Institutional audit: England

Key features and findings of the first audits

Executive summary

The institutional audit process for England was launched in the summer of 2002 and the first audit visits took place in January 2003. This report provides the higher education sector with some early information about the key features and findings of the first institutional audits, based on a study of the first eight published reports.

The study was limited in nature and the report sample was small. This report does not, therefore, attempt to draw any general conclusions about what the key features and findings of the first audits might signify for the sector more widely.

Key features

The institutional audit process has several features that make it distinctive from previous audit-based methods operated by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (the Agency). This report contains information about how those features were realised in the first audits. It provides, for example, details of the format and outcomes of the discipline audit trails, of the frequency and focuses of thematic enquiries, and of the nature and use of written submissions from student representative bodies

Key findings

Each audit report sets out the audit team's judgements in two key areas. It also highlights features of good practice and makes recommendations for further consideration by the institution. This report contains information about the key findings of the first audits. The published reports confirm that broad confidence can reasonably be placed in the soundness of the management of quality and standards by the eight institutions, although six reports moderate this confidence judgement in a variety of different ways. The reports also confirm that the majority of institutions are moving in an appropriate and timely manner towards meeting Higher Education Funding Council for England's expectations about the information on quality and standards that should be available within institutions, or published, by the end of 2004.

The reports indicate there is a wide range of good practice within the eight institutions, with particular strengths in a cluster of areas relating to the provision of student support. They also make recommendations for further consideration, particularly in relation to institutional frameworks for assuring quality and standards, the management and monitoring of collaborative provision, and the use of management information, particularly statistical data. None of the eight reports identify any area where there is good reason for a full review at discipline level to be carried out, or for an action plan at either the discipline or institutional level to be implemented.

This report looks in detail at the findings of the audits in two particular areas: the ways in which institutions are using the academic infrastructure (The framework for higher education qualifications (FHEQ), the Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education (the Code), and subject benchmark statements) in the management of quality and the setting of academic standards; and ways in which they are using external participation in internal procedures as a means of safeguarding and enhancing quality and standards. Overall, the eight reports suggest that institutions are engaging actively and appropriately with the academic infrastructure, although further work is needed in some areas. The reports also indicate that there is wide use of external participants in internal arrangements, with strong and scrupulous use of independent external examiners in summative assessment procedures. Some of the institutions are asked to give attention to aspects of their arrangements for the participation of independent external persons in the internal periodic review of disciplines or programmes. The majority of the eight institutions currently lack systems for collecting and responding to feedback from employers.

As more institutional audit reports are published, the Agency intends to provide regular updates for the sector on the information that they provide and, in due course, to provide evaluative reports on the potential significance of the findings for the sector as a whole.