Circular letter CL01/06

Number	CL01/06
Subject	Proposal for an interim review process as part of the institutional audit process for higher education institutions in England and Northern Ireland
Publication date	Monday 16 January 2006
Recipients	Heads of higher education institutions; Universities UK; the Standing Conference of Principals; the funding councils; members of the Higher Education Regulation Review Group; members of the Burslem Group; the Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Health; the National Union of Students; the National Postgraduate Committee; the General Medical Council; the General Dental Council; the Adult Learning Inspectorate; the Sector Skills Development Agency; the Higher Education Academy; the Association of Colleges; Health partners; Memorandum of Understanding partners
Further information	Nicola Channon n.channon@qaa.ac.uk
Response date	Friday 17 March 2006
Respond to	Nicola Channon n.channon@qaa.ac.uk
Attachments	Consultation paper on interim reviews

Dear colleague

Proposal for an interim review process as part of the institutional audit process for higher education institutions in England and Northern Ireland

The consultation on the operational description for the revised institutional audit process for higher educations institutions in England and Northern Ireland has now finished. We shall be producing a draft handbook in due course, taking into account respondents’ views. In the covering letter for the operational description, I explained that while the inclusion of brief ‘mid-cycle reviews’ was mentioned as a part of the process, we were still considering what these might look like and had not included any details of them. As this element of quality assurance is new to the sector, we have decided to consult separately on this part of the process. I am now writing to seek your views on our proposals for these ‘mid-cycle reviews’.

In developing the document, it became clear that the name of the process would need changing to reflect more accurately our proposals. We are therefore suggesting that the activity should be called 'interim reviews'.

Interim reviews, as envisaged by the Quality Assurance Framework Review Group report, will be an integral part of the overall institutional audit process and will support the same aims. I should emphasise, though, that the review is intended to be no more than a short 'health check' on institutions’ continuing management of quality and standards. In this paper we are proposing that this check might be achieved through a paper-based exercise conducted by QAA officers, using existing institutional documents.

We shall greatly welcome your comments on the proposals. Please let us have them either in hard copy or electronically, as you prefer. All responses should be sent to my colleague, Nicola Channon (n.channon@qaa.ac.uk) at QAA, Southgate House, Southgate Street, Gloucester GL1 1UB. It would be very helpful to receive your comments by 17 March 2006.

Yours sincerely

Peter Williams

Chief Executive