Who is guarding the guards?
In the last year we have successfully completed the first 24 English institutional audits and more than one hundred developmental engagements, on time and to budget, as we promised we would. This is an important milestone in the evolution of external quality assurance in the UK; and it augurs well for the achievement of our mission 'to safeguard the public interest in sound standards of higher education qualifications and to encourage continuous improvement in the management of the quality of higher education'. The interview with Stephen Jackson, Director of Reviews, on the following pages shows how we, and institutions, are jointly approaching the demands that come with our programmes of reviews.
We are determined that, as our new processes evolve, they should continue to be judged against the twin tests of fitness for purpose and economy of effort (for institutions as well as ourselves). They will need to be evaluated, both internally and externally, to see how far they are meeting those tests. Plans are being put in hand for the independent evaluation of the new English audit method during 2004-05. In Scotland, evaluations have been integrated within the structure of the reviews themselves.
It is important that our work should be independently reviewed. The Agency does not exist for its own benefit. The Department for Education and Skills' new Better Regulation Review Group has been given the role of 'gatekeeper' to check the proportionality and potential burden of all proposed new regulations for higher education in England. This group, largely composed of representatives from the higher education community and its partners and therefore well-informed, will have an important influence on any proposals for change to institutional audit that the evaluation may suggest.
Meanwhile, on the European front, the recent Berlin communiqué, signed by the UK, envisages the creation of a 'register' of European quality assurance agencies. The 'register' would have an associated 'set of standards, procedures and guidelines' to act as criteria for inclusion, and an implicit inspectoral function to monitor compliance. At the same time, the Cabinet Office's Office for Public Service Reform has recently announced that it too intends to exercise a 'gatekeeping' role over all changes proposed by public inspectorates. Given that we are not a public inspectorate, we are surprised to have been included within that group.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes - but who is guarding the guards? Juvenal's question is often asked about quality assurance agencies in higher education. Perhaps the question today should be recast: who is not guarding the guards?
Peter Williams
Chief Executive
The Reviews Group - Interview with Stephen Jackson
Stephen's career started at the City of Liverpool
College of Higher Education. The College became part of Liverpool Polytechnic
which, in turn, was incorporated into Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU).
He became Assistant Provost for Learning at LJMU in 1994, and Director of
Partnerships and Widening Participation in 1999.
Between 1993 and 2002 Stephen was an auditor for the Higher Education Quality Council and the Agency, and a review coordinator for academic review in Scotland.
Stephen became Director of Reviews at the Agency in October 2002.
The Group's work covers the development, administration and conduct of all review methods in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, degree-awarding powers and university title and Access to Higher Education. In this interview, Stephen discusses some of this work and its impact on institutions and organisations involved in higher education.
When you became Director what did you identify as your top priorities?
Internally, restructuring and integration of the old programme review and institutional review directorates into the new Reviews Group. Externally, implementation of the new review methods, especially institutional audit. Things were at a critical stage last year and the method had to fulfil the sector's expectations in terms of lightness of touch. I'd been aware of the Department of Health work before I started, but when I began I realised the scale of the work and the importance of that contract. The other priority was selling the Agency to the sector - networking and the external dimension to the job. There was a lot to learn about the key players and their responsibilities.
What changes are being made to the Reviews Group?
Two different traditions had grown up around programme review and institutional audit. We need to establish a new Reviews Group that isn't one thing or the other. We're putting people into position and getting the new structure up and running. The real test of whether or not the Group works will be how we conduct our business in the future and whether we can support the review processes even more effectively than we have done in the past.
What are the distinguishing features of institutional audit?
We need to recognise where institutional audit comes from, following the negotiations in 2001 about approaches to quality in higher education. Part of that deal was a clear understanding that institutions are responsible for managing the standards and quality of their awards.
In the past, particularly with subject review, there was a tendency to look at the Agency as an 'inspecting' organisation. The new method steps back from this. We review the practice of self-management and ensure that institutions are doing what they say they're doing in terms of their own published information. This is a fundamental difference.
The introduction of discipline audit trails (DATs) and the subject focus has added a level of complexity that was not there with continuation audit. Our audit reports include more fine detail. We've got the evidence base at discipline level that teams can draw on to support the conclusions and judgements.
How have institutions responded to institutional audit?
The feedback has been generally positive and institutions find the process productive. It engages with the right people and the questioning is more about what institutions are doing themselves, about their standards and quality procedures, rather than looking directly at standards and quality issues within institutions.
One of the most positive things is the engagement of students and the emphasis this has placed on their learning experience. Institutions manage their relations with students in different ways. There are many examples of good practice. But some institutions need to offer more support, for example to get more feedback from students or getting students to participate in committees.
We've received compliments about the professionalism of the conduct of audit. This is very heartening. All of the effort we put into the training of the audit teams and the preparation for the new method means that it has operated smoothly.
What advice would you give to institutions to be audited during 2003-04?
We've always asked for the self-evaluation document (SED) to be a critical review. But many institutions see the SED as a public statement and want to put a positive spin on the information. Audit teams need to get beyond the spin and understand what's actually happening in an institution; how it works and what it does when issues are identified. My advice would be to make the SED as honest, straightforward and evaluative as possible. A practical tip would be for institutions to align what they say in their SEDs to the structure of our reports, in terms of the areas we look at in audit.
What challenges does teaching quality information (TQI) present?
Most of what's in TQI is uncontroversial, because it's already available. The main issue has been the requirement for institutions to publish summaries of external examiners' reports and the impact this might have on external examining as a practice. The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) has proposals for simplifying the presentation of external examiners' reports, which we hope will address these concerns.
Have institutions' perceptions of developmental engagements changed?
There was much scepticism at first. We said we would work very closely with institutions, to allow them to demonstrate the soundness of their internal procedures and use developemental engagements as preparation for audit.
The feedback has been positive. We've made it clear that they're not subject reviews. Most institutions like them, especially the chance to be engaged in, and learn from, the process. There is much support for institutional nominees and their role as full team members. It works best when the member of staff is from a different academic discipline. They can provide a different perspective and disseminate the messages that come out of the process to other parts of the institution.
How effective are institutions' internal review procedures at discipline/programme level?
The procedures are generally very good, especially following 12 years of audit and subject review. There aren't any major systemic concerns. A decade ago, there would have been a difference between ex-polytechnics and the older universities because of the new universities' CNAA background. That difference isn't there anymore. The pre-1992 universities have well-established procedures for internal management of quality.
How are further education colleges (FECs) responding to academic reviews?
Direct and indirect funding is an issue for many colleges. For some, their directly funded provision is relatively small but they may have a lot of HE activity, franchised from HEIs, which isn't subject to the same level of review.
Our relationship with FECs is a critical issue at the moment, partly due to the debate about our role in relation to Ofsted and the Adult Learning Inspectorate for inspecting FECs and whether we can work more collaboratively with them. FECs are not part of the HE sector, although they provide HE programmes. I believe FECs would like more of an audit approach to their complete HE provision. For some colleges this would reflect the growing maturity of their internal systems.
The conference that we're holding in November is part of the debate and discussion that's been going on. We've also tried to provide opportunities to promote the security of standards and quality in FECs.
What have been the key findings about higher education in further education (HE in FE)?
FECs are doing a good job. Most programmes are well designed, appropriate and well delivered, and maintaining standards. It's also fair to say that there are more concerns with confidence in standards and quality of learning provision in FE than in HE. Two issues are the management of assessment in some cases and the under-resourcing of FECs in comparison to HEIs.
What are the findings of the special review of a sample of Foundation degrees?
We've completed 33 reviews and one has been deferred. Most are delivering what they say they'll deliver in a conscientious and comprehensive way. However, there were a small number of 'no confidence' judgements and some general concerns have arisen from the reviews.
In some cases there was limited development of the linkages between HE and FE. The requirement is for foundation degrees to progress onto honours programmes. In those cases the progression routes were underdeveloped or not clearly articulated.
A second concern is the involvement of employers. Foundation degrees should be a partnership between educational providers and employers. In some cases the direct involvement of employers in the design and development of the curriculum and delivering the programmes is quite limited.
Work-based learning was also underdeveloped in some programmes. Foundation degrees should be work-focused awards or have a substantial element of work-based learning. Some included work experience, but it's not the same as having part of the curriculum delivered and assessed through the workplace.
The more successful degrees have been tailor-made to meet the specific requirements of employers. With foundation degrees for teaching assistants, for example, schools have been actively involved in the development of the curriculum - particularly supporting work-based learning.
How have students contributed to the Agency's review methods?
This has been a very positive development and students have responded well. We have been clear about the status of student information and how it is seen alongside the SED. Students must have an independent voice and make their own contribution. It's much more important that the submission is done objectively, rather than professionally. Institutions have generally respected the input students have made.
Student input has helped the review process become more student-centred and student-focused. We work with the representative bodies that exist and encourage student unions to represent as wide a range of opinion as possible. The NUS is providing additional support and guidance to students. They are taking their responsibilities very seriously in terms of developing their role in quality assurance procedures in institutions. Students want to get involved in the debates and discussions about institutional policy and strategy.
What impact does the contract for the major review of NHS-funded healthcare programmes have?
It's a large contract and a substantial part of what we do. It's also a very different approach as the Agency is one partner in a combined review process. Major review involves clinical placements and professional evaluation of student competence. This is a different set of criteria to work with. Professional competencies are a new and interesting area for us.
It's not just subject review for Department of Health-funded programmes. It's a very different approach to quality assurance. Different team composition, skill sets and approaches to the review method are needed to ensure that major review is comprehensive and able to fulfil expectations of all the partners and stakeholders.
How do you see the new methods in Scotland and Wales developing?
This is one of the big questions for the future for the Agency - the divergence of methods between different parts of the UK. We'll have apparent differences between England, Wales and Scotland. Not in terms of standards of awards, but in approaches to quality assurance - different emphasis, different nuances in the way things are managed. I don't think it's a major problem. There is sufficient commonality between the three processes to provide evidence to support common judgements. All processes look at institutional procedures and evidence about how institutions conduct their business.
The differences are mainly in presentation. The emphasis in Scotland is on enhancement as opposed to assurance, which is the English model. Over time this may lead to differences in how the methods develop. It's also partly to do with how the three methods are managed. There is the opportunity - I won't put it any stronger than that - with the different methods for institutions to develop their procedures along different, although parallel, tracks to meet what they perceive are the expectations of the Agency. I think in Scotland there will be more emphasis on enhancement activity and enhancement strategies within institutions. In England the emphasis will probably remain on demonstrating the effectiveness of quality assurance procedures.
The Welsh sector has had a close involvement with development of review and the method reflects their own particular requirements and expectations.
What activities will the Reviews Group be involved with in the future?
Once the transitional period (2003-05) audits and reviews are completed and we go onto a six-year cycle of audits, we'll have capacity to do other things. There's more work to be done in overseas audit. We're developing a methodology for collaborative provision and are committed to doing separate collaborative provision audits in the future. We'll also be concidering a methodology for reviewing distance and e-learning provision, which doesn't fit in with our existing methods.
Institutional audit in England
The first 24 institutional audits were successfully completed on time during the spring and early summer. The reports are being published on our web site within 20 weeks of the audit visit. Now we have an opportunity to see the institutional audit process in operation from beginning to end. It has been a considerable relief to find that the process works and is capable of delivering the stated aims and objectives. Informal feedback has been received from institutions and teams. Whilst there are some areas that require further guidance and support, nothing we have seen so far suggests that we need to change the Handbook for institutional audit for the rest of the transitional period (2003-05). We have held preliminary visits for autumn 2003 and spring 2004 audits. The lessons learned so far are being passed on to the institutions.
Evaluation
We are grateful for the informal feedback received to date, but are asking for more formal feedback from everyone involved in audits that have been completed. Questionnaires have been sent to institutions, team members and student groups. These questionnaires will be evaluated. The results will generate further discussions with representatives from teams and institutions so that we can fully understand the information that we have received. We will send invitations to take part in these discussions soon. Some information about the impact of the process will not be available until institutions have had time to consider their response to the findings of their audit. But we will continue to seek contributions to our evaluation process throughout the transitional period.
We are also conducting an evaluation of specific themes emerging from audit reports. By the end of the year a summary of the key features and findings of the first audits will be published.
Recruitment and training
In the summer we recruited more auditors. We are grateful to institutions that nominated individuals to join the auditor register. In the autumn and spring terms, training for new auditors and audit secretaries who have been allocated to visits will take place. The lessons learned to date are being reflected in the training. Informal feedback received from institutions indicates that the training has helped teams conduct audits in a professional and competent manner.
Collaborative audits
From 2004-05 we will be starting a programme of collaborative audits, with the majority conducted after the completion of the first round of institutional audit. The collaborative audit process is being developed and will be based on the model we are using for institutional audit. Further guidance on the process will be available by the end of the year.
Overseas audits
The reports of the overseas audits in Italy, which we carried out earlier this year, are being finalised. We have now had an opportunity to reflect on all the partnership links that were considered as part of the Italian audit, and the messages they have given us.
The management of collaborative arrangements in UK institutions continues to vary more widely than other aspects of quality assurance in the sector. Where the arrangements are well managed, the partnership benefits everyone involved. There are, however, a small number of institutions where the quality and standards of awards offered in this way do not fully correspond with provision offered more directly. A specific point in relation to the role of students in a partnership was also identified. Where the UK institution has encouraged strong links with the students, the partnership benefits from a greater understanding of the rights and responsibilities of all those involved.
The overseas visit in 2004 will be to Sri Lanka and the institutions that will be taking part in that audit have been contacted.
Nicola Channon
Teaching quality information
Following the publication of Information on quality and standards in higher education (HEFCE 02/15), also known as the Cooke Report, HEFCE has progressed the implementation of the recommendations. It has commissioned projects on the methods for publishing information, guidance for collecting and using student feedback, and the development of a national survey of student opinion.
The Higher Education Research Opportunities (HERO) team conducted the information project with six higher education institutions. The outcomes have led to a number of amendments to the teaching quality information (TQI) requirements, including proposals for the presentation of information on the HERO web site. Perhaps more important, though, are the changes that are being made to the contentious proposals that would have required summaries of external examiners' reports to have been published. Under revised arrangements now agreed, these will be reduced to formal confirmation (or not) that three key assessment requirements have been met, and a voluntary opportunity to offer additional comments if the examiner wishes to do so. Institutions will be expected to meet the TQI requirements by December 2004.
The 2003-04 contract between the Agency and HEFCE includes a commitment to keep the implementation of the TQI requirements under review. We have been asked to develop and agree a method for monitoring and reporting on institutions' adherence to the requirements, and criteria for identifying and responding to any 'causes for concern' resulting from the published TQI. HEFCE, together with HERO and ourselves, are considering the methodological issues associated with this exercise and will be making proposals for managing the process. This activity will focus on the presence and currency of information published by institutions on the HERO web site. In October 2003 HEFCE will be publishing formal guidence on the production of TQI. In due course institutional audit will monitor the accuracy and reliability of TQI material.
Stephen Jackson
top
Subject-level reviews in HEIs in England
Developmental engagements
We have just evaluated 113 developmental engagements undertaken in England between January and June 2003. The developmental engagements process, part of the transitional arrangements in English higher education institutions (HEIs) in 2002-05, was outlined in higher quality 12. The evaluation drew on questionnaires completed by both institutions and team members. It culminated in an evaluation seminar involving 30 members from developmental engagement teams.
All developmental engagements resulted in judgements of 'confidence' in standards and the quality of learning opportunities.
Response to the engagements has generally been very positive. They are seen as developmental because they are open and transparent; provide good preparation for institutional audit; facilitate dialogue between the institution and the team; encourage identification and sharing of good practice; and permit frank comment on behalf of the institution in its self-evaluation documentation. Innovative features of the process - an institutional nominee as a full team member and the option for subject level students to make a written submission to the team - were all viewed positively.
We are addressing the two most prominent concerns identified through the evaluation: the need to ensure that the institutional nominees feel full and equal members of the team and ensuring consistency in the application of method at different institutions.
These findings have helped to inform revisions to the training programme for those taking part in developmental engagements in 2003-04. Institutions and team members have been briefed about the findings and the minor changes to procedure.
In 2003-04 there will be 60 developmental engagements. These reviews will finish in July 2004 and another evaluation exercise will take place at the end of the academic year.
Adam Biscoe
Academic review in HEIs 2002-03
We completed 20 academic reviews as part of the transitional arrangements. They covered accountancy, computing, electronic engineering, English, environmental sciences, environmental studies, history, law, and social policy and administration and social work. Of these, 13 reviews resulted in judgements of 'confidence' in standards and 'commendable' in each of the three aspects of the quality of learning opportunities. Five reviews resulted in judgements of 'confidence' in standards and 'commendable' in two aspects of the quality of learning opportunities.
The reports of these reviews show that institutions are making explicit use of subject benchmark statements and that generally there is also a clear relationship between programme aims and intended learning outcomes. However, review teams have encouraged institutions to make the language of programme specifications more accessible to students.
Curricula are appropriate and help students achieve the intended learning outcomes. They are also current and responsive to industrial, local and professional needs, as well as to the expectations of external agencies. Research and scholarship actively enhance the curriculum and students' learning experience.
An appropriate range of assessment methods are used, reflecting well-designed assessment strategies. Rigorous assessment practice - including marking, moderation and thorough feedback to students - is typical. Assessment criteria are generally explicit and made clear to students. Areas for further improvement were identified, including student workload and assessment scheduling, and the match between institutions' learning objectives, assessment instruments and assessment criteria.
Most reviews confirmed appropriate levels of student achievement. A number of reports cited high standards and added value in relation to the particular profile of their student groups. These achievements reflected effective guidance and support. Where it was clear that weaker students were not completing awards, recommendations were made regarding the review of retention and achievement rates.
In 2003-04, 27 reviews will be carried out in 12 HEIs in:
- Accountancy
- Architecture
- Business and management
- Computing
- Dance, drama and performing arts
- Earth, environmental sciences and environmental studies
- Engineering
- English
- Geography/geology
- History
- Law
- Modern languages
- Music
- Social policy and administration and social work.
We still welcome applications for specialist reviewers in these subjects.
Alexa Christou
Learning from subject review
At the end of 2003, we will publish Learning from subject review: 1993-2001. This important report will provide a synopsis of the major trends and findings following the completion of the full cycle of teaching quality assessments (TQA) and subject reviews in England and Northern Ireland, and consider the extent to which these processes achieved their aims. The report is aimed at UK higher education quality managers, policy makers, academic practitioners and researchers looking at pedagogical issues. It may also be of interest to overseas policy makers and practitioners.
The TQA/subject review cycle, focusing on the quality of the student experience, was the largest exercise of external review ever undertaken in higher education within the UK. It resulted in the publication of 2,904 subject-level reports for individual institutions and 62 subject overview reports. The report demonstrates that the main aims set by HEFCE were achieved. These were to ensure the accountability of public funds, provide accessible public information, and encourage the sharing and publicising of good practice.
Adam Biscoe
Higher education in English further education colleges
Academic review of directly-funded FECs
Between February 2002 and June 2003, we conducted 153 academic reviews of programmes directly-funded by HEFCE in FECs. The Handbook for academic review sets out the method used. Most reviews were in engineering, computing, and social policy and administration and social work. The majority of programmes reviewed led to HND or HNC awards.
Judgements for standards and quality
Out of 211 judgements for academic standards, 95 per cent were of 'confidence' in the subject under review. Where there was a joint review, each subject had a separate judgement in standards. For the quality of student learning opportunities there were only two failing judgements; one in student progression and another in learning resources. Across all subjects the highest percentage of commendable judgements (59 per cent) was awarded to teaching and learning, and student progression. Learning resources received 39 per cent of commendable judgements.
Feedback from focus groups
We recently conducted a series of focus groups to verify the results of the comments received in our evaluation questionnaires. College representatives, specialist reviewers and coordinators attended these events. The results confirmed that while colleges found the reviews challenging, they also found the exercise useful and appreciated the way they were conducted - in a spirit of dialogue and openness. They also reported that much was learnt from the experience.
Learning from HE in FE
We are now working on a report that focuses on the good practice in HE in FE identified in the programme of academic reviews conducted to date. This report will be published by the end of the year.
A review of the individual reports has resulted in the following encouraging findings. The programmes are vocational in their content and in the teaching and learning methods adopted, with transferable skills embedded in the curriculum. Providers offer a range of modes of study. This flexibility provides significant opportunities for mature students, who would not normally have entered a university environment. Approximately 30 per cent of students continued their studies to degree level either at the college or another higher education provider. Students value the small class sizes and the contact with their tutor. They appreciate the considerable personal and academic support given to them by dedicated and committed teaching staff, which is often instrumental in their achievement of their award. Students confirmed that they were involved in the monitoring and evaluation of their programmes, largely through module and periodic questionnaires, the results being included in the annual self-assessment report.
The conclusions that can be drawn from the judgements made and the positive comments found in the reports are very reassuring for the college sector. The vast majority of reviews show that they are providing courses that meet the appropriate academic standards and provide students with a positive learning experience.
New subjects for 2003-04
The next cycle of reviews in FECs, starting in October 2003, are mainly in art and design; dance, drama and performing arts; and communications, media, film and television studies. A complete list of the subjects can be found on page 53 of the Handbook for academic review. We are holding more workshops to help subject leaders prepare for academic review and briefing sessions for subject review facilitators. We still welcome applications for specialist reviewers in the subjects being reviewed in this cycle, especially from those who have experience of teaching higher education in FECs and/or experience of BTEC higher national awards.
Penny McCracken
Gillian Hayes
HE in FEC Liaison Group and Forum
In 2002, the Agency established two consultative bodies for further education providers in England and Wales, the HE in FEC Liaison Group and the FEC Forum. The aim of both groups is to provide an opportunity to discuss matters of interest to colleges, related organisations and the Agency.
The Liaison Group includes Agency officers, representatives of FECs offering higher education, plus one representative each of the Association of Colleges (AoC), the Learning and Skills Development Agency (LSDA), and HEIs with FEC interests. The FEC representatives are drawn from across the range of providers of HE in FE.
The Forum is comprised of the Liaison Group and representatives of the Adult Learning Inspectorate, Edexcel, HEFCE, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (HEFCW), the Learning and Skills Council (LSC), Ofsted, and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA).
The Liaison Group and Forum provide opportunities for:
- exchange of information on developments in the sector;
- the Agency to update the sector on work which relates to the FECs;
- FECs, AoC and LSDA to update the Agency on their work;
- collaboration that promotes the enhancement of the student experience and the sharing of good practice;
- the development of methods of review within HE in FECs;
- discussion of the impact at college level of the various review and inspection regimes;
- the identification and discussion of issues of common concern and interest;
- consultation on the development of policy and strategy.
Meetings take place two or three times each year and debate has been lively and constructive. The most pressing themes for delegates have been the regulatory burden placed on FECs and the lack of celebration, by some commentators, of the success of HE in FECs.
Alan Bradshaw
Higher Education Further
On Friday 21 November 2003, we will be holding a national one-day conference, Higher Education Further, to discuss the new forms of higher education. The conference brings together further education colleges and higher education institutions. It examines the achievements of higher education delivered by FECs, consortia, specialist colleges, and 'mixed economy' colleges.
The conference will take place from 10:00 to 16:00 at the East Midlands Conference Centre, University Park, Nottingham.
The principal speakers include Peter Williams (Chief Executive of the Agency) and Penny Blackie (Higher Education Partnerships Manager, City College Manchester). There will be parallel sessions offering the chance to debate with national agencies, and workshops on themes such as diversity of expectations in higher education and good practice. There will also be an opportunity to report good practice in a poster session. Please email y.jones@qaa.ac.uk for more information.
Conference programme:
10:00 - 10:30 Coffee and registration Poster session set-up
10:30 - 10:45 Introduction: Peter Williams, Chief Executive, Quality Assurance
Agency
Morning theme: Diversity of Expectation in Higher Education, chaired by Peter
Williams
10:45 - 11:00 Outcomes of subject/academic review
Gillian Hayes, Quality Assurance Agency
11:00 - 11:30 Keynote speaker: Diverse delivery and good practice
Penny Blackie, Higher Education Partnerships Manager, City College Manchester
11:30 - 12:30 Seminar groups integrating representatives of higher education institutions and further education colleges
Morning seminar themes are transmitted to the plenary and then to the afternoon parallel sessions
12:30 - 13:30 Lunch with Poster session
13:30 - 14:00 Plenary
Morning seminar questions reported and then sent to afternoon parallel sessions
Afternoon theme: Good Practice, chaired by Valerie Stead, member of the Agency's
Board of Directors
14:00 - 14:30 Keynote speech
14:30 - 15:30 Parallel sessions Views from and questions to:
- Widening participation group
- Funding group
- Edexcel - Jill Lanning
- QAA - Stephen Jackson
- Foundation Degree Forward - Derek Longhurst
15:30 - 16:00 Keynote speaker: Higher Education Further: the Future
Dr
John Brennan, Chief Executive Officer, Association of Colleges
16:00 Opportunity for informal discussions and networking across the sector
Light refreshments/Close
Review of foundation degrees
England
Between February and June 2003, we conducted 34 reviews of individual foundation degree programmes. The sample of programmes was selected to reflect types of institution, subject, mode of study and location. They were divided equally between the prototypes projects that received HEFCE development funding and other institutions.
The Handbook for the review of foundation degrees in England 2002-03 set out the method. From 2003-04, the arrangements for foundation degrees will be considered as part of the institutional audit of the higher education institution that awards the qualification. In addition, we have been asked by HEFCE to include the review of directly-funded foundation degrees in the programme of academic review of higher education in further education colleges. We are discussing the arrangements for this with the colleges concerned.
The judgements that can be made are: 'confidence' or 'no confidence' in the emerging standards and emerging achievements of students ('emerging' because at the time of the reviews few programmes had graduated their first intake); 'confidence' or 'no confidence' in the quality of learning opportunities, together with the monitoring and enhancement arrangements. Of the judgements received to date, 87 per cent of provision obtained two confidence judgements.
In higher quality 12, we stated that the individual reports would remain confidential to the providers, the Agency and the evaluators appointed by HEFCE. In November 2003, however, we will be publishing an overview report. This will draw out the key findings and focus on examples of good practice and innovation. Because of the diversity in subjects, mode of study and size of the consortia within the sample, the findings are based on small numbers of programmes. The report has been written to help the sector in the future development of foundation degree programmes.
Northern Ireland
Between February and May 2003, there were seven reviews of foundation degrees delivered at colleges in Northern Ireland and validated by the University of Ulster and The Queen's University of Belfast. In all cases the HEI was appropriately monitoring the quality and standards of its awards. The reviews were carried out in collaboration with the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI), which also undertook a survey of the delivery of the programmes in the colleges. The result has been a joint report, which is on the web site of both the Agency and the Department for Education in Northern Ireland's ETI section.
Penny McCracken
Major review of NHS-funded health professions programmes
Introduction
The Department of Health, in partnership with the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC), the Health Professions Council (HPC) and the Workforce Development Confederations (WDCs), has contracted with the Agency to implement and conduct major review of NHS-funded healthcare programmes in England from February 2003 to December 2006. The cycle of major review activity will start in January 2004. The purpose and action of major review, as part of a broader quality assurance framework, is outlined in Streamlining quality assurance in healthcare education: purpose and action (Department of Health 2003). We are working with the partners and stakeholders to achieve streamlining and reduce the burden on health schools, departments and clinical placements.
Achievements so far include the NMC agreeing to accept the self-evaluation document produced for major review as the higher education institution's annual report for that academic year. NMC visitors will be reviewers and use the evidence drawn from the major review event to produce the annual monitoring report for specific provision for NMC. This means the higher education institution and NHS Trusts do not have a separate NMC Visitor event in the year of major review. HPC are revising their quality assurance processes through three professional liaison groups working through to the end of 2003. We will coordinate with HPC and the allied health professions through these groups to continue the streamlining and integration. WDCs and the DH are in the process of reviewing the contracts with higher education institutions; an outcome is expected next spring. It is expected that WDCs will use the published report as an equivalent to that of a fundamental review or annual contract review, reducing the necessity for a separate event.
Provision and reviewers
The subjects/professions that will be reviewed, in the first instance, are occupational therapy, radiography, nursing, midwifery, health visiting, clinical psychology, audiology, speech and language therapy, physiotherapy, orthoptics, prosthetics and orthotics, podiatry (chiropody) and operation department practitioners. Other professions may well be included during the review cycle.
Nominations for reviewers are proceeding well for many professions, although we lack nominations in audiology, clinical psychology, podiatry, orthoptics and operating department practitioners. Please refer to the Major review of healthcare programmes section for information on the criteria and the nominations forms.
Process
The approach reflects the specific characteristics of healthcare programmes, particularly the complementary and interrelated elements of theory and practice. The Handbook for major review of healthcare programmes, published in July 2003, has been developed and refined in consultation with the Department of Health and its partners.
Major review has some key characteristics
- It is a collaborative initiative to assure the quality of professional healthcare programmes, in terms of standards and the professional requirements of a health service designed around the patient.
- In making judgements it addresses both the theoretical and practice components, however and wherever delivered.
- Reviewers are drawn from practice as well as academic backgrounds.
- All review teams are composed of both academics and practitioners with relevant professional qualifications.
- It uses NHS policies and protocols - for example national service frameworks, workforce development confederation guidelines, and professional and statutory regulatory body requirements - as points of reference.
- It considers the breadth and quality of interprofessional learning.
- Reports document judgements in relation to fitness for purpose, fitness for practice and fitness for award.
Judgements
The review team expresses 'confidence' or 'no confidence' in:
- academic and practitioner standards (learning outcomes; curriculum design; assessment; student achievement) for each benchmarked area.
The team also awards 'commendable', 'approved' or 'failing' for:
- the quality of learning opportunities in learning and teaching; student progression; and learning resources and their effective utilisation.
Reports and the Improvement Agenda
As part of the published report of each major review, the providers - higher education institutions and WDCs - prepare an action plan. This plan states how the providers will build on the strengths identified by the review team and address any weaknesses. The action plan provides the focus for on-going quality monitoring and enhancement.
If you have any queries please contact p.lerolland@qaa.ac.uk, telephone 01452 557018 or Elaine Harries Jenkins at e.h.jenkins@qaa.ac.uk, telephone 01452 557120.
Patricia Le Rolland
Next > Part 2
Top
QAA updates
QAAtweets
QAAtube