higher quality 11

November 2002

Anyone for enhancement?

Is quality enhancement the new quality assurance? After many years of discussion and argument about whether or not, and if so how, an external agency should review the academic quality and standards of higher education, primarily for the purpose of accountability, the spotlight has now turned away from questions of accountability towards enhancement. A new and influential committee, the Teaching Quality Enhancement Committee (TQEC), originally sponsored by Universities UK and SCOP, but now with a much wider membership, has recently been looking at the roles of the three higher education organisations that have the enhancement of teaching and learning as their main concern - the ILT, HESDA and the LTSN. This is an important development, not least because it shows clearly that higher education is taking seriously its stated commitment to continuous improvement (ie, always trying to doing things better).

One of the interesting features to have emerged from TQEC's work is the distinction it has drawn between 'quality assurance' and 'quality enhancement'. Although this has been done mainly for convenience - so as to recognise the particular and unique role of the Agency in the quality assurance landscape - it nevertheless raises the question once again of what quality assurance actually is, and whether we in the Agency have any part to play in the enhancement of quality in higher education.

In the world at large, 'quality assurance' describes all aspects of the ways in which organisations try to make sure that their activities are fully fit for their intended purposes, that they are doing 'what it says on the tin'. The reasons for organisations to want to do this are numerous: it may be to satisfy themselves that they are meeting the needs of their clients, or to account to paymasters for financial assistance received. It may be to gain a marketing advantage over their competitors, or simply a wish to be sure that they are doing a fully professional job. All these reasons can apply to higher education. Additionally, though, in higher education quality assurance activities give institutions a means of finding out whether their academic awards and quality are comparable with those of other institutions and are meeting national expectations. To this end, external review or evaluation, whether undertaken by an agency like QAA or by consultants, offers an independent perspective, a mirror without the distortion caused by familiarity. Crucially, in this view of the world, continuous improvement - enhancement - is an integral part of quality assurance. In a mature and reflective institution, the self-knowledge that internal and external review and evaluation provide will lead, inexorably, to the conscious recognition of strengths and weaknesses and the identification of areas for improvement and development.

If accountability and enhancement are key elements of quality assurance, then they should be inextricably linked, not placed in opposition to one another. Unfortunately, neither 'assurance' nor 'enhancement' carries a simple definition. Both words are open to wide interpretation. But I do not see the opposing of the words 'assurance' and 'enhancement' by the TQEC as an attempt to create a new dichotomy, formally removing the latter from the purview of the former. It is, as I have already indicated, more a matter of convenience, a way of describing the different principal responsibilities of relevant agencies. In using these words in the way it does, however, the TQEC has highlighted the question of the Agency's role as an enhancement agency. Does it have an enhancement function? If so, is it different from HESDA's, or ILT's or the LTSN's?

In my view the Agency does have an important role to play in the enhancement of the quality of higher education. It is different from the roles of the other three agencies, but it is very much built into our work and strongly influences the way we do things. Institutions are responsible for their enhancement activities and it is not our job to try to improve or develop teaching and learning directly. Our task is to help institutions improve the management of their academic quality and standards, by providing them with opportunities to know and understand themselves better, making available information about how other institutions set about the task, and acting as a catalyst for the development of new approaches to this area of their responsibility. Indirectly this should lead to more effective learning and better teaching, and of course we hope it does. But its principal purpose has a different focus.

How are we going to meet our enhancement responsibilities? We have, through our reviewing activities, access to a great amount of information about good and not so good institutional practice in the assurance of quality and standards, and we intend to make this more readily and regularly available. We will be looking for developing trends, interesting and/or important messages that are emerging from our various review reports, and new quality assurance challenges that are facing institutions, and we will relay these back to the sector through publications, seminars and discussion groups. The recent round of meetings to look at the external examining system and programme specifications, reported on elsewhere in this bulletin, gives an idea of the sort of things we will be providing. Another series of meetings on programme specifications is planned to start in December. And while we very much hope that institutions will find these useful, we are sure they will be of great use to us, as we attempt to understand more fully the ideas and practices that institutions are themselves developing.

To do this we must make best use of our own resources and so we are reorganising the Agency's internal structure, removing the barriers between our various internal groupings, encouraging inter-group activity and making best use of the impressive knowledge, expertise and talent that our colleagues bring to their work. The development of our new, more active liaison programme with institutions will also help us to achieve this goal. There is more about this too in later pages.

The one thing we will not be doing is duplicating what is already done by others. We will, though, be co-operating with other agencies, offering what we hope will be perceptive contributions to the debates that they will be leading. Higher education appears to be facing an even more uncertain future than it expected. New challenges to the assurance of quality and standards are likely to emerge. Through its enhancement activities we will try to discover the new questions and look for some new answers.

Peter Williams

19 October 2002

top

Instutional audit

Result of consultation on the draft Handbook for Institutional Audit

In April 2002, we circulated the draft Handbook for institutional audit (the Handbook) in England, and asked for responses by mid-June. A total of 74 responses were received, the majority (60) from education institutions. A summary report on the outcome, with an indication of how we have addressed matters raised, was enclosed with Peter Williams' circular letter (CL09/02) of 1 August 2002. For more detail please click here.

Most responses to the draft Handbook were favourable and respondents commended the proposals. There were, however, areas where doubts or concerns recurred. These were:

discipline audit trails (DATs);
the roles of students in the process; and
information and documentation requirements.

Progress to date

All institutions have been contacted about the year and term for their audit, and the full schedule of audits for the transitional period 2002-05 has now been agreed. We will contact institutions due to be audited in 2003-04 to ask for suggested dates for briefing visits and audit visits. In 2002-03, 25 institutions will be audited and many have already had their preliminary meetings. The first briefing visit will be conducted in December.

We asked for nominations for auditors and audit secretaries at the beginning of August, with a very short deadline for responses. We are extremely grateful to everyone who put themselves forward for these roles and managed to respond so quickly. We are unlikely to be in a position to let everyone know the outcome of the appointing process until later this month, but letters will be sent to all nominees and nominators informing them of the outcome.

The tight timescale has meant that at the same time as working through the nominations, we are also in the process of allocating audit teams. The allocation of an individual to a team is, in part, based on their current discipline-level experience in a particular JACS code appropriate for the institution being audited. This means we have had to consider nominations in some JACS codes before others. All those who have been asked to join a team have been screened against the requirements for the role, but some individuals will be approached to take part in training and to be part of an audit team before all the nominations representing other JACS codes have been considered.

Once the consideration of all applications has been completed, the successful nominees will be added to the register of auditors and audit secretaries. Training places will be assigned on the basis of allocation to teams, so not everyone on the register will be trained in the current year. The first training events took place in October and we hope that all audit teams for 2002-03 will be trained by the end of January 2003.

Points for discussion

During the consultation process, small and specialist institutions raised questions about how the process would relate to them. We aim to ensure that the process reflects their size and character, whilst making certain that judgements are consistent, reliable and comparable with those of other HEIs.

Some of the points emerging from preliminary meetings have been about the place of DATs within the audit process. CL09/02 makes it quite clear that DATs are not full subject reviews, and that the resources devoted to them, either by the audit team or by the institution, are quite different to subject review. The main focus of an audit team will be on the institution's present and likely future management of the quality of its programmes, and the academic standards of its awards. DATs will help teams make their judgement on the institution as a whole. Whilst they are an important part of the process, DATs should be considered as part of the process rather than a separate or predominant element. It is important to remember this point so that the balance between the elements of audit is not lost.

As we build up experience of the audit process we will keep the sector informed of the lessons being learned.

Nicola Channon

top

Subject-level reviews

During academic year 2002-03, we will be carrying out a range of reviews at the subject-level:

academic review of subjects in a small number of HEIs in Scotland (see page 6) and England;
academic review of subjects of directly-funded higher education in further education colleges
(HE in FECs) in England;
Welsh engagements (see page 8);
developmental engagements in HEIs in England;
special reviews of foundation degrees in England and in Northern Ireland (see page 5).

Many institutions have responded to our invitation to nominate specialist reviewers and we are grateful to them. Applicants are being screened against the person specification and we have started to invite some applicants to specialist reviewer training. We would still like to receive specialist reviewer applications for any subject and, in particular:

Agriculture, forestry, agricultural and food sciences;
Archaeology;
Architecture, architectural technology and landscape architecture;
Building and surveying;
Chemistry;
Communications, media, film and television studies;
Dance, drama and performance arts;
Linguistics;
Mathematics, statistics and operational research;
Music;
Philosophy;
Psychology;
Town and country planning.

More details and application forms are available from our web site at: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/aboutus/appointments/ If you have further queries, please email h.markham@qaa.ac.uk or telephone 01452 557036.

Academic review of subjects of directly-funded higher education in further education colleges (HE in FECs) in England

From January to July 2002, 73 reviews of HE in FECs were conducted using the method set out in the Handbook for academic review. Colleges have responded well to the introduction of this method. Most reviews resulted in a judgement of confidence in academic standards. All colleges achieved a judgement of either approved or commendable for each of the three aspects of the quality of learning opportunities: teaching and learning; student progression; and learning resources. In the few cases where the reviewers did not have confidence in standards, they found problems with student assessment. These included assessment questions or briefs that did not enable the students' achievement of the intended learning outcomes to be tested; the inconsistent application of marking criteria; a lack of evidence of moderation or verification; and feedback which was so perfunctory that it did not assist students in their learning. This follows a pattern seen in the outcomes of the previous method of subject review, where reviewers frequently found scope for improvement in student assessment in FECs and HEIs.

We value the comments provided by colleges and reviewers on their experience of the review method. Following these comments, and our own review of the effectiveness of the process, adjustments will be made to the training and guidance of reviewers. In particular, we need to reinforce the importance of implementing the process in an open and collegial manner. This can include providing clear feedback to colleges at regular stages of the review, emphasising the flexibility inherent in the method, and increasing the reviewers' awareness of Edexcel procedures. The training programme has been revised to take account of these points.

Despite our enthusiasm to recruit specialist reviewers who currently teach HE-level programmes in FECs, we continue to be disappointed at the small number of nominations we receive. This makes it difficult for us to achieve our aim of including at least one specialist reviewer from an FEC in each team. We are fortunate, however, that we have a number of experienced reviewers from HEIs who have worked in FECs at earlier stages of their teaching careers.

We are still receiving self-evaluation documents that are not sufficiently self-critical, and do not have the evaluation of quality and standards supported by evidence or clear references to evidence. Self-evaluations make an effective basis for review when they demonstrate, among other things, on-going rigorous analysis and self-reflection. A good self-evaluation is the key to a review that is not unduly intrusive.

In 2002-03, 85 reviews of HE in FECs will take place and arrangements are in hand. For further information, please email p.mccracken@qaa.ac.uk or telephone 01452 557172.

Developmental engagements

The Developmental engagements: guidance note discusses the process at each key stage. This includes planning; self-evaluation; student written submission; team composition including the role of the institutional nominee; preparatory meetings; visits; and judgements and reporting. The guidance note helps institutions prepare for the visits and will support the training of developmental engagement team members.

Developmental engagements will take place between February and July 2003 and we are discussing the schedule of visits with institutions. This includes confirmation of the dates for submission of self-evaluations. Institutions have received letters, requesting an institutional nominee for each developmental engagement. Institutional nominees will be invited to a one-day training programme to help them to prepare for their role.

We are also preparing a leaflet about the student contribution (a brief written submission) to developmental engagements. The focus of the submission should be on the internal review mechanism of the programme, cluster of programmes, or discipline area, and on the quality and standards of the education provided. The leaflet will be sent to each institution, to pass on to the relevant representative student body.

If you have any queries about developmental engagements, please email a.biscoe@qaa.ac.uk or telephone 01452 557105.

Academic review of subjects

Academic reviews will take place in a small number of HEIs between February and July 2003, and we have been contacting each institution to agree the date of the initial meeting for their academic review(s). We will also confirm the dates for submission of self-evaluations for these reviews, invite institutions to identify a subject review facilitator for their review(s), provide briefings for facilitators to prepare them for the responsibilities of this role, and invite representatives from each HEI to attend a briefing on the method.

To help the institutions that will be having academic reviews of subjects, we have used the experience gained from reviews in HEIs in Scotland, and in HE in FECs, to provide advice that supplements the Handbook for academic review. The Handbook for academic review (QAA 2000): user's guide to the academic review of subjects in higher education institutions in the transitional period 2002-05 should be read in conjunction with the Handbook for academic review. The guide has been written primarily to help HEIs in England to prepare for their first experience of this method. The guide also suggests ways of using subject-level reviews as a preparation for institutional audit.

If you have any questions about academic reviews of subjects, please email a.christou@qaa.ac.uk or telephone 01452 557113.

Gillian Hayes

top

Foundation degrees

In 2002-03 the Agency, commissioned by HEFCE, will undertake a special review of a sample of foundation degrees. The sample will include both HEFCE-funded prototypes; those funded through additional student numbers and those funded internally. The criteria for selection of the sample are geographical location; subjects and sectors; student mode of attendance and cohort size; types of institution; and consortia size. There will be between 35 and 38 reviews.

We are designing a review process specifically for the foundation degree. As part of the review design process, we established a consultative group of course leaders, foundation degree consortium coordinators, and others involved in foundation degrees. This group has advised us on ways of effectively achieving the review aims with the least burden to providers.

For foundation degrees funded by HEFCE as 'prototypes', the self-evaluation report is part of a more extensive end-of-project final report. This report of all prototype foundation degree providers, whether in the sample or not, is required by HEFCE. The self-evaluation report (SER) forms the starting point of our review of foundation degree programmes. A handbook will be published on our web site in November and will also be available in hard copy.

The review period will last some five weeks. During this time the review team, typically one review coordinator and three subject specialists, will spend two days, either consecutively or separately, visiting different parts of the programme. Provision across a number of sites may attract extra days. The review team will meet the consortium team, the subject team at one teaching site, and normally visit at least two places of work-based learning. Other features are common to most Agency review processes: peer review; meetings with current students; scrutiny of documentation and student work; and the nomination of facilitators.

HEFCE has requested that the reviews generate two threshold judgements: the 'emerging standards and emerging academic achievements of students' and the 'quality of the student learning experience, including monitoring and enhancement'. The reports from this review will not be published. They will remain confidential to the consortium or institution, HEFCE and the Agency, and will be made available to the HEFCE evaluators (an independent group appointed by HEFCE). Evaluators will use the information from the SERs and generated by the reviews to reduce any additional burden on institutions. We will produce an overview report in which no institution will be identified.

We are offering briefing for facilitators from the programmes under review, and special one-day training for coordinators and subject specialists who will undertake foundation degree reviews. This is in addition to the normal academic reviewer training. We welcome applications from suitably qualified staff who have experience of foundation degree and/or further education colleges (FECs). Late applications from colleagues who can undertake the training this autumn will also be accepted. The application form can be found on our web site.

This is an opportunity for consortia and institutions to identify good practice and innovative features and to share these with the academic community.

Penny McCracken

top

Subject overview reports

In July 2002, 11 subject overview reports were published:

Archaeology;
Business and management;
Celtic studies;
Classics and ancient history;
Economics;
Education;
Hospitality, leisure, recreation, sport and tourism;
Librarianship and information management;
Philosophy;
Politics;
Theology and religious studies.

Draft reports were written at workshops held in our Gloucester office. The workshops involved groups of subject specialists, who provided major contributions to the reports, and each subject group received guidance from review coordinator.

These subject overview reports have added significance, as they mark the end of the old method of subject review.

The reports are available here or in hard copy from Linney Direct.

Sarah Davies

top

The work of the Agency in Scotland

Developing the new enhancement-led arrangements for quality

Consultation on future arrangements

Since the publication of higher quality 10, the response to the consultation on future arrangements for quality assurance in Scotland has been published.

From the responses, it is clear that the main features of the proposed enhancement-led model were widely welcomed. The new, distinctive, model will bring together quality assurance and enhancement, and comprises five integrated elements:

institutions internal procedures for quality assurance and enhancement;
a full and supported involvement of students in internal and external quality processes;
a series of quality enhancement engagements;
the generation of a range of public information on quality; and
an enhancement-led institutional audit process.

An enhancement-led model

The Quality Working Group (QWG) devised the enhancement-led model. The Scottish Higher Education Funding Council (SHEFC) convened the QWG, with membership from students, Universities Scotland, the Agency and SHEFC. The QWG has now been re-convened to oversee the further development and implementation of the overall model.

Within this context, the Agency is developing the enhancement-led approach to audit. This development is based on the consensus reached in Scotland that:

institutions in Scotland manifestly take a responsible approach to the maintenance of quality and standards;
ownership of quality and standards issues rests with the institutions and not with SHEFC or the Agency;
institutions are committed to the principle of continuous quality enhancement;
students should have a major involvement in internal and external quality processes; and
students and other stakeholders should have access to relevant public information about the nature and quality of provision.

Linked to this consensus, the main aims of the enhancement-led audit are:

to provide an independent view of the effectiveness of an institution's strategy for managing the quality of the student learning experience and the standards of their awards;
to provide an independent view of the robustness of institutional mechanisms, including subject review mechanisms, for providing accurate, complete and fair public information;
to support each institution in the further enhancement of the quality of the student learning experience;
to support the sector collectively through the sharing of good practice in the enhancement of the student learning experience and the standards of their awards; and
to promote the good standing of Scottish higher education throughout the UK, the rest of Europe and in the wider international context.

The Steering Committee

A Steering Committee has been appointed to support the development of the new method. The role of the Steering Committee reflects the fact that the new approach to quality in Scotland has emerged from close collaboration between Universities Scotland, the Agency in Scotland and student representatives, and the wish to ensure that this collaborative approach is maintained. The membership of the Steering Committee is:

Duncan Cockburn, Student's Association University of Aberdeen

Alan Davidson, Director of Quality Assurance University of Dundee

Dr Ron Emanuel, Vice-Principal (Learning and Teaching) University of Glasgow

Dr Bill Harvey, Deputy Director Quality and Learning Innovation, SHEFC

Professor Neil Keeble, Deputy Principal University of Stirling

Professor Terry Mayes, Head of Learning and Educational Development Glasgow Caledonian University

Dr Rita McAllister, Vice-Principal Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama

Donna McMillan, Senior Assistant Registrar University of Paisley

Professor David Ross, Director for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching, University of Abertay Dundee

Gerard Madill - Policy Adviser (Observer) Universities Scotland

Supporting the introduction of the new framework

The draft Handbook for enhancement-led audit will be prepared by the end of December 2002. During the preparation period, there will be workshops for both the sector and student groups. In addition, we will continue to liaise closely with the Universities Scotland Teaching Quality Forum and the QAA Scotland Student Forum. Formal consultation will take place on the draft handbook between early January and the end of February 2003, with a consultation event at the beginning of February. The final version of the handbook will be published by Easter 2003. A dissemination event is being planned for May 2003.

The Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF) and Lifelong Learning

At the time of writing, the final report of the Scottish Parliament's Inquiry into Lifelong Learning had not been published, and the Parliamentary debate on the Inquiry's findings not yet taken place. It is clear, however, from the interim report of the Inquiry that the SCQF is likely to play a central role in the future arrangements for lifelong learning. In January 2003, the Scottish Executive's Strategy for Lifelong Learning will be announced. On 16 and 17 December 2002, the SCQF annual conference will provide an opportunity to hear the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning (Iain Gray MSP) address this topic. The main theme and aim of the conference is supporting the implementation of the SCQF. In December 2002, a SCQF 'National Implementation Plan' will be published. The Plan, which will be one of the key conference papers, will set out the general timetable and arrangements for implementing the SCQF across the education and training sectors in Scotland.

In addition to lain Gray, key speakers include the Deputy Minister for Health, Mary Mulligan MSP; Andrew Cubie, Chair of the Joint Advisory Committee for the SCQF; Professor John Harper, Chair of the Scottish Advisory Committee on Credit and Access; Heather Jones, Scottish Executive, Chair of the SCQF Implementation Group; Rami Okasha, President, NUS Scotland; Iain McMillan, Director, CBI Scotland; Professor Charles Munn, Chief Executive, Chartered Institute of Bankers in Scotland; Fraser Patrick, Director, Neighbourhood Resources and Development, Dundee City Council; and Linda McKay, Principal, Falkirk College of Further and Higher Education. Workshops will provide an opportunity for participants, from across the sectors and from a wide range of bodies involved in supporting learning, to discuss and plan the introduction and use of the Framework.

If you wish to receive further information about the conference please email your request to scqf.conference@sqa.org.uk

Academic Review of subjects in Scotland

Reflecting on reviews 2001-02

2001-02 has been the second year of academic review of subjects in Scotland, with 49 reviews completed, and 48 reports published at the time of writing. These reports can be found on our web site.

The outcomes of the 2001-02 reviews confirm the generally high quality of higher education provision in Scotland. Reviewers judged the academic standards of the awards and the quality of learning opportunities available to students. Of the 48 reviews published, reviewers made judgements on standards in 47 of these (in Scotland, standards judgements are not made on HND/C provision). In 46 of these reviews, judgements of confidence in academic standards were delivered, and there was a judgement of no confidence in only one review.

On the quality of learning opportunities, the majority of provision is commendable in the three aspects of provision evaluated: teaching and learning (90 per cent); student progression (82 per cent); and learning resources (84 per cent). All other judgements approved the provision and no failing provision was identified.

We are analyzing the key learning points from the two years of academic review in Scotland. We hope to disseminate this information, and that it will be helpful to the sector in general and form a useful background to developing the new enhancement-led framework outlined above. In addition, this analysis will help us to maintain an effective approach to the academic review of subjects for those institutions in Scotland that will still be involved in this process.

Academic reviews of subjects 2002-03

Within the new arrangements in Scotland, external subject review will be confined to the new HEIs that have not had the opportunity to demonstrate the robustness of their internal systems. During 2002-03, four reviews are scheduled at UHI Millennium Institute, and three at Bell College. In addition, and at the request of the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department (SEERAD), we will also start a programme of academic reviews at the Scottish Agricultural College (SAC), with the first subject review anticipated in spring 2003.

David Bottomley
Ailsa Crum
Janice Ross
Norman Sharp

top

The work of the Agency in Wales

Discipline-based reviews

Higher quality 10 described the aims and purposes of the discipline-based reviews currently being conducted in Welsh institutions. Final draft reports have been issued, in confidence, to institutions on the five reviews conducted during the last academic session. By December 2002, the remaining 20 reviews in the programme will be completed and reports issued early in 2003. Initial responses from institutions and departments that have been involved suggest that the reviews have been a practical and helpful basis for re-engagement with external scrutiny. For the Agency, the processes and procedures adopted are contributing to the transitional arrangements currently being developed for other UK regions. If you have any queries about these reviews, please email Pat Le Rolland, p.lerolland@qaa.ac.uk

The Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (HEFCW) on the Quality Assurance and Standards Framework for Wales

HEFCW's consultation paper (W02/50HE) has been issued to higher and further education institutions in Wales, and the Agency is working closely with the Council on how the proposals might be translated into practice. In January 2003, we will distribute an operational description of the review process following consideration by the working group (set up by HEFCW) of the responses to the consultation. On 7 November 2002, a national seminar will be held to consider how higher education programmes delivered in further education institutions in Wales may be reviewed within the overarching proposals for a Quality Assurance and Standards Framework. This seminar has been organised by us in association with HEFCW and Fforwm (the representative body of all further education colleges in Wales).

Advisory Committee for Wales

Membership of the committee has been established and the first meeting will be held on 20 November 2002 at UWIC, Cardiff.

The members are:

Professor Colin Baker, Welsh Language Board

Professor Anthony Chapman, Higher Education Wales (HEW)

Mr Trevor Clark, Credit and Qualifications Framework - Wales

Mr David Finch, Fforwm

Professor Tony Hazell, Public sector employers

Professor Angela John, HEFCW

Ms Liz Kidd HMI, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools - Wales (ESTYN)

Dr Frances Mannsaker, University of Glamorgan

Mr David McParlin, University of Wales

Professor Ken Reid, University of Wales

Professor Michael Scott, Higher Education Wales (HEW)

Mr John Williams, Curriculum and Qualifications Authority - Wales (ACCAC)

There are three vacancies - another appointment by HEFCW, the NUS (Wales), and a member to represent the interests of private sector employers. There are also members with observer status representing HEFCW, UUK and the Welsh Assembly Government. Mr Christopher Kenyon, the Chairman of the Agency's Board, will chair the inaugural meeting of the Committee.

Welsh Language Scheme

At the Agency's Board meeting scheduled for November 2002 a draft Welsh Language Scheme, in accordance with the terms of the Welsh Language Act (1993), will be considered. With the Board's agreement, the scheme will be finalised, and in early 2003 we will conduct a consultation with higher and further education institutions and other relevant bodies in Wales. In May 2003, we intend to submit our Scheme to the Welsh Language Board (WLB) for its approval. Following its approval, the Scheme will be launched formally in July 2003.

Guidance on examining and assessment

On 23 October 2002, a national seminar to launch the guidelines for effective practice in examining and assessing in a language other than the language of tuition was held at Llandrindod Wells. The guidelines are a supplement to precept 14 in Section 6 of the Code of practice on Assessment of students; students in Wales can use Welsh for examination and assessment purposes if it is their preferred choice.

Liaison with relevant organisations and bodies in Wales

We continue to liaise and strengthen our relationships with relevant organisations and bodies in Wales. There are formal, quarterly meetings with HEFCW to monitor progress against the annual service agreement, as well as frequent informal contact. There is also regular liaison with the office of HEW. During the last six months, meetings have taken place with ESTYN, ACCAC, the Care Council Wales, Health Professions Wales, as well as with the education and health departments of the Welsh Assembly Government.

For further information please email the officer for Wales at m.laugharne@qaa.ac.uk or telephone 01452 557139.

Mike Laugharne

Next: Part 2