provision effectively at potential learners from under-represented groups and to develop strategic approaches to achieve this. In terms of addressing the learning needs of minority ethnic communities, the possible development of a Black Access programme is mentioned in the Critical Report.

Background to OCNW's approach to the Access 'kitemark'

14 OCNW was established in 1975 by an agreement between Lancaster University, Preston Polytechnic and Nelson and Colne College of FE in order to provide an alternative scheme to A-Levels for mature students. The scheme comprised 'Stage A' awards (broadly equivalent to GCSE level) and 'Stage B' awards (broadly equivalent to GCE A-Level), mainly offered on a part-time basis. As membership of OCNW grew and the scheme became well-established, well-understood and well-respected by member institutions in the region, activities focused on the development and approval of subject-based syllabuses available across the consortium. In particular, as far as entry to higher education was concerned, the completion of two Stage Bs with a grade of 60 per cent or above became accepted locally, and increasingly nationally, as an indication of suitability for entry into higher education, with a grade of 50-59 per cent indicating that a student was possibly suited to undergraduate work, and a grade of 40-49 per cent indicating satisfactory completion of a course.

15 In 1990, OCNW was accorded Authorised Validating Agency (AVA) status by the then regulatory body CNAA/CVCP Access Courses Recognition Group on condition 'that it is only a student's programme of studies which attains the full Open College Certificate [ie three Stage As and two Stage Bs] which will count as a "recognised Access Course within the scheme"', in line with requirements in relation to 500 hours of study as a pre-requisite for the award of the 'kitemarked' Access to Higher Education certificate, with a further standard condition that the Access certificate should not carry grades. While highlighting a number of examples of good practice which should have wider national dissemination, the HEQC review in 1992 encouraged OCNW to 'give more thought to the definition of what should count as an Access Course in terms of Stage A/B units'.

16 Historically, then, within OCNW the 'kitemark' has been attached not to the successful completion of separately identifiable and validated Access to Higher Education programmes (except in West Cumbria College), but to the grades associated with two independent and validated subject units, together with three preparatory units or their equivalent. While some of the flexible features of the OCNW system were ahead of their time, encouraging learners to build their own programmes and enabling OCNW to afford recognition to the learning achievements of a wider range of learners than simply those intending to enter higher education, other aspects of the scheme have not been easily compatible with the national arrangements for the recognition of Access provision.

Range and organisation of current provision

17 The OCNW Handbook of Programmes (1997) shows that OCNW member institutions currently have available to them a wide range of OCNW validated curriculum units with around 120 Stage A units, including GCSE equivalents, and around 100 Stage B units, with Key Skills available at a number of levels. About 60 of the Stage B units are usually taught in any one year. This bank of units has been accumulated and developed over time and provides the basis of both extensive curriculum diversity, allowing for flexibility to learner needs and locally identified demand, as well as providing common units which can be shared throughout the AVA providing some consistency through the commonality of curricular content.

18 The review team understood that it was the totality of these approved units (also referred to individually as 'Access programmes') which is covered by the description 'OCNW Certificate Programme' in the DfEE's List of Access Courses Preparing Students for Entry to Courses of Higher Education, providing eligibility for Schedule 2(c) FEFC funding. Units are followed in different combinations by learners, according to their availability within particular institutions, and according to learners' preferences and progression routes to higher education or elsewhere.

19 Although some institutions have developed pathways for students using particular combinations of units, this has been initiated by the institutions rather than by the AVA. The review team was concerned to note that there is no overall scheme to show how learners aggregate blocks of study into coherent pathways within defined parameters set by the AVA in accordance with national guidelines, either within individual centres (with the exception of West Cumbria College) or across the AVA as a whole.

Statement of mission, aims and objectives in relation to Access to HE provision

20 OCNW's Mission Statement 'Building partnerships to advance and accredit lifelong learning for all' encapsulates its aims to enhance educational opportunities for learners at a variety of levels, through the development and validation of high quality flexible provision which is intended to respond to the learning needs of a wide range of learners, leading to employment and to personal development as well as into higher education.

21 A recurrent feature of recent OCNW policy reviews has been the intention to develop greater harmonisation and compatibility between OCNW activities and other national developments in this area, and to move towards a more explicit definition in relation to the Access 'kitemark'. These plans have widespread support across the AVA and include matters relating to FEFC funding methodology, to QCA and QAA requirements, as well as in relation to developments within the emerging national credit framework, including credit accumulation and transfer systems, unitisation, and a range of other developments which would enhance the flexibility and responsiveness of OCNW provision. Membership of the National Open College Network (NOCN) has also been identified as a strategic priority for OCNW in achieving a number of its key aims. Achieving an appropriate balance between developing a definition and identity for the Access 'kitemark' and moving OCNW's Access work forward in terms of national comparability, while at the same time preserving OCNW's historic strengths in this area, is one of the key challenges that the Chief Executive has set himself.

Developments since the last review

22 Since the HEQC periodic review in 1992, and particularly within the last year, OCNW has systematically reviewed all its operations, demonstrating a range of ways in which it is developing as a self-critical community. Of particular importance in this respect has been the production of a Strategic Plan; the appointment of a Chief Executive; the appointment of a Chief Inspector and Inspection Team and the development of a framework for Quality Assurance Inspection across all Stage A and Stage B units and all member institutions; and the production of reports on particular areas of OCNW activities.

23 In the Critical Report, the Chief Executive details the wide-ranging changes taking place which include: changes to OCNW's constitutional and legal status; improvements to committee structure and to lines of reporting and accountability; a restructuring of the administrative team, of administrative and operational arrangements and of staff contracts; improvements in relation to data collection and analysis; possible improvements to quality assurance arrangements, particularly validation and moderation; and a review of both Stage A and Stage B structures.

24 In view of the substantial scale and nature of these developments and in the light of either the planned or very recent introduction of many of them, in many instances the review team is able to comment only on the proposed or anticipated consequences of the changes and not on the way in which they actually operate in practice.

Management, organisational structures and administrative arrangements

Summary of structures and processes

25 The restructure of organisational arrangements identifies primarily an administrative team and a development team responsible to the Chief Executive. The Chief Executive post was widely identified as one of the most important developments within OCNW, enabling the Strategic Plan to be effectively put into operation, a broad overview of the organisation to be taken, and affording systematic, continuing support for OCNW and its member institutions in the management of change. The review team wishes to commend the Chief Executive for the thorough and helpful documentation provided, particularly the Critical Report, which greatly assisted the team in its understanding of the challenges facing OCNW and which was produced by the Chief Executive when he had been in post for only a few months.

26 The post of Director of Development is a re-designation of the long-standing post of Inter-college Co-ordinator and has as its focus continuing work with OCNW Co-ordinators in colleges, a key role in quality assurance processes, and a range of development activities in relation to national comparability of OCNW activities. The Critical Report comments on the relative lack of development staffing given the scale of planned new initiatives subsequent to review, although there do not appear to be any plans to appoint additional development staff in the immediate future. The Chief Inspector and the Inspection Team also have a reporting line through to the Chief Executive, although they are formally accountable to Council.

27 The Director of Operations and Administration has a clear view of the processes and quality standards required to achieve the proposals in the Strategic Plan, and of the necessary steps for the efficient re-structure of the administrative team, and is working with the Chief Executive and the administrative team to achieve the changes to meet clear deadlines. A programme of weekly meetings and staff development events has been planned in order to support staff and monitor the implementation of the changes. While personnel and payroll functions are operated through Lancaster University, other OCNW functions, such as its MIS and database services, operate independently.

Data management, collection and analysis

28 While some useful data was provided for the review team, there was widespread recognition that in the past, data collection has been primarily in relation to subjects and enrolments rather than in relation to students. A database review has been undertaken and a new system is planned to be in place for September 1999 so that records will be student-based and OCNW will readily be able to fulfil QAA requirements for statistical data. The same MIS system will be able to provide comprehensive tracking of all learner achievement subsequent to registration on an OCNW programme, and will also be used to support the validation and moderation processes. Although these developments suggest a more appropriate, thorough and efficient data collection system, the team is unable to comment on the actual operation of the new system for the collection of data or on its capacity to provide for the necessary analysis as well as collection of information.

Effectiveness and efficiency

29 The administrative team showed a clear grasp of both current and planned processes and procedures and was able to convey this understanding clearly and concisely to the review team. Although the newness of the arrangements, and the fact that some of them are not yet in place, makes it difficult for the team to comment on the effectiveness and efficiency of the administrative processes themselves, the team is confident that the Director of Operations and Administration and her team will implement the new arrangements efficiently, making them work well for the benefit of the AVA.

30 OCNW member institutions regard its customer service, its liaison and communication as efficient, and consider this aspect of the AVA's operation to be a particular strength of the organisation.

Quality assurance and enhancement functions

31 The OCNW staff team has a range of responsibilities in relation to the key quality assurance functions across the processes of validation, moderation, review and certification. The administrative and development team together act as an important link between the operational and committee structures of the AVA through their involvement in servicing committees and panels and for following up relevant actions. These aspects of quality assurance were commended by the Chief Inspector's Report on OCNW Committees and Structures. The administrative team currently also has considerable involvement in, and responsibility for, key aspects of the moderation process, reading moderation reports, and bringing relevant issues to the attention of appropriate staff and committees.

32 The Director of Development has a key role in ensuring consistency in the operation of the validation process through the chairing of meetings and the production of guidance notes, tutor handbooks, and other supporting material. Much of this helpful material, developed over a number of years, will now need to be reviewed and updated. The proposed changes have resulted in a number of inconsistencies not only between previous, current and planned processes and procedures, but also across some of the newer material. The Tutor's Handbook 1999; Appendix 1 of the Constitution; the Guidelines for the Submission of Programmes of Study for Accreditation and Validation Part 6; the Access Programmes Panel document; and the new Template for Stage B, for example, will require systematic updating and aligning within a challenging timescale in order to avoid inconsistency in the operation of OCNW quality assurance processes. The Director of Development is also responsible for the quality assurance procedures associated with the fundamental review of Stage B and for chairing the Co-ordinators' Committee, OCNW's key vehicle for both discussion of operational developments in relation to quality assurance, and for quality enhancement through dissemination of new developments at member institution level. Given the nature and timescale of the proposed new arrangements, dissemination and embedding of these will constitute a particularly demanding set of activities for both the Director of Development and individual college Co-ordinators, as well as for OCNW tutors involved in Access to HE provision.

Governance and committee structures

Summary of structures and processes

33 The committee structure of OCNW has recently been the subject of review by the Inspection Team. The review team has confidence that this thorough process has identified for the AVA a series of important areas for its consideration, and recommendations which the team would support.

Council

34 The committee structure of OCNW, which is currently an unincorporated association, is headed by Council to which all other OCNW committees are accountable and which meets twice yearly. Council is currently co-chaired by the Vice-Chancellor of Lancaster University and the Chief Executive of Edge Hill College of Higher Education. Membership of Council comprises the head of each member institution along with the OCNW Co-ordinator, the Chairs of other committees, six representatives from member HEIs, the Chief Inspector, a representative from local LEAs and up to five co-options, giving a potential total membership of over 100. The Chief Inspector comments that Council is not well-attended, particularly by college principals and heads of institutions, and that since the agendas are heavy, discussion of items and recommendations from other committees tends to be brief although important items are brought to Council for its formal approval. As a result of these observations, and as part of the constitutional review initiated by PPFC, OCNW is now considering replacing Council with a Board. However, no specific details were available to the review team about the implications for governance of the AVA of such a decision.

35 Three committees report to Council: the Policy, Planning and Finance Committee (PPFC), responsible for policy and strategy; the Quality Standards Committee (QSC), responsible for academic quality and standards; and the Co-ordinators' Committee.

Policy, Planning and Finance Committee

36 PPFC acts as an executive committee of Council, though not chaired by a Council Co-Chair. PPFC is responsible for the overall strategic direction of OCNW and for considering issues of policy development, resource planning, budget management and control. PPFC has been one of the main drivers in the process of change in OCNW, four recent and specific examples being the commissioning of a Strategic Plan, the appointment of a Chief Executive and a staffing restructure; the introduction of the Inspection Team based on a model of self-assessment; a recently established process of constitutional review; and a clear commitment to align OCNW activities with national developments in credit and with national arrangements for the 'kitemark'.

Quality Standards Committee

37 QSC has responsibility for all matters concerning quality assurance and standards relating to programmes, accreditation and assessment. Until recently, however, the Committee's business was primarily taken up with approving individual proposals for curriculum provision. The Chief Inspector's Report on OCNW Committees and Structures commented that because of heavy agendas, there was 'a strong emphasis on initial validation of curriculum units, but a relatively weak focus on on-going monitoring of standards'. This has been addressed by the recent creation of four sub-committees: the Foundation Sub-Committee, the Access Sub-Committee, the Lifelong Learning Sub-Committee, and the Inspection Steering Sub-Committee.

38 The purpose of the first three committees is to deal with the more detailed processes of recognition, acting as peer-group recognition panels, with the intention of freeing up the time of the main committee to deal more directly with matters relating to standards, including inspection data, moderation reports, and more detailed analysis of the annual operation of each member institution. While these proposals clarify and simplify the role of QSC, and are designed to achieve substantial improvement in its operation, it appeared to the review team from discussions with representatives of QSC that the new duties of the committee are not yet entirely clear to all of its members, and will need a period of embedding in order for the intentions to be systematically translated into practice. The team is unable to comment in detail on the operation of the new arrangements, since they have so recently been put into place.

39 However, the review team commends OCNW on its rapid attention to the Chief Inspector's recommendations and its willingness to examine and improve its own practice. The changes made to the remit and operation of the QSC described above in response to the Chief Inspector's Report are a commendable example of good practice in operating as a self-critical community.

The Access Sub-Committee

40 By the time of the review, the Access Sub-Committee had had its first meeting but, despite its title, it still appears to be concerned primarily with individual subject-based Stage B units, acting as a Standing Panel for the validation of Stage B units rather than concerning itself directly with the operation within OCNW of the Access 'kitemark' or with other matters related to national arrangements for the recognition of Access to Higher Education provision. Within the new committee structures there continues to be no clear locus of authority for dealing with matters relating directly to the Access to Higher Education 'kitemark' across all areas concerned with Access provision, validation, moderation, review, and formal award of the 'kitemarked' Access certificate itself. The new Chief Moderator for Access programmes, however, has a clearly defined responsibility for these matters. Annex 14 of the Critical Report, which from its references to 'Level 3' and 'learning outcomes' appeared to be a recent document, describes some of the duties of an Access Programmes Panel. However, it was not clear to the review team how such a panel relates to the Access Sub-Committee.

The Co-ordinators' Committee

41 There was widespread agreement that the Co-ordinators' Committee was one of the cornerstones of OCNW's strengths in respect of its networking, sharing of good practice and staff development activities. It is a key mechanism for communication between the AVA and providers and for the wider dissemination of information to practitioners. OCNW's constitution presented for the review states that the roles of the Co-ordinators' Committee are 'to provide a forum for discussion, to co-ordinate publicity, receive reports from, and offer advice to, other committees and groups as apppropriate, and to appoint representatives to serve on the Policy, Planning and Finance Committee', although OCNW has subsequently represented to QAA that the Committee's 'key role' is 'to advise both on policy and its implementation'. Beyond its formal representation on PPFC, the Committee does not appear to be a formal part of the OCNW committee structure, having no specified reporting obligations and reporting different matters to different committees. The Constitution also gives individual Co-ordinators a place on Council, but this is in their capacity as representatives of their colleges rather than as representatives of the Co-ordinators' Committee itself, a position which needs clarification to avoid any potential conflict of interest. OCNW has subsequently informed QAA that 'At its June meeting Council has agreed to its [Council's] replacement by a Board with effect from the beginning of 2000, with Co-ordinators' Committee representation being a key constituency'.

42 OCNW Co-ordinators play a key role in member institutions not just in disseminating information but also in identifying practical issues, in course development, in linking with practitioners and in acting as a central link between the operations of OCNW and its member institutions. The work of individual Co-ordinators is extensive, including in future writing an institutional report which collates matters from reports of all institution-based OCNW programmes. This work is recognised by all member institutions through remission from teaching and other duties, an important aspect in terms of the work of OCNW, and Co-ordinators will have a key role in the implementation of the new proposals in respect of the review of Stage B and the move to a credit system. While neither the Co-ordinators' Committee nor individual Co-ordinators have any specific or formal duties in respect of Access, in some institutions they have an informal responsibility for verifying learner achievement and in approving the award of the 'kitemarked' Access Certificate to learners in the absence of any identifiable OCNW mechanism for formal verification and approval of the award.

The development, validation and evaluation of Access programmes

Development and design of new provision

43 The responsibility for the development and design of new provision lies chiefly with the Director of Development, who oversees the formal and informal aspects of development. The well-established termly meetings of the Co-ordinators' Committee provide a useful regular opportunity for an overview of development within the AVA. There are undoubted benefits that result from practitioner networking and the review team acknowledges the strengths of such a 'bottom up' approach to development. However, while the focus of this committee's work is very largely related to Access provision, this is primarily represented in terms of Stage A and Stage B curriculum units, rather than consideration of complete Access programmes or pathways.

44 Although the extension or development of Access to HE provision as a whole to reach particular under-represented groups or to respond to particular HE developments has not been addressed strategically, general development of OCNW's provision to reach disadvantaged groups is encouraged and supported by OCNW at individual provider level.

45 The Critical Report is frank in acknowledging that '...Access programmes have been to an extent neglected, while the focus has been on Foundation programmes. Furthermore whilst Foundation programmes have clearly focused on national developments, Access programmes have to an extent been isolated from national developments.' OCNW's recognition that there is 'lack of harmonisation with national developments in OCNW's Access provision' has led to a number of policy initiatives and an extensive process of 'product review', indicating a genuine desire to achieve substantial development of the provision as a whole, particularly with reference to 'national developments.' In pursuing its Access strategies, OCNW has attempted to be outward looking, following a path of parallel evolution to developments elsewhere. There has been a series of extensive curriculum initiatives but OCNW's subject-led approach does not easily allow comparison with developments elsewhere.

46 In order to bring the provision more closely in line with 'kitemarked' credit-based Access initiatives elsewhere, the major area of development, as it relates to Access to HE, has been substantially focused on the repackaging of its portfolio of Stage B units in order to introduce a credit-based system of accreditation (discussed in detail in paragraphs 68-83 of this report). The distinctive set of traditions that have informed OCNW's unique contribution to Access provision, have given it an emphasis on syllabus and curriculum development. Its systems for the development and design of programmes are, similarly, subject based. This makes it usually inappropriate to speak in terms of Access courses or programmes offered in member institutions in the way that is commonly understood elsewhere. The nature of its approach to Access to HE as a series of separate elements makes it structurally difficult to conceive of the development and design of identifiable Access programmes or named pathways which, as a defined and coherent totality of a number of different elements, lead to a 'kitemarked' Access certificate.

47 In its approach to the development of its provision, OCNW is naturally concerned to preserve the strengths of its current system. The organisation's recognition that OCNW's Access provision is 'idiosyncratic' and may benefit from greater comparability with Access programmes, is tempered by a widely-held belief within the organisation that learner achievement is high and that certain kinds of change could threaten the AVA's 'high standards'. Members also expressed a concern that substantial re-development of the organisation of Access provision within the AVA could lead to a loss of flexibility which is considered one of the great strengths of the current scheme.

48 Some of these fears seem to be founded on the assumption that the only alternative for the organisation of provision would involve the adoption of the model of discrete Access courses with little choice for learners, which would, undoubtedly, sacrifice many of the strengths of the OCNW model. The review team considers, however, that OCNW's scheme already has the potential to provide an extremely flexible, multi-modular, multi-exit, credit-based programme, which would preserve the distinctiveness of the OCNW product in terms of its wide range of common subject syllabuses, its collaborative and effective approach to curriculum development, the possibility of unique subject combinations across more than one level, and the opportunities to achieve Key Skills as a part of students' overall programme of study.

49 In developing such a model, the review team considers that it would be essential for the AVA to add the following key features to its current model: the centrality of the concept of a 'kitemarked' programme with pathways/planned programmes of study, together with a move away from regarding provision as a succession of separate subjects; measures to ensure the coherence of a learner's programme, particularly as regards how As and Bs are put together; rules of combination across levels and between subjects and for successful completion considered at validation in accordance with AVA guidelines; mechanisms for the formal approval of learners' individual programmes; an infrastructure for tracking learner achievement; mechanisms for identifying learner standards across the programme not just at individual subject level; and mechanisms for overall monitoring and review, as well as at individual subject level.

50 The review team considers that greater acquaintance with some of the alternative models that have been developed would provide OCNW with useful indicators of ways in which it might develop its own model to preserve the greatest strengths of its own system within an acceptable framework.

Validation of new and revised programmes

51 There is a clear system for the stages of formal development of a programme leading to a subject award and the process by which it is prepared for submission to a panel for validation. The Chief Inspector's Report on Committees and Structures expresses satisfaction with the effectiveness of the procedures and states that the processes are 'relatively robust with evidence available to justify any outcomes'.

52 The process of validation for Stage B programmes was previously the responsibility of individual panels which reported to the QSC. This process is now undertaken by the Access Sub-Committee, as previously noted. This group's membership has a number of constants supplemented by higher education and subject specialists selected in order to ensure appropriate representation. The review team considered that this was a model which had some merits in the possibility of providing greater consistency and overcoming some of the perennial difficulties faced by AVAs in ensuring proper representation on panels.

53 It is, however, a new process which has yet to be tested. As the system of validation through the Access Sub-Committee has been only recently introduced, the review team is unable to judge the efficacy or rigour of the system.

Monitoring, evaluation and review

54 OCNW's attention to the development of its Access provision has come about as a result of a preparedness to undertake radical review. The organisation of the provision, however, makes it difficult to achieve a programme-based approach to monitoring, evaluation and review. The AVA's lack of student cohort information has been a further factor which has limited the AVA's ability to monitor the provision.

55 The Chief Inspector's Report states that 'there is still a significant residual number of MIs that do not process OCNW Quality Assurance matters (viz reports from Inspection, Co-ordinator and Tutors, and Moderation) through their own formal Quality Assurance processes'. Although there would appear to be some continuing absences in reporting from MIs, QSC has been diligent in completing the quality loop by carefully monitoring both moderators and centre reports through a sub-group, which has led to a change of procedures developed by inspectors. Notwithstanding the occasional omissions in reporting, which inevitably make it more difficult for the AVA to ensure that its quality assurance systems are effective and comprehensive, the raising of the AVA's profile in colleges which has occurred through the introduction of the inspection process and the introduction of institutional annual reports of programmes which must be signed by principals, has the potential to strengthen the reporting structures between providers and the AVA.

Assessment, moderation, standards and the award of certificates

Selection, appointment and training of moderators

56 Moderators work under contract to OCNW and are external to the programme which they moderate. The development of new programmes involves the appointment of an 'adviser', usually from higher education, who often becomes the programme's moderator once it has been approved. Moderators may also be drawn from further education but head moderators, in subjects where there is more than one moderator, are usually from higher education. Appointments are reported to, and approved by, QSC. A moderators' training day has recently been introduced, and good practice from the appointment of moderators for Foundation programmes, through a process of submission of CV and interview by the Chief Moderator, when in post, is to be introduced for Stage B moderators.

Process of moderation

57 As has been noted in relation to other OCNW processes, the procedures for moderation relate not to separately identifiable and validated Access programmes, but to the individual subjects which might constitute a learner's programme. The review team examined primarily the procedures for moderation of Stage Bs which are currently different from those for Stage As, although it is planned to integrate all moderation into a single system from September 1999, making use of existing good practice in Foundation provision, such as standardisation processes and panels in cognate subject areas.

58 The moderation of Stage Bs takes place through the operation of subject moderation boards. Each of the 100 or so Stage B subjects has its own board and its own moderator, with approximately 60 boards operating in any one year. Popular subjects may have several moderators, with a head moderator for each subject moderation team. It is a considerable undertaking to assemble and administer in excess of 60 Stage B moderation panels and the administrative team is to be commended on the manner in which it has organised and conducted the recording of these panels. The subject moderation boards normally meet three times a year and comprise moderators and all tutors teaching the subject. Moderators showed a clear understanding of the separate purposes of these three meetings, although, as the Chief Inspector's Report makes clear, there has been some operational variance between different subject moderation boards. OCNW issues general guidance notes for the conduct of moderation meetings covering the role of moderator, guidelines for meetings and deadline dates. As noted by the Chief Inspector, the purpose of the moderation process currently is 'to ensure that the achievements of candidates are correctly awarded a grade in line with the higher education expectation that 60 per cent and over indicates a candidate "well-suited to undergraduate studies" '. Neither moderators themselves nor the moderation boards have any specific responsibilities in relation to standards achieved across all aspects of, and all subjects included in, an individual learner's Access programme, nor to the award of the 'kitemarked' certificate.

Developments in moderation

59 OCNW's moderation process has recently been the subject of extensive scrutiny by the Inspection Team and it is to OCNW's credit that this material was made available to the review team. The Chief Inspector's Report on OCNW Committees and Structures noted a considerable number of significant weaknesses in the process, including a lack of standardisation in the operation of the boards and the way in which, over the years, moderation boards have become 'the determinants of how the rules apply' and 'the monitors of their own quality'. Moderation boards tend to work with a marked degree of independence and the Report notes a tendency towards 'irregularity and diversification' in their practices. While 60 per cent is 'vehemently defended' as the 'gold standard', the way in which these standards are achieved and the consistency of the standards between the different subjects and across all the candidates is not recorded by moderation boards. In general, the Chief Inspector comments that while moderation boards on the whole work conscientiously on behalf of students, they are working within a system which 'may be seen as being too loosely constructed and inadequately monitored'.

60 OCNW has already begun to address a number of issues raised in the Chief Inspector's Report, including standardising agendas for moderation boards, a standard format for moderators' reports, a moderator training day as part of a moderator's contractual arrangements with OCNW, and a review of remuneration for moderators. The implementation of some of these processes has already introduced a greater measure of standardisation, but samples of moderators' reports using a standard format, which were made available to the review team during the review visit, indicated that guidance from the AVA about appropriate commentary from moderators could help to ensure that moderators' reports would be more useful to providers to enhance practice and provision.

61 The imminent appointment of a Chief Moderator to work with OCNW for around 30 days per year is widely seen as an important, if not the most important, feature in improving moderation arrangements. The review team heard that the issue of quality and standardisation across Stage B units would be systematically addressed with the appointment of a Chief Moderator. This appointment is clearly welcome since a wider perspective on overall quality is essential in the moderation of Stage B units. However, there is a lack of clarity about exactly what role the Chief Moderator will play in relation to standards of learner achievement on Access programmes and to the award of the 'kitemarked' Access Certificate. During meetings, other responsibilities and duties were ascribed to the Chief Moderator which seemed only tangentially related to moderation matters. In general, there appears to be a danger that too great a burden might be placed on the Chief Moderator for quality improvement in the moderation process, and too great a reliance on the Chief Moderator to act as a panacea for other difficulties which might arise.

62 Although some progress has been made in improving the moderation process, the review team would wish to support the wide-ranging recommendations made on pages 19-20 of the Chief Inspector's Report and would look to OCNW to implement these as consistently as it has begun to implement other recommendations in order that rapid progress can be made. In the light of OCNW's expressed intention to move by September 1999 to a credit system, the team would also wish to add to these recommendations three further matters for OCNW's consideration: firstly, the role of the moderation process in relation to the standards associated with the Access 'kitemark'; secondly, a systematic analysis of the impact on existing moderation processes of the introduction of a system of credit; and thirdly, guidelines for the future operation of moderation within the proposed credit system.

Receipt and response to moderators' reports

63 Moderators' reports are submitted formally to the QSC but in order to expedite the process, following receipt by the OCNW office, reports have been scrutinised in the past by the Stage B administrative officer who identifies any issues of immediate importance for onward transmission informally to the Director of Operations and Administration, the Chief Executive or other appropriate party for rapid attention. The OCNW administrator also produces a digest of issues, which is considered by QSC alongside the full moderation reports and the tutors' reports. The review team considers that identification of key matters from moderators' reports is not essentially an administrative task and, although the system may have been successful in the past, it may have been over-reliant on the skills and experience of a particular administrator.

64 From September 1999, tutors' reports on each individual OCNW programme are to be replaced by an institutional annual report covering all programmes, and the new arrangements for the operation of the QSC are planned to be operational, designed to enable QSC to have more time available for the consideration of issues arising from the moderation process and the development of a more consistent process for ensuring that any action to be taken is fed back to providers and for monitoring progress. The review team is unable to comment on this new process in operation.

Student assessment methods and procedures for the award of the 'kitemarked' Access Certificate

65 Stage B units are assessed by a combination of coursework and examination. Currently, each Stage B subject is separately assessed, moderated and graded, with a grade of 60 per cent indicating that a learner is 'well-suited' for undergraduate study, a grade of 50-59 per cent indicating that a learner is 'possibly suited' for undergraduate study, and a grade of 40-49 per cent indicating satisfactory completion of the course. This representation of learner achievement has enabled OCNW to present learning achievement in a positive way and to respond to the learning needs of adults through the recognition of a range of learning achievement, not just that relevant to progression to higher education.

66 As has been emphasised, a significant number of those learners accepted for entry to higher education are accepted on the basis of two Stage Bs alone, but where the kitemark is awarded, it is awarded for three Stage As or their equivalent, and two Stage Bs with appropriate grades. Because OCNW does not operate within a set of defined parameters for a 'kitemarked' Access programme, there are no associated rules of combination, no formal procedures for approving a learner's individual programme, and no quality assurance processes for tracking individual achievement across subjects and levels.

67 Learners who achieve the requisite number of Stage A and Stage B units are not automatically awarded the 'kitemarked' Access Certificate but have to make a special application for it. There was some confusion amongst the students whom the review team met about the process of application for the Certificate and some doubt expressed as to its value. In addition, the team noted significant weaknesses in the quality assurance procedures associated with verification of the requisite achievement for the award and for its formal approval. In some instances, responsibility appears to lie with college examination officers, in others it is the responsibility of the OCNW Co-ordinator, and in others it is entirely unclear. There does not appear to be any formal procedure associated with the award of the Access Certificate: it is dealt with as an administrative procedure in the OCNW office. The team was therefore unable to have confidence in the integrity of the current procedures for the award of the 'kitemarked' Access Certificate.

Review of Stage B, and the introduction of a credit framework

68 There is widespread support across OCNW for harmonisation of its practice with other national developments, particularly in the development of a credit system and the additional flexibility this would bring to OCNW awards. Indeed, each group with whom the review team met spoke of this development as a positive one, and many spoke with enthusiasm about the benefits that a credit-based system could bring.

69 To date, a number of steps have been taken including close liaison with QCA, active participation in the North West Credit Consortium (NWCC), discussions regarding membership of NOCN, and the adoption of NOCN level descriptors. From September 1999 all OCNW provision will be described in terms of level, so Stage As will be Level 2 awards and Stage Bs will be described as Level 3 awards.

70 The review team is aware that work with NWCC (of which OCNW is a founder member) has informed OCNW's thinking on credit. In particular, OCNW has worked closely with that organisation in its work on credit rating and the establishing of credit equivalences between different awards. The team was not, however, provided with any detailed information about the way in which work with NWCC has led to the development of OCNW's particular approach to credit.

71 At the same time as moving towards greater national harmonisation, OCNW wishes to retain its traditional strengths and member institutions' strong product loyalty, as well as remaining within the national Access 'kitemarking' arrangements for the purposes of national credibility and consistency with FEFC funding methodology. However, this attempt to devise a system which will simultaneously support the continued operation of separate Stage Bs, 'translate' grades into credit, and accommodate the Access 'kitemarking' arrangements is resulting in the creation of a considerable number of serious anomalies in practice which raise major issues in relation both to the compatibility of OCNW's proposed system with other national credit systems, and to the implications of this for comparability of standards within QAA's national scheme for the recognition of Access to HE programmes.

72 The development of OCNW's proposed credit system is manifested primarily in documentation relating to the review of Stage B awards and to the Level 3 'template'. The documentation demonstrates some of the difficulties inherent in attempting to combine into a single system a number of different ways of measuring learner achievement which are derived from different and incompatible sets of principles, resulting in what appears to be an overly complex system which is currently not widely owned or understood across OCNW. The review team noted with considerable concern a number of examples of inconsistent practice resulting from this situation which are described in some detail in paragraphs 73-79 in order to illustrate some of the issues.

73 Participants in the review process believe that the development of a credit system involves little more than a 'transfer' of the existing system of grades into credit. For example, documentation made available to the review team on the first day of the review visit showed how four or five credits at Level 3 within a Level 3 subject would indicate completion of the programme (equivalent to the previous grade of 40-49 per cent), six to seven credits would indicate that a learner is 'possibly suited' to undergraduate studies (equivalent to the previous grade of 50-59 per cent), eight credits at Level 3 (equivalent to the previous grade of 60 per cent) would indicate that a learner is 'well-suited' to undergraduate work and nine credits would indicate an 'exceptional candidate with excellent undergraduate potential'. As far as the award of the 'kitemarked' Access certificate is concerned, a credit target had been derived by adding together credit derived from completion of three Level 2 subjects and two Level 3 subjects in line with the current NOCN benchmark of a minimum of 12 credits at Level 3.

74 Documentation provided on the second day of the review identified the credit target for the full Access Certificate as being a total of 21 credits, nine at Level 2 and 12 at Level 3. However, considerable confusion and uncertainty about this credit target was demonstrated by OCNW members during a number of meetings, and potentially serious anomalies would be likely to arise in its operation. For example, on the basis of documentation provided on the first day, it would be possible for the 'kitemarked' Access certificate to be awarded to a learner who was only 'possibly suited' to undergraduate study. Amendment to the wording of documentation provided on the second day suggested that this would not be the case after all. However, it might still be possible for a learner to achieve eight Level 3 credits on one Stage B ('well-suited to undergraduate study') and four Level 3 credits on another (completion of the programme) thereby meeting the credit target for the Access certificate, but with a lack of clarity about whether the learner was suited or unsuited to undergraduate study.

75 A further anomaly could arise from the fact that a learner could potentially achieve more Level 3 credits from two Stage B units (18) than from the award of the 'kitemarked' certificate (12), thus undermining the credibility of the 'kitemarked' award with potentially detrimental effects on the integrity of the national recognition scheme. It was also unclear whether or not the 'kitemarked' Access certificate would be awarded at the point at which a learner had accumulated sufficient credit to meet the credit target, which could be prior to the end of the course, or whether there was a requirement for the learner to complete the course in addition to accumulating the requisite credit. OCNW believes that the mandatory requirement for successful completion of the synoptic assessment at the end of the programme makes it clear that the certificate could not be awarded until the end of the programme. The reviewers believe, however, that if completion of the course is to be a requirement for award of the 'kitemarked' certificate, there would be merit in an explicit statement to this effect.

76 There is also a lack of compatibility between OCNW's proposed credit system in terms of some of its key principles which are not consistent with other credit systems operating across the UK, including credit developments in Northern Ireland, Wales, and Scotland as well as practice within members of NOCN. OCNW's proposed credit system is also not compatible with the report of the Inter Consortium Credit Agreement (InCCA), A Common Framework for Learning, nor with Dearing's recommendations for an HE credit framework for which QAA is also responsible. The principle adopted by InCCA and by Dearing is that an undergraduate degree is ascribed a credit value of 360 credits, irrespective of the classification of any individual learner's degree. This consistent credit target acts as a consistent output measure of the standard of the programme. OCNW's proposed credit system, in which between four and nine credits can be awarded for the same programme, lacks this consistent output measure of standards and would, by analogy, result in an undergraduate programme having a credit value not of a consistent 360 credits, but anything between 160 and 720 credits, depending on the qualitative performance of the learner. This is not a principle that has been adopted in any other credit system. Qualitative differences in learner performance are not indicated by the differential award of credit.

77 The description of the manner in which credits are to be awarded according to differential achievement in assessments also introduces a further area of concern, as there is some in-built confusion between credit and level in the proposed model. The model suggested characteristically awards learners one credit for the achievement of 'fundamental skills' with a second credit being available (at the same level) for award if learners demonstrate 'additional skills'. Practitioners who were asked about this aspect of the scheme made it clear that they took this to mean that a student performing at a more 'fundamental' level would be awarded one credit at Level 3, where a student performing at a more advanced level would be awarded two credits at Level 3.

78 Additionally, there is a lack of clarity in the proposed model about how the subject will be assessed. The details provided for the review team show the same skills learning outcomes for a number of different subjects, without subject-related learning outcomes being specified: this could result in some of the skills learning outcomes being assessed at least twice, and in some cases four times, across two Stage Bs, and subject learning outcomes not being explicitly assessed at all.

79 The elaborate system for the award of credit for Stage Bs does not appear to be matched by an equivalent system for the award of credits for Stage As, all of which appear to be awarded three credits. The difficulties already noted are thus compounded by a situation in which OCNW would be operating two different types of credit system, both of which might be experienced by a student pursuing an Access to HE programme.

80 In general, it appeared to the review team that the new arrangements were being put somewhat hastily into place with little time available for staff to understand the differences of principle of a credit-based system. In addition, the implications and consequences had not always been fully thought through. In discussions with a number of OCNW officers the team was assured that systems to support credit-based awards would be in place for September 1999 and that appropriate staff development was planned or underway to assist tutors to make the transition from a system of grading to one based on credit. This major exercise was very largely regarded and presented as a technical one of 'translating' existing arrangements to the new format. The team, however, regard the task facing OCNW as requiring a greater attention to the fundamental principles of credit. In talking to a number of key individuals and groups charged with implementing the changes, there was little recognition of the pedagogical implications raised in moving from grading to a credit framework based on the achievement of stated learning outcomes, and little recognition of the substantial staff development that would be required if this scheme were to be operative for September 1999.

81 The review team was informed that OCNW's approach to the introduction of a credit framework was intended to achieve a programme of structural change while maintaining its traditional strengths and customer loyalty. The team is concerned, however, that the 'loyalty to the product', particularly as it relates to the accreditation and organisation of Stage B units, is an impediment to fresh ways of thinking about the relationship of OCNW to national developments.

82 OCNW has decided to move towards a system of credit-based learning as a means of preserving the flexibility and familiarity of the current provision, but at the same time introducing measures which, as well as bringing greater transparency to the learning outcomes achieved by learners, will allow for greater portability and partial accreditation. The rationale for change is laudable: as the system being developed is not, however, compatible with other credit frameworks, the objective of portability is likely to be thwarted.

83 The review team concluded that OCNW's anxiety to proceed with this development with as little disruption to the current model as possible has led to an over-complicated model which is neither comparable nor easily compatible with other national credit systems. As a result of this, the team was not convinced that QAA could be confident of the reliability, consistency or comparability of OCNW's arrangements for the award of the 'kitemarked' Access Certificate within the proposed new system.

Learner experience and progression

Learner experience and preparedness for higher education

84 Learners on OCNW programmes and receivers of Access students in higher education report a high level of satisfaction about the nature, level and volume of learning. The review team heard from students, former students and those who received students in higher education that students were prepared for higher education courses. Students also commented favourably on the support they received in pursuing their studies.

85 Within OCNW member institutions it appears that the combination of Stage A and Stage B can be regarded as packages of study with links between levels offering progression opportunities to learners. The responsibility for programme planning to ensure a coherent experience for learners does not have a clear or explicit location although, in practice, it is commonly the responsibility of college Co-ordinators and (to an extent) tutors in receiving institutions who may make recommendations about appropriate subject combinations for students.

86 OCNW has engaged in much valuable developmental work in Key Skills, engaging with work at a national level, particularly at Foundation/Stage A. Despite this good practice, the AVA has not explicitly addressed how this element of a student's programme will be addressed within its new framework for Access. The review team were told that the Study Skills element of OCNW Stage B units were, in general, implicitly taught through the disciplinary content of each unit, although it is not clear how it is assessed without duplication in Stage B units. The team has no reason to doubt the effectiveness of this approach to the acquisition of Study Skills but would remind the AVA, however, of the importance of the separate recording of the assessment of Study Skills in a manner which will demonstrate explicitly which skills are covered across a combination of Stage B units.

Outcome standards

87 OCNW takes particular pride in the standards achieved by learners and in the detailed activities of Stage B subject panels which meet at least three times in each academic year to standardise achievement and set assessment tasks.

88 The review team has no evidence to doubt student achievement and preparedness for advanced study. What is less clear, however, is the measurement of standards and volume of learning (including performance data) by OCNW. There is an acknowledged need to develop student tracking systems more fully.

89 The lack of certainty about whether the proposed Access certificate does or does not indicate a learner's readiness for higher education makes it difficult to be certain that there can be constant measures for the standard of learner achievement.

Progression and monitoring

90 In 1997-8, there was a total of 5,643 Stage B subject awards and at the end of that year, 477 Access certificates were awarded. The apparent gap between the number of estimated students (1,200) and the number of Access Certificates awarded can be accounted for in part by the low number of students making an application for the 'kitemarked' Access certificate due to the historical acceptance by local (and national) higher education institutions of two Stage Bs as subject awards in their own right for entry into undergraduate programmes. Some of this difference could also be explained by part-time students re-registering on successive years to continue with their studies. However, with a relatively low number (245 in 1997) of students entering higher education, it would appear that a significant number of students who register on Stage B programmes either withdraw from programmes before completion, or use their awards for some purpose other than progression to higher education.

91 The Chief Executive notes in the Critical Report that the 'apparent wastage rate' is 'excessive' and points to the introduction of the new credit framework and its potential for partial accreditation to allow learners to re-enter their studies and accumulate further credit. Learners' real achievements would also then be reflected in the statistics. This is an area which needs careful monitoring.

92 Many AVAs have experienced some decline in student registrations (with a resultant decline in other student figures) over the past few years. In OCNW, since 1993-94 there has been a year-on-year decline in the number of Stage B enrolments, Stage B examination achievements, 'kitemarked' Access certificates awarded and numbers progressing to higher education. While this is the general pattern across OCNW, some member institutions reported a rise in enrolments or, at worst, a stabilising of enrolments during the current year. This pattern of decline in enrolments and progression in those areas related to Access is noted in the Critical Report, in which some likely reasons for this trend are suggested. The review team hopes that the introduction of the AVA's own system to provide more detailed information about the learner profile will allow the AVA to explore this trend on the basis of fuller information.

93 OCNW has maintained good links with HEIs, particularly in Lancaster and its environs. The organisation is productive in its approach to other institutions as appropriate destinations for its students. OCNW students progress to higher education both locally and nationally but in recent years there has been a steady but very marked shift in student destinations. Between 1985 and 1993, very small numbers (usually less than 10 per cent) progressed to HEIs beyond the two local universities and their associated colleges; since 1993 (13 per cent) the percentage has increased considerably: 1994-33 per cent; 1995-36 per cent; 1996-44 per cent; and 1997-53 per cent. The reasons for this shift are unclear, but the standard perception of Access provision serving the needs of a local population which is restricted in its progression possibilities to local HEIs, needs some revision in this case. Again, the absence of cohort data restricts the analysis of this data.

94 The review team was interested to learn, from OCNW Co-ordinators in colleges, for example, that receiving HEIs with experience of admitting OCNW students commonly expressed offers in terms of achievement in Stage B units - most commonly a 60 per cent pass in two units - as a standard entry qualification. This was confirmed by the HE admissions tutors with whom the team met, who also confirmed that they differentiate between students according to their achievement of particular OCNW grades. This formulation of learner achievement does not fit easily alongside a credit structure. It will be important for the AVA to ensure that higher education admissions tutors who are familiar with OCNW's current system fully appreciate that a change to a credit-based system will have implications beyond a change in terminology.

Student evaluation, staff-student liaison and representation

95 The mechanisms whereby students' viewpoints are formally expressed to OCNW and acted upon are not apparent.

96 Although the Chief Inspector's Report indicated that student experience questionnaires and other mechanisms for student feedback were present in some places, none of the students whom the review team met, from a variety of different courses, was able to describe any formal process of evaluation or involvement in course or staff/student committees through which they might be involved in course enhancement or contribute their perceptions to course teams. This may be, in part, a consequence of the absence of defined Access programmes. Nonetheless, the team considers that this is an area to which the AVA should give attention, in particular encouraging providers to adopt policies which might promote student participation in monitoring, evaluation and review

Conclusion and recommendation to the ARLC

97 OCNW is a mature organisation with well-established provision which is widely recognised and valued across the region. It has reflected critically on its position, and has conducted thorough reviews of some of its processes. It has concluded that there are aspects of its organisation which are less efficient or effective than they might be, and that its local focus, with a unique accreditation model, no longer serves it as well as it once did. OCNW is therefore involved in the process of implementing a considerable number of radical developments to the majority of its processes and quality assurance procedures through changes to its internal organisation and management structures; the responsibilities and remits of its committees; and the accreditation of the provision for which it is responsible.

98 The review team considers that many of these changes will contribute to improvements to the quality and standards of the AVA and OCNW is commended for its willingness to embrace change and contribute to the national agenda for Access. However, as the newness of these arrangements meant that there was necessarily little available evidence about the success or otherwise of their operation, there are a large number of important quality-related matters about which the team is unable to make a judgement.

99 The review team also concluded that OCNW's concern to preserve its traditional structures for the delivery and assessment of its portfolio of Access provision, has led to a situation in which OCNW risks not achieving its own stated aims which are to harmonise with other credit systems and to increase the flexibility and responsiveness of its operations. Since the decision to develop a credit system has now been taken and has widespread support, OCNW should have greater confidence in its move to credit and in the potential offered to OCNW by a fully operational credit accumulation and transfer system in maintaining standards while meeting OCNW's aims and targets for lifelong learning in more innovative ways. There are a number of examples of good practice elsewhere which might be of assistance to OCNW in this process. A successful transition to a credit system will require more fundamental changes to OCNW's previous practice than are currently planned, together with a strategy for wide discussion, explanation, persuasion, dissemination and a planned process of implementation. Moving to a credit system cannot be achieved satisfactorily by a process of simply re-describing elements of existing practice, nor will it be achieved efficiently by incremental change.

100 The review team commends OCNW for:

i its work with the Co-ordinators' group and practitioner networking to ensure good communications with Access to HE providers and tutors and to provide a strong sense of involvement amongst practitioners;

ii the co-operative approach to the management of the AVA which involves both FE providers and local HEIs;

iii OCNW's self-critical approach demonstrated through the Inspectorate system and the action taken in response to the recommendations of Inspectors' Reports;

iv having raised the profile of OCNW in colleges through the Inspectorate system and improving quality by ensuring compliance with OCNW systems and quality standards;

v the work of the Chief Executive in moving forward developments in a number of areas requiring attention such as data collection and analysis, strategic planning, and harmonisation with national developments;

vi the provision of efficient customer services to members through the work, in particular, of an excellent administrative team which has a clear understanding of current and proposed OCNW systems and processes and an equally clear idea of the improvements which need to be made to support new developments;

vii the potential of the system of moderation for developing comparability and consistency across partner institutions as well as in its own operations;

viii the potential flexibility of learning opportunities offered through possible combinations of Level 2 and Level 3 provision;

ix providing opportunities which allow students to enter higher education feeling confident that they have been adequately prepared for higher education.

Recommendation to the ARLC

101 The review team recommends that OCNW be granted a provisional confirmation of its licence, with conditions to be met by the dates specified below and a further review visit in September 2000.

Conditions and recommendations

Conditions

102 Subject to the approval of the ARLC, OCNW's AVA licence is confirmed on condition that it:

i establishes a system for the formal approval of the award to students of the 'kitemarked' Access certificate (by 1 September 1999);

ii ensures that all learners who successfully complete the requisite learning achievement are awarded the 'kitemarked' Access certificate automatically. The practice of awarding the certificate on application only should be discontinued (by 1 September 1999);

iii ensures that the award of the 'kitemarked' Access certificate indicates that a student is suitable for undergraduate study. Any other description of achievement used by OCNW will fall outside the QAA Recognition Scheme for Access to HE (by 1 September 1999);

iv puts in place a framework which is in line with QAA's defined parameters and clearly defines the required learning achievement for the award of the 'kitemarked' Access certificate, in accordance with QAA specifications as set out in Appendix 1 to this report. The Access to Higher Education framework must include an appropriate infrastructure for:

the clear identification of learners registered on a 'kitemarked' Access to HE programme
the tracking of learner progress and achievement across levels and between subjects
the definition of successful completion for the award of the 'kitemarked' Access certificate, both within the AVA as a whole and to be specified for individual programmes at validation
the approval of rules of combination of for programmes as a whole as well as for individual learners' programmes
the moderation, monitoring and review of the Access programme as a whole (by 1 April 2000);

and, if OCNW were to base the award of the 'kitemarked' Access certificate on the achievement of credit, it should also:

v ensure that the credit system adopted takes full account of the principles of credit framework developments across the UK, and that the structures and practice of the system adopted ensure compatibility with other AVAs offering established credit-based Access provision;

vi not express learner achievement on Access programmes in terms of credit until Condition v has been met.

Recommendations

103 The review team recommends that OCNW:

i considers a programme or pathway approach to course organisation to ensure programme coherence;

ii continues to develop and refine its student data;

iii continues to review its committee structure, ensuring that the new developments currently in train are well-understood and progressively implemented;

iv develops a planned programme of implementation of improvements to the moderation process as described in pages 19 and 20 of the Chief Inspector's Report, which will ensure comparability across as well as within each subject, perhaps through the development of cognate subject panels. In particular, OCNW should take steps to ensure that processes and procedures relating to Access matters are included in the implementation process;

v considers how it might advise providers to encourage students' perspectives on learning to be fed more directly into the quality assurance system associated with OCNW provision;

vi carefully monitors and reviews the effectiveness of the developments which it has recently introduced;

vii considers its legal status, with a view to ensuring that it is able to meet all of its public obligations;

and, in relation to the development of a credit framework:

viii seeks to gain a broader view of current practice and possibilities of credit-based provision, investigates the operational aspects of other credit developments and Access frameworks more widely, and engages more fully with the national debate about credit frameworks;

ix reviews the timescale for the introduction of a credit framework for its provision, to allow a more considered period in which to seek external advice before further developing or implementation of the system, and to allow adequate time for the dissemination of information and adequate staff development;

x reviews staffing responsibilities and strategies within the AVA, including the consideration of the appointment of additional development support, in order to achieve a re-working of its plans for a credit framework efficiently and effectively, and to provide staff development to providers in relation to the implementation of credit developments;

xi develops the adopted scheme with reference to a clear rationale, and with reference to the need to provide:

systematic application of the definition of credit, unit and level
clarity in the process of ascribing credit value to units
consistency in the application of the concept of learning outcomes and assessment criteria to both subjects and skills, rather than the repeated assessment of identical skills
consistency in the application of the concept of level to units and programmes rather than to individual assignments
clarity in the process of determining a single credit target for the Access to HE award, clearly linked to the identified outcomes of the Access programme, rather than differential credit awards for individual performance
explicit regulations governing the process of credit accumulation and credit transfer within and across OCNW Access to HE provision
an evaluation of the impact on moderation and the need to produce appropriate guidelines for moderators
a statement of the way in which OCNW intends to establish comparability in the quality assurance arrangements for the award of credit with other established credit-awarding bodies.

Appendix 1

Criteria for the granting of the Access to HE award

The criteria for the granting of the 'kitemarked' Access to HE award under the QAA Recognition Scheme allows for the clear articulation and specification of the type and standard of learners' achievements, and the demonstration of the fitness for purpose of the award.

Programme recognition

Within the recognition process, providers and AVAs are expected to establish clearly the fitness for purpose of the award, ensuring that the following criteria are addressed:

specification of the title of the award which may be generic or may indicate the main subject area(s) studied;
clear specification of the overall learning achievement required for the granting of the award;
demonstration of the academic breadth and depth of learning achievement at the appropriate level;
specification of the subject content within the achievement portfolio, indicating whether optional or compulsory, its level and the proportion of the subject represented overall;
separate identification and formal assessment of key skills together with specification of their level;
identification of other requisite achievement in optional or compulsory areas;
specification of any learning achievement transferred from other programmes;
identification of any exemption from learning achievement granted on the basis of prior learning or alternative qualifications;
identification of any learning achievement recognised on the basis of prior learning experience;
where relevant, identification of any specific forms of assessment attached to particular learning achievement.

Student achievement

The achievement required by learners in order to be granted the Access to HE award is intended to reflect the requisite nature, volume and level of learning to prepare learners to enter into and thrive within a higher education environment.

The nature of learning required for the Access to HE award should be determined by the aim to prepare students for a course in higher education, whether this is specified in general terms or with reference to a named progression route. It should encompass the acquisition of knowledge and skills necessary for successful study at HE level and should provide familiarity with subject content and methods appropriate as a preparation for further study in higher education.

The volume of learning required for the Access to HE award is identified through the specification of learning achievements which can, on average, be expected of a learner undertaking an Access to HE programme of a minimum of 500 hours total study time, including contact hours and private study.

The level of learning required for the Access to HE award is specified through reference to the cognitive and academic skills required for successful study in higher education. This specification should be at a level that can be demonstrated as being equivalent to that of other awards accepted as entry qualifications for higher education. Although some valuable learning will take place at a lower level, evidence of the achievement of sufficient learning at a higher education entrance level must be clearly demonstrated. In this context, sufficiency is judged by the proportion of achievement at the higher level (normally 75 per cent of the benchmarked minimum) required to be certain of a student's readiness to embark on and be sustained in a course of higher education.

In responding to the diverse needs of learners, many providers will, within their Access to HE programmes, offer learners the opportunity to achieve more than this minimum. The particular criteria for the successful completion of any Access to HE programme will be clearly stated and will include the broader minimum requirements for the achievement of the Access to HE award.

Open College of the North West August 1999

Contents

Foreword

Aims and objectives

Outcomes

The review process

The AVA context

Membership

Premises, staffing and finance

Client groups, target groups and targeting policies and strategies

Background to OCNW's approach to the Access 'kitemark'

Range and organisation of current provision

Statement of mission, aims and objectives in relation to Access to HE provision

Developments since the last review

Management, organisational structures and administrative arrangements

Summary of structures and processes

Data management, collection and analysis

Effectiveness and efficiency

Quality assurance and enhancement functions

Governance and committee structures

Summary of structures and processes

Council

Policy, Planning and Finance Committee

Quality Standards Committee

The Access Sub-Committee

The Co-ordinators' Committee

The development, validation and evaluation of Access programmes

Development and design of new provision

Validation of new and revised programmes

Monitoring, evaluation and review

Assessment, moderation, standards and the award of certificates

Selection, appointment and training of moderators

Process of moderation

Developments in moderation

Receipt and response to moderators' reports

Student assessment methods and procedures for the award of the 'kitemarked' Access Certificate

Review of Stage B, and the introduction of a credit framework

Learner experience and progression

Learner experience and preparedness for higher education

Outcome standards

Progression and monitoring

Student evaluation, staff-student liaison and representation

Conclusion and recommendation to the ARLC

Recommendation to the ARLC

Conditions and recommendations

Conditions

Recommendations

Appendix 1

Criteria for the granting of the Access to HE award

Programme recognition

Student achievement

Open College of the North West
August 1999