Dear Colleague
In December I wrote to you with information about the following changes to the Institutional audit process and to request your institution's views on the operational implications of these:
- the introduction of an approach to the audit of collaborative provision which will include, as appropriate, within-audit, hybrid audit, or separate collaborative audit activity
- the inclusion of student members on audit teams.
The consultation period closed on 1 March 2009 and I am now in a position to provide some feedback on the responses received, and the action that QAA will take as a consequence. We would like to thank all those who responded to the consultation for their constructive and helpful replies.
The full analysis of the responses is available on our website at www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/institutionalAudit/PCIAProcessApr09.pdf
Inclusion of student members on audit teams
We asked for responses to six questions concerning the introduction of
student members of audit teams. The main points from your responses and
our intended actions are summarised below. We were already aware of, and
in some cases had addressed, many of the other points in the responses.
1 Do you agree that
from spring 2010 all audits should include a student auditor, or should
an opt-out be available until the end of the audit cycle?
If an opt-out option is allowed, should an extra auditor be recruited to
ensure teams of equal sizes?
Overall, there was broad support for the inclusion of students as full members of audit teams. In the main, it was felt that, should student auditors be introduced from 2010, the opportunity to opt out of having a student auditor should be allowed until the end of the current cycle. The general consensus from respondents was that should an institution choose to opt out from having a student auditor, then there should not be an extra auditor recruited to the team.
QAA will, therefore, make arrangements to add student auditors to audit teams from spring 2010 and will ask each institution that is scheduled to participate in Institutional audit from that point until the end of the current cycle to indicate whether it wishes to opt out.
2 Do you agree that the student auditor should be an additional member of the audit team?
On the whole, respondents agreed that the student auditor should be an additional member of the audit team. Some respondents suggested that this should be evaluated at the end of the audit cycle.
QAA will recruit students as additional members of teams and, after evaluating the current method, will consider the optimum number of team members to be used in any future audit process.
3 Do you agree with the proposed role for the student auditor?
Most respondents agreed that the student auditor should be a full member of the audit team and have equivalency of status in role, responsibilities and remuneration with other members of the team. A few felt that, since a student auditor would have different experiences and skills from other auditors, he or she might be better suited to a more specialised role.
QAA will draw up a role description for student auditors, which reflects the expectation that they will adopt the same role as other auditors. It is recognised that the particular skills, experience and knowledge of the student auditor might enable him or her to contribute to some audit explorations more than others, but this argument also applies to other auditors, such as those who have particular expertise in the management of collaborative provision, or of postgraduate research programmes.
4 Do you agree with the categories for eligible students? Are there others?
There was broad support for the stated categories of eligible students. However, a minimum of one year's experience of higher education was considered by some as being insufficient. It was suggested that the criteria of eligibility for student auditors should be a minimum of two years' experience in higher education. In addition, some concern was expressed regarding the time after completing higher education studies that a student auditor could remain active. Two years was considered to be too long, and that 'recent experience' should perhaps mean 'within 12 months'.
QAA accepts the argument that one year's experience of higher education might not in all cases provide an adequate background for a student auditor and we have changed the criterion to indicate that two years' experience will normally be expected. At present we shall use the criterion of two years since graduation of the last degree taken as representing 'recent experience' and will evaluate at the end of the audit cycle how this affects the constituency of applicants that come forward, and the backgrounds of student auditors who undertake audits.
5 Do you agree with the selection criteria given in Appendix B? Are there others that you would wish to suggest?
Respondents broadly agreed that there should be a rigorous process for the recruitment, selection and training of student auditors.
QAA has a rigorous process for recruiting auditors. In the case
of a student auditor this will include a written application, supporting
statement from the student's head of institution, and compulsory attendance
at a briefing and
self-selection day, which will include participation in an observed exercise.
Respondents emphasised that the students recruited should reflect the diversity of the higher education sector in terms of institutional characteristics and students' backgrounds.
QAA supports this diversity and already endeavours to provide audit teams balanced for gender, institutional type and geographic spread. We would encourage all institutions to actively support students who wish to be considered as auditors in order for us to be able to continue to reflect the diversity of the sector in audit teams.
Further clarity was requested in respect of the meaning of some of the stated selection criteria, and the evidence required to demonstrate that nominees satisfy the criteria. The Equality Challenge Unit, for example, noted that selection criteria must consider issues of diversity and equality, and ensure that applicants with disabilities are not deterred from being nominated or selected.
The criteria mirror those already used in the recruitment of auditors. QAA considers that they represent the qualities and attributes necessary in audit team members. Evidence that an applicant meets the criteria will be sought from the written application and personal statement, the support of the applicant's head of institution, and from the observed exercise on the briefing day. QAA will give further consideration to diversity aspects, not only for the current exercise, but as part of the awareness-raising that QAA will carry out as it develops its Single Equality Statement and associated policy.
6 Do you consider the elements given in Appendix B to be the main requirements for training of a student auditor?
There was broad agreement with the main requirements for training of a student auditor specified in the documentation. Respondents considered that training was central to the success of the role of the student auditor. Additional training was suggested for student auditors, to ensure that they were 'at a similar starting point' to that of other auditors.
QAA agrees that training is of central importance. For a student auditor, the normal three-day auditor training will be augmented with extra sessions, and an extra briefing day will be added, which will provide applicants with information about the diversity of higher education and quality assurance systems. As part of selection they will also take part in an audit-related activity which will be observed. Respondents made various suggestions about topics to include in training. These are almost all currently included in our training programme. Student auditors, like all audit team members, will be expected to take part in the continuing development activities which QAA provides.
Audit of collaborative provision
We invited comments on the operational detail of the revised approach set out in the consultation documents. Of the 60 respondents to the consultation, 43 provided comments on the proposed changes to the auditing of collaborative provision. Institutions were generally positive about the three approaches to collaborative provision audit; however, there were areas where further clarification was requested.
The primary area where institutions wished to see more detail involved the criteria that will be used when deciding which of the three methods are to be used to audit an institution's collaborative provision.
QAA has already provided some indication of the factors which will be taken into account when the mode of audit is determined. The consultation, and the pilot hybrid audit undertaken this year, have suggested others. Many of these factors are qualitative factors which are not amenable to feeding into simple equations or algorithms, and which have to be applied in the context of an individual institution. In order to help institutions understand how we use the factors, we will give examples of the questions which we ask when we consider such factors, and also present some scenarios for outcomes of applying the factors to different kinds of institutions, as suggested by one respondent to the consultation.
Some respondents also wanted to see more transparency regarding the criteria to be used when selecting the number and nature of partner institutions.
QAA advises audit teams and QAA Assistant Directors on the factors to be taken into account when selecting partner links and we shall make that guidance available to institutions.
Further action
We shall revise the Handbook for Institutional audit: England and Northern Ireland (2006) to incorporate, as relevant, the actions that I have outlined above. It is intended that the revised Handbook will be available at the beginning of September 2009.
My colleague, Gillian King, will shortly contact all institutions who are participating in audits during the rest of the current cycle, to determine whether they wish to opt out of having an audit team which includes a student member. We shall also be writing to all institutions to invite them to nominate students for appointment as auditors.
Yours sincerely
Peter Williams
Chief Executive
Top
QAA updates
QAAtweets
QAAtube