A MORE RISK-BASED APPROACH TO QUALITY ASSURANCE

Anthony McClaran

Chief Executive, QAA

Monday 12 November 2012

Presentation

i) Update on QAA

ii) Background to a more risk-based approach to quality assurance in England

iii) Outcomes of the HEFCE consultation

iv) Next steps & issues for consideration

QAA TODAY

Some of QAA’s main UK activities today:

Review and audit programmes for universities, further education colleges and private providers

Adviser to Privy Council on applications for degree-awarding powers and university title

Provider of Educational Oversight, on behalf of UK Border Agency, for ‘Highly Trusted Sponsor’ status for independent institutions with overseas students

UK Quality Code for Higher Education

BACKGROUND TO A MORE RISK-BASED APPROACH TO QUALITY ASSURANCE

Technical Consultation:

A New Fit-for-Purpose Regulatory Framework for the Higher Education Sector (August 2011)

White Paper:Students at the Heart of the System (June 2011)

“The consultation has reinforced our view that a risk-based approach is the most desirable means

of regulating higher education in England.”

BIS statement (June 2012)

OUTCOMES OF THE HEFCE CONSULTATION:

A RISK-BASED APPROACH TO QUALITY ASSURANCE

SCOPE OF THE HEFCE CONSULTATION

Varying nature, frequency & intensity of reviews

Risk ‘triggers’, concerns and out-of-cycle interventions

The role of enhancement

Student engagement in quality assurance

Data sources and information

‘Core’ and ‘module’ approach

THEMES EMERGING FROM CONSULTATION RESPONSES

Building on existing Institutional Review method

Reducing unnecessary burden and achieving better regulation

Greater transparency

Tailoring reviews to individual circumstances

Continued emphasis on enhancement

Students as full partners in the process

KEY OUTCOMES: REVIEW CYCLES

Six year review cycle

For those with longer track records of successfully assuring quality and standards

Minimum of two institutional reviews

Four year review cycle

For those with shorter track records Not yet undergone two successful reviews Or had an investigation under the QAA Concerns

Scheme upheld since last review Or has undergone significant material changes

such as takeover, merger or expansion of activities

KEY OUTCOMES: GREATER TRANSPARENCY & TAILORED REVIEWS

Greater transparency: Publication of review programme on

QAA website

Reviews tailored to individual providers

Single review visits: End of separate review of collaborative

provision

Working towards an integrated review method for all providers of higher education

KEY OUTCOMES: MID-CYCLE REVIEW AND QAA CONCERNS SCHEME

End of mid-cycle reviews

Safeguarding through QAA Concerns Scheme

Investigating concerns about standards and quality raised by students, staff and other parties

Public reports published on outcomes of investigations

KEY OUTCOMES: ENHANCEMENT & STUDENTS AT THE CENTRE

Continued focus on enhancement:

Student learning opportunities Thematic element of review Sharing good practice

Students remain at the heart of the quality assurance and review process

DROPPED PROPOSALS

Reviews: Route A and Route B

Annual review of data

Core and module approach

More detailed plans for streamlining reviews of QAA and professional, statutory and regulatory bodies (PSRBs)

NEXT STEPS & ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

PROVISIONAL TIMETABLE

Date Activity

Nov 2012 HEFCE publishes response to the consultation QAA produces draft Operational Description and Handbook

Dec 2012 – Feb 2013

QAA holds consultation on Operational Description and Handbook

March 2013 Handbook published

May 2013 onwards

Institutional briefings begin on the revised method Reviewer training begins

Sept 2013 Implementation of the new method

Jan 2014 First reviews begin, under the new method

2015-16 Independent evaluation

ISSUES & CHALLENGES

Achieving the right balance of interests:

Lighter touch

Students at the heart

Transparent and consistent

QAA’s professional judgement

Building a truly tailored approach for each institution

Establishing a robust process with a clear framework

REGULATORY PARTNERSHIP GROUP FOR ENGLAND

BREAK-OUT GROUP QUESTIONS

i) What are the benefits of this new approach?

ii) What are the likely impacts of new alternative providers on quality and reputation in UK higher education?

iii) How do we ensure that a more risk-based system can still nurture innovation?

www.qaa.ac.uk