Higher education review work

UK degree-awarding bodies (mainly universities) set their own standards for the degrees and other qualifications they award (academic degrees), but since most courses are partly or entirely publicly funded (including through student loans) there is a requirement that they undergo external review to demonstrate that a national 'threshold' standard is met, and that quality is satisfactory. QAA is the body that undertakes this independent role in the UK. It does so through processes of peer review. Reviewers have extensive experience of higher education at a senior level, or are current or recent students.

While there are some differences between the methods used by QAA to achieve this, they have some key features in common. All reviews check that UK expectations are met; currently this is done by benchmarking the provision against QAA's Quality Code (see below).^[8] Other resources used for benchmarks of academic standards include the 'subject benchmark statements' (maintained by QAA in consultation with the academic community), relevant qualifications and credit frameworks, institutions' own rules and handbooks, standards set by professional bodies, and the European Standards and Guidelines maintained by the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA).

Each review results in a published report containing judgements on whether UK expectations are met. Separate judgements comment on academic standards, academic quality, and the public information provided about courses. Reports include recommendations for improvement, citations of good practice, and affirmations of actions taken by the higher education provider to improve since the last review.

QAA's review methods are informed by a self-evaluation submitted in advance by each university or college, and by a 'student submission' - a commentary by its students. At time of writing, review places an emphasis on the existence of robust academic management structures, and policies and approaches that enable national expectations to be fulfilled, combined with evidence that this is happening. Evidence is obtained in a variety of ways, including interviews with relevant individuals and structured discussions with student and staff focus groups.

QAA reviews do not generally look at individual courses or programmes of study, neither do they review or evaluate students' work.

Guidance on quality and standards

In cooperation with the UK higher education sector, QAA maintains the UK Quality Code for Higher Education (Quality Code - see below), the subject benchmark statements^[9] for bachelor's and master's degrees, and other guidance for helping higher education providers to meet agreed UK expectations. Where appropriate, QAA also works with professional, regulatory and statutory bodies, and employers, to ensure that its guidance is fit for purpose. Draft guidance is published on QAA's website (via a tab on the home page), where it is accessible for public consultation before being formally published.

Investigation of complaints and concerns

QAA investigates allegations of 'systemic failings' by higher education providers, whereas the Office of the Independent Adjudicator deals with individual complaints and grievances. Both systems are designed as a recourse for students who have already asked for an internal investigation into their complaint and have not found the outcome of this to be satisfactory.

Systemic failings are taken to mean a failure by a university or college in meeting its responsibilities for standards and quality. The concern needs to be supported by evidence. Where QAA deems a full investigation necessary it publishes its findings in a report.^[15]

Advisory role on degree awarding powers and university title

QAA advises the Privy Council of the United Kingdom, via government ministers, on the merits of applications for degree awarding powers or the right to be called a university. No organisation may award degrees or call itself a university in the UK unless authorised to do so by the government. Applications are considered by a dedicated QAA committee, the UK Advisory Committee on Degree Awarding Powers, enabling its board to offer advice to ministers.^[16]

Regulation of the Access to Higher Education Diploma

QAA is the regulator for the Access to Higher Education Diploma which enables adults without A-Levels or their equivalent to progress to higher education. Organisations known as Access Validating Agencies (AVAs) are responsible for validating and reviewing Access courses and awarding the Diploma to successful students. QAA licenses and monitors the AVAs and publishes information about its findings.^[17][18]

The Dearing Report and its legacy

The Dearing Report published in 1997 "gave the QAA the remit of providing assurance about standards and quality",^[22] following which it developed a higher education qualifications framework, a code of practice and subject benchmark statements, and established a pool of external examiners.

This laid the foundations for the so-called Academic Infrastructure, which QAA developed between 1997 and 2001 (a set of UK benchmarks for quality and standards) and the development of a new, UK-wide process of Academic Review which comprised elements of both Subject Review and Academic Audit - with an emphasis on the latter. The new process was introduced in Scotland, but before it had become fully operational across the UK a number of English universities complained about the administrative burden that this approach entailed, leading to a rethink by the Westminster government. The Scottish and Welsh higher education authorities took this opportunity to set up their own national arrangements, while in England QAA worked with the bodies representing higher education institutions (Universities UK and Guild HE) to devise a modified approach known as Institutional Audit. QAA Scotland developed the procedure known as Enhancement-Led Institutional Review (ELIR), while in Wales the method known as Institutional Review was established. Northern Ireland followed England and adopted Institutional Audit. QAA remained the organisation charged with developing and undertaking these activities.

It was agreed that in England there would be a transitional period of three years (2002 to 2005) during which all higher education institutions would undergo their first Institutional Audit. Thereafter audits would take place on a six-yearly cycle. In the year prior to their audit, institutions underwent 'developmental engagements' - unpublished subject-based reviews to support internal quality assurance. There were also 'discipline audit trails' (DATs) - selective subject-based enquiries that enabled a phased reduction of the subject focus of QAA reviews. In 2005 a revised Institutional Audit model was developed and adopted with the agreement of the representative bodies and HEFCE. This removed the DATs, thereby freeing time in the audit process to explore a broader range of topics and themes. This model continued in use on a six-year cycle until 2011.

Criticism and reform

In 2008 an urgent parliamentary inquiry was ordered into allegations, made in a lecture by Professor Geoffrey Alderman at the University of Buckingham, concerning the decline of academic standards in British higher education and the alleged role of the Quality Assurance Agency in that decline.^[23] At the parliamentary inquiry (17 July 2008) the chairman of the House of Commons' Select Committee on Universities condemned the Agency as 'a toothless old dog' and declared that the British degree classification system had 'descended into farce.'^[24] Alderman himself gave evidence to the Select Committee, whose report (2 August 2009) amounted to a strong endorsement of his views.^[25]

In October 2009 a new Chief Executive was appointed (Anthony McClaran, formerly of UCAS), and measures were put in place to strengthen QAA's reputation. These included an agenda to increase student participation and public engagement.

The Browne Report and policy change

The Browne Report (October 2010) commissioned by the Labour government, and the subsequent White Paper 'Students at the heart of the system' published by the new Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition in summer 2011 had a substantial impact on QAA's work. The introduction of tuition fees led to increased focus on how quality in higher education was managed and verified. Between 2011 and 2013, in consultation with the higher education sector, QAA phased in a new Quality Code to replace the Academic Infrastructure, and developed a new method of Institutional Review applicable to degree-awarding bodies in England and Northern Ireland, and (with some variation) in Wales. Under a separate method QAA also continued to review degree courses provided at further education colleges (validated by universities).

Designation to review alternative providers

In spring 2011, under the coalition government, the UK Border Agency announced a requirement for all private colleges that recruit students to UK higher education to undergo a standards and quality review by QAA. A successful outcome would be essential in order to obtain 'Tier 4 accreditation' also known as 'highly trusted sponsor' status. QAA accordingly conducted 260 of these 'educational oversight' reviews in the first two years of operation, with 29 providers failing their review. Since the abolition of UKBA, QAA has continued this work under the auspices of UK Visas and Immigration.

Continuing questions about quality and risk

Following the coalition government's policy changes there was considerable opening up of higher education to more private providers, leading questions to be raised about the efficacy of the quality assurance system. It was thought by many opinion formers and academics that the 'burden' of review needed to be adjusted according to the 'risk' posed by a particular institution. There was an appetite for established universities to be subject to a lighter touch than further education colleges or new private providers.

In 2012 the Science and Technology Committee of the House of Lords,^[26] after considering the working of QAA, concluded that it was still not fit for purpose because its reviews were based on a 'threshold level' of standards that 'allowed no assessment of quality above that threshold' (paragraph 124) and that more needed to be done to improve quality (paragraph 125). The report recommended that QAA should involve employers in the development of subject benchmark statements and in the quality assurance of standards (paragraphs 130-132).

Accordingly, in parallel with its recently introduced 'educational oversight' review methods, QAA developed Higher Education Review, which accommodated more flexibility and was applicable to all institutions subscribing to QAA (recognised and listed bodies^[27]).

Regulatory reform and designation in England

In 2017, the passing of the Higher Education and Research Act created a new regulatory framework for higher education in England, which included a “Designated Quality Body” (DQB).^[28] In February 2018, following Department for Education consultation in which 98% of respondents endorsed QAA, the Office for Students recommended QAA's appointment as DQB in England.^[29][30] In addition to this role, QAA continued to maintain UK-wide responsibilities, including the UK Quality Code, subject benchmarks and review of UK transnational education (TNE).^[31]