Circular letter CL 14/05

Number	CL14/05
Subject	Operational description for the revised institutional audit process for higher education institutions in England and Northern Ireland
Publication date	Monday 31 October 2005
Recipients	Heads of higher education institutions; Universities UK; the Standing Council 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
Of interest to
Further information	Nicola Channon n.channon@qaa.ac.uk
Response date	Friday 13 January 2005
Respond to	Nicola Channon n.channon@qaa.ac.uk
Attachments	Operational description for the revised institutional audit process for higher education institutions in England and Northern Ireland Impact analysis

Dear colleague

Operational description for the revised institutional audit process for higher education institutions in England and Northern Ireland

You will be aware that we are now reaching the end of the three-year transitional period when all higher education institutions in England and Northern Ireland will have been the subject of an institutional audit. Following the publication of the report and recommendations of the Quality Assurance Framework Review Group, chaired by Dame Sandra Burslem, we are now in the process of developing a revised institutional audit process to be implemented in the next cycle of audits, from 2006-11. I am writing to you to seek your views on our proposals for this revised process, which you will find in the enclosed Operational description.

The proposals build on the experience that institutions and we have jointly gained from institutional audit under the transitional arrangements. It consolidates the strengths demonstrated by the institutional audit process, and removes the complexity and burden of the discipline audit trails that were a feature of that process. Institutions’ internal arrangements for the management of academic standards and quality of provision continue to form the base on which the audit is conducted; in addition, greater emphasis will be placed on the way that strategies for the enhancement of quality are derived from the outcomes of internal, and any external, monitoring and review.

The quality of learning opportunities available to students continues to be a major focus for the audit, with an increased emphasis on postgraduate research programmes; it is also proposed that the students’ contribution to the audit is strengthened through the submission of a briefing paper to the audit team.

Overall, the revised process will allow greater local flexibility in the audit method, and in expressing the findings of the audit team, while maintaining an underlying consistency of practice across all audits. We also believe that the administrative burden on institutions will be reduced significantly by the extended cycle length and the removal of the discipline audit trails. What has not changed is the basic purpose of institutional audit: to assess the level of confidence that can be placed in the soundness of an institution’s management of the academic standards of its awards and of the quality of the education that it offers.

In revising the process, we have taken account of the European Standards and Guidelines (ESG) for quality assurance in higher education, adopted by signatory states of the Bologna Process in Bergen in May 2005. In the light of this, we will in due course be taking further steps to ensure that appropriate student and international expert participation is present in our work, as recommended by the ESG.

The Operational description mentions the inclusion of brief mid-cycle reviews in the process, but does not provide operational detail on these. This is intentional as we recognise that this requirement will be new to the sector and we will wish to consult on our proposals separately. We shall therefore be conducting a consultation on this aspect of the process later in the year.

The enclosed Operational description is intended as a general account of the proposed institutional audit process and does not include the details of implementation. Once we have received and analysed the responses to the proposals, we will develop a more detailed draft procedural handbook. This will be sent to you for comment in the New Year.

Also attached with this letter is an impact analysis relating to the revised process of institutional audit. The analysis aims to highlight the differences between the two processes in relation to demands made by audit on institutions.

We shall greatly welcome your comments on the Operational description. Please let us have them 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 Friday 13 January 2006.

Yours sincerely

Peter Williams

Chief Executive