Circular letter CL13/04
Number |
CL 13/04 |
Subject |
Teaching quality information (TQI) |
Publication date |
15 October 2004 |
Recipients |
Heads of all Agency subscribers in England |
Further information |
|
Response date |
No response required |
Respond to |
No response required |
Teaching Quality Information (TQI) website
Dear Colleague
Teaching quality information
The Agency has received a number of requests for further information about the way in which the publicly-available teaching quality information (TQI), provided by HEIs on the HERO web site, will be used within the current institutional audit process.
The primary purpose of the published TQI is to provide accessible public information which will inform potential students, employers and other interested parties about the quality and standards of programmes offered by institutions. It is not specifically designed to meet the requirements of the audit process, although audit teams will make use of the information to assist in their enquiries as appropriate. The documentary needs of audit are listed separately in Annex H of Information on quality and standards in higher education – final guidance (HEFCE 03/51).
The HERO TQI site has recently gone live and information will be added to it progressively over the coming months. The Agency has indicated that, although audit teams will be reviewing the information available on the site, 'no separate judgement on the published information will be included in the audit reports for the remainder of the current institutional audit cycle' (higher quality 15).
TQI has, however, been included within the scope of the review of the English Quality Assurance Framework, being undertaken currently by HEFCE/SCOP/UUK and chaired by Dame Alexandra Burslem. The group conducting this review is considering the costs, benefits and effectiveness of the current quality assurance arrangements and will report their findings early in 2005. The recommendations of the group will influence development of a revised institutional audit method to be used from 2006 onwards – including proposals for the evaluation of public information.
At the request of HEFCE, the Agency is also considering proposals for the systematic monitoring (without judgements) of TQI in the period before the start of the next audit cycle.
Reports of institutional audits conducted after 1 February 2005 will, therefore, include comments on the progress being made by institutions in meeting the requirements of TQI and will review the information available at the time of the audit. Audit teams may make use of the summaries of external examiners’ reports to inform their discussions about institutions’ production and presentation of public information. Teams may also enquire more generally about institutional strategies and procedures for fulfilling the expectations of public information.
Collaborative provision
HERO has provided clarification about the requirements for TQI for collaborative arrangements (TQI: FAQs surrounding collaborative arrangements). The awarding institution retains ultimate responsibility for information published about the standards of its awards – including the summaries of external examiners’ reports. Institutions that provide the learning opportunities for students are generally responsible for information about the quality of their provision. In practice, though, all the information will normally be published on the web site of the institution which is the recognised provider of the programmes, albeit that awarding institutions will wish to assure themselves that any information published about their awards is accurate and complete.
Institutions that are not in receipt of public funding have, of course, no obligation to HEFCE to publish the TQI. However, the Agency expects that all of its subscribers will implement fully the agreed Quality Assurance Framework for higher education in England, which includes TQI.
The Agency’s collaborative provision audits will include, from September 2005 onwards, a judgement on the reliance that can reasonably be placed on the accuracy, integrity, completeness and frankness of the information that the awarding institution publishes about the quality of those of its programmes delivered through partner links.
I hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact Dr Stephen Jackson, Director of Reviews, s.jackson@qaa.ac.uk or me, if you have any queries about this letter.
Yours sincerely
Peter Williams
Chief Executive
Top