Memorandum 23
Submission from the Quality Assurance
Agency for Higher Education
STUDENTS AND
UNIVERSITIES
1. Introduction
1.1 The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher
Education (QAA) was established in 1997 to provide independent
assessment of how higher education institutions in the UK maintain
their academic standards and quality.
1.2 The primary responsibility for academic standards
and quality rests with individual institutions. QAA reviews and
reports on how well they meet those responsibilities, identifies
good practice and makes recommendations for improvement.
1.3 We visit institutions to conduct our audits,
make judgements and publish reports, but we are not an inspectorate
or a regulator and do not have statutory powers. We aim to ensure
that institutions have effective processes in place to secure
their academic standards, but we do not judge the standards themselves.
1.4 QAA publishes a Code of practice[49],
which guides institutions to ensure students have a good learning
experience and achieve a worthwhile qualification. We use the
Code of practice as a reference point in our audits of
institutions.
1.5 We are also responsible for the national
frameworks and mechanisms that are used by institutions to design
and assure the quality of their courses and degree standards.[50]
While the freedom of institutions to design and run their own
courses is important, it is equally important that degrees from
different institutions across the UK are broadly comparable.
1.6 Based on the evidence available, through
individual audits and thematic analysis of series of audits, QAA
believes that the UK has a fundamentally sound higher education
system. Institutions are committed to maintaining academic standards
in ways that meet the needs of today's world, and to providing
students with an experience that is worthwhile in itself and that
enhances their career prospects.
1.7 We believe that the sector's reputation
is enhanced by the fact that it has an effective system of external
review which can, and does, highlight areas where there may be
concerns. Experience shows that most institutions respond swiftly
and appropriately to our concerns.
1.8 We have restricted this submission to
those areas for which QAA has some responsibility or particular
expertise, and to our work in England only.
2 Responsibilities for assuring quality
2.1 HEFCE has a statutory responsibility
to secure provision for assessing the quality of education provided
in institutions for whose activities it provides, or is considering
providing, financial support. To do so, it contracts annually
with QAA to carry out external reviews. Academic standards are
the responsibility of individual autonomous institutions, which
work within an agreed Quality Assurance Framework.[51]
2.2 QAA is an independent body. Our audits are
funded in part through the contract with HEFCE, and in part through
subscriptions paid by higher education institutions.
2.3 QAA also independently publishes a series
of papers known as Outcomes from institutional audit. This
offers a broader analysis of the themes, strengths and weaknesses
that can be identified from groups of audit reports and aims to
promote good practice.
2.4 The current arrangement of responsibilities
has great strengths. HEFCE delivers large sums of public money
to institutions, and it is right that it should be required to
seek assurance that this money is being spent on providing high
quality education. Institutions need a way of demonstrating that
their autonomy is meeting national expectations. QAA has the expertise
to provide that assurance and to raise concerns and recommend
action where necessary.[52]
3 Admissions
3.1 Section 10 of QAA's Code of practice
supports institutions in developing effective admission policies.
The evidence from audit reports shows that generally this is being
implemented effectively by institutions.[53]
The reports identify strengths in outreach activity, the use of
management information systems to monitor recruitment and admissions,
and the care with which procedures are carried out.
3.2 Our audit reports show that, increasingly,
institutions are developing better ways of improving access and
widening participation. To a large extent this means that they
are satisfying the intention of the Code of practice; that
procedures used to attract, recruit and admit students should
be clear, fair, explicit and applied consistently.
3.4 We have seen notable features of good
practice, ranging from engagement in local community activities
and involvement in partnerships at a regional level, to the development
of links with local employers and targeted support for particular
groups of students. Successful strategies for retaining students
form an integral part of many widening participation initiatives.
Widening participation through Access to HE[54]
3.4 As well as promoting good practice,
QAA manages the recognition of Access to HE courses, through which
students with few, if any, qualifications can be prepared for
higher education. These are successful in facilitating access
and helping the sector widen participation.
3.5 In 2007, 4.5 per cent of all applicants accepted
for places through UCAS were students with an access qualification;
a total of 14,590.
3.6 The majority of Access to HE students
are aged 19-30. Analysis[55]
shows that while, in general, students from more privileged backgrounds
are more likely to enter higher education, those with an access
qualification are more likely to be from a deprived background.
UCAS data shows that 46.7 per cent of English access applicants
came from the most deprived areas (by index of multiple deprivation)
compared with 23.8 per cent of other applicants.
3.7 UCAS also reports that a higher proportion
of applicants from access courses (31.5 per cent) were non-white
than applicants in general (21.7 per cent). The proportion of
Black applicants was nearly three times higher among access applicants
than among non-access applicants.
4 Teaching and research
4.1 One of the greatest strengths of UK
higher education is its diversity, with institutions tailoring
their methods of teaching and learning to their different objectives
and strengths.
4.2 Since 2002, QAA has conducted 187 institutional
audits. Until 2005, five judgements of limited confidence were
made and one of no confidence.
Since then, we have made one judgement of limited
confidence in the quality of learning opportunities, and three
of limited confidence in standards.[56]
In all cases the institutions made the necessary improvements
in the expected timescale.
4.3 Audit reports show that strategies to
improve the quality of teaching often centre on the provision
of comprehensive staff development programmes. They might offer
certified teaching and learning programmes for new staff, many
accredited by the Higher Education Academy; a wide breadth of
development opportunities for other staff; and programmes of peer
review for developing teaching excellence.[57]
4.4 There is, however, greater variability
in development opportunities for part-time and visiting staff.
A number of reports have also noted that training for postgraduate
research students with teaching responsibilities is not always
thorough.
4.5 Students' learning experiences are,
however, shaped not only by the quality of their teaching. As
well as commending levels of academic guidance, our audit reports
have commended student support (including pastoral support), links
with industry and with other professional bodies, and opportunities
for student engagement with quality assurance systems in their
institutions.
5 Degree classification
5.1 A reliable and consistent way of describing
students' achievements is crucial to all in the higher education
community and beyond. QAA has argued that the current system of
degree classification no longer provides this.[58]
We support the Burgess Group recommendations on the replacement
of the current system with the Higher Education Achievement Report
(HEAR).
5.2 However, it would be a serious mistake to
confuse a flawed classification system with falling academic standards.
Irrespective of the classification system, QAA is confident that
a graduating student with a UK degree will always have achieved
at least a basic and appropriate academic standard.
5.3 This confidence derives from the fact
that there are nationally agreed expectations about the generic
standards of academic awards (eg honours degrees). These are set
out in The framework for higher education qualifications
in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (FHEQ),[59]
and must be met by institutions before
qualifications are awarded. QAA's audits include a check on this.
5.4 Nonetheless, increases in the numbers
of students achieving firsts and upper seconds have led to allegations
of "degree inflation", and have contributed to an undermining
of confidence in the degree classification system.
5.5 One explanation for this phenomenon
is that as teaching and learning methods increasingly focus on
supporting students to achieve the intended learning outcomes
of their course, so methods of assessment have also changed. Institutions
publish the assessment criteria necessary for achieving particular
standards and students arrange their learning in ways that will
enable them to meet those criteria.[60]
5.6 At the same time assessment has moved
away from a "norm referenced" approach whereby students
were assessed in comparison with their peers of the same year,
with a certain proportion achieving the higher grades, towards
a system whereby all students meeting the criteria for a high
grade are awarded that grade.
5.7 In order to maintain confidence in the
value of degrees, QAA has taken steps to ensure that there is
a clearer mechanism through which individuals and organisations
are able to alert QAA when they feel that academic standards are
being jeopardised.[61]
The scheme, known as "Causes for Concern", has been
widely publicised. QAA publishes the outcomes of any cases that
progress to a full enquiry.
The effectiveness of QAA in monitoring degree
standards
5.8 In the UK, degrees are legally "owned"
by individual institutions, which are the awarding bodies responsible
for academic standards. QAA does not control or directly monitor
the standards of individual degrees, but it does check the ways
in which institutions discharge their responsibilities for maintaining
standards.
5.9 Within this framework, QAA's audit processes
show that confidence can be placed in institutions' stewardship
of academic standards. Our audits pay close attention to this
area, and our Code of practice covers assessment (section
6), external examining (section 4), and programme approval, monitoring
and review (section 7).
5.10 We are also responsible for the national
frameworks and reference points that are used by institutions
to design and assure the quality of their courses and the standards
of their degrees.
5.11 These include the FHEQ, which describes
the nationally agreed levels of achievement represented by higher
education qualifications. It is important to distinguish between
these national reference points and the specifics of individual
institutions' grading systems.
5.12 We publish subject benchmark statements,[62]
which set out expectations about standards of degrees in particular
subjects and are used by programme leaders to help them design
their courses. QAA has also produced guidelines to help those
preparing programme specifications,[63]
which are public statements of what students can expect to experience
and gain from a particular course at a given institution.
5.13 QAA's audits start from the principle
that institutions are individually responsible for the academic
standards of the degrees they award.
As part of our audits, we check to ensure that
students are provided with clear assessment criteria, that the
process is transparent, and that assessment boards operate fairly
and do not put academic standards at risk.
5.14 Almost all audit reports show that
there can be confidence in the measures institutions take to safeguard
the academic standards of their awards.
5.15 These measures include the implementation
of consistent assessment policies and criteria, the provision
of feedback to students, and the use of external examiners.
5.16 However, the majority of audits carried
out between 2004 and 2006 included recommendations linked to aspects
of assessment practice.[64]
Specifically, several made reference to the practices of assessment
boards, with a few raising concerns about the equity of treatment
of students.
5.17 Our reports also highlight challenges
in the arrangements for joint and combined honours students.[65]
For these students, it is particularly important that they are
provided with clear and timely information and with high levels
of academic and personal support. In a few audit reports, it has
been noted that classification rules could make it less likely
that students on joint and combined honours are able to achieve
a first class award.
5.18 We believe that QAA is monitoring effectively
whether individual universities are maintaining the standards
of the degrees they award, bearing in mind the freedom of action
implied by institutional autonomy.
The relationship between degree classification
and portability
5.19 UK higher education deservedly enjoys
a very good reputation internationally. QAA has helped to ensure
that UK academic standards are recognised in Europe and around
the world.
5.20 As part of the Bologna Process, which is
working towards a common framework for higher education across
Europe, QAA is now completing the process of verifying that the
FHEQ is compatible with the Framework for Qualifications
of the European Higher Education Area.[66]
5.21 This will assist with student (and
labour) mobility around Europe to the extent that UK degrees will
be recognised more readily as part of the same framework as degrees
from elsewhere in Europe.
5.22 However, in the longer term, the portability
of UK higher education awards will depend on the availability
of transparent information about students' achievements (preferably
through the HEAR and the compatible European Diploma Supplement[67])
and course content (through programme specifications).
6 Student support and engagement
6.1 QAA is committed to engaging with students,
and we do so in a number of ways.
6.2 In 2007 we appointed our first student Board
member. Students will soon be included as full members of our
audit teams; we shall be consulting students on the development
of a new method of audit to replace the current process; and we
are keen to help students participate in quality assurance in
their institutions. We have reported on students' participation
in institutions' own internal reviews,[68]
and our audit process invites written submissions from students.
6.3 In spring 2008 we undertook a pilot
project involving student observers on six audit teams. The pilot
showed that students felt comfortable and confident with the process,
and that they could participate effectively as full members of
the team. They emphasised that they should not focus on "student
issues", but should add a student perspective to the whole
process.[69]
6.4 Auditors also commented favourably on
the pilot, while recognising that student auditors would change
the nature of "peer review" as it currently operates.
6.5 A consultation is currently underway
on the final proposals and taking into account the need for full
training, we hope to have students as full members of audit teams
by early 2010.
6.6 QAA works closely with the National
Union of Students on joint events to support student representation
and to help students understand the process of audit. Feedback
received from these events is very positive.
Non-completion by students
6.7 Not all students successfully complete
their courses. But no student should fail to complete because
of inadequate teaching or the lack of academic or personal support.
6.8 QAA's audits look at the level of support
provided to different groups of students.[70]
Reports from 2004-06 show an increasing amount of activity focused
on supporting students from backgrounds currently under-represented
in higher education.
6.9 There is no evidence that this is at
the expense of supporting other groups of students, but institutions
with a strong commitment to widening participation and with a
consequently diverse student body face particular challenges in
retaining students.
6.10 Some institutions have developed separate
student retention strategies, and many have been identified by
audit as examples of good practice. For example, a project may
refer students to specialist staff for counselling, mathematics
support or essay-writing skills; others recognise the special
significance of a student's first year, and continue to provide
support for Access to HE students through the student recruitment
office during this time. In one case, a university monitored non-attendance,
and targeted support through a caseworker to those students deemed
most likely to withdraw.
6.11 Careers guidance is also an important
element of support and retention. Our Code of practice
encourages institutions to show students how the skills and knowledge
they gain during their studies will help them in their future
careers. Careers guidance is most effective when it is provided
in close collaboration with employers and takes account of developments
in the world of work.
6.12 In addition to preparing students for
employment, it is expected that careers advice of this sort will
demonstrate the worth of completing their studies. The Code
of practice also encourages institutions to cater for the
special needs of students who may be disadvantaged in the labour
market.
6.13 QAA will publish revised guidelines
on Personal Development Planning (PDP) in early 2009. PDP helps
make the outcomes of learning more explicit. When students are
clear about what is expected of them and what they, in turn, might
expect of higher education, the quality of learning improves.
The process can strengthen students' capacity to reflect upon
their own learning and achievement and to plan for their own personal,
educational and career development.
7 SUMMARY
7.1 UK higher education has good quality
assurance processes in place, and there can be public confidence
in the structures and systems that institutions use to maintain
academic standards and deliver a high quality learning experience
for their students. This has been achieved in the context of ever-rising
student numbers, an increasing diversity in the student population
and limited resources.
7.2 QAA externally verifies and reports on institutions'
performance in assuring their quality and standards. When we identify
areas of concern, we recommend action. Institutions take our recommendations
seriously and make the necessary improvements swiftly. More broadly,
QAA identifies developments in HE that might impact upon quality
and standards and alerts institutions to these.
7.3 Institutions are committed to upholding
the standards of the degrees they award. We are confident that
a person who has a degree from a UK university has achieved an
appropriate academic standard.
7.4 On degree classifications, however,
QAA believes that the system currently in place does not provide
the required level of information about achievement for students
or employers and we welcome the work of the Burgess Group and
the HEAR initiative.
January 2009
49 Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality
and standards in higher education is available at: www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/codeofpractice Back
50
See www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure Back
51
The Quality Assurance Framework is agreed by HEFCE, Universities
UK, GuildHE and QAA Back
52
See QAA's self-evaluation report for the European Association
for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA), and ENQA's review
of QAA: attached, and www.qaa.ac.uk/international/ENQA/ Back
53
Outcomes from institutional audit: Recruitment and admission of
students, Second series: www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/institutionalAudit/outcomes/series2/RAS08.asp Back
54
Access to HE is a registered trademark Back
55
Key statistics 2008 is available at: www.accesstohe.ac.uk/partners/statistics/2008/keyStats.asp Back
56
During 2005-2007 there were also 30 separate audits of collaborative
provision, which returned two judgements of limited confidence Back
57
Outcomes from institutional audit: staff support and development
arrangements, Second series: www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/institutionalAudit/outcomes/series2/StaffSupDev.asp Back
58
Quality matters; April 2007: The classification of degree awards:
www.qaa.ac.uk/enhancement/qualityMatters Back
59
See www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/FHEQ/ Back
60
Outcomes from institutional audit Series 1 overview, paragraphs
47-52: www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/institutionalAudit/outcomes/closingoverview08.asp Back
61
See www.qaa.ac.uk/causesforconcern Back
62
See www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/benchmark Back
63
Guidelines for preparing programme specifications (2006): www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/programSpec/ Back
64
Outcomes from institutional audit: Assessment of students, Second
series: www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/institutionalAudit/outcomes/series2/AssessmentStudents.asp Back
65
Outcomes from institutional audit: Arrangements for joint, combined
and multidisciplinary programmes, Second series: www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/institutionalAudit/outcomes/series2/ArrangementsJCMP.asp Back
66
Report of the FHEQ self-certification advisory group, November
2008 Back
67
See www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/Publications/Bookshop/Documents/Diploma%20Supplement.pdf Back
68
Student membership of audit and review teams: learning from periodic
review: www.qaa.ac.uk/events/smart08/StudentPaper1.asp Back
69
Student membership of audit and review teams: feedback from student
observers and team members (2008): www.qaa.ac.uk/events/smart08/StudentPaper3.asp Back
70
Outcomes from institutional audit: institutions' arrangements
to support widening participation and access to higher education,
Second series: www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/institutionalAudit/outcomes/series2/SupportForWidening.asp Back
| 
