The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education Provider Briefing

Introduction Welcome and introductions Programme for the day

Aims of the Briefing Provide an introduction to QAA Provide an overview of RSEO Consider ways of preparing for RSEO Consider ways that students can contribute to RSEO Brief facilitators on their role Provide an opportunity for discussion and sharing practice

QAA: Who We Are Established in 1997 A not-for-profit company limited by guarantee UK-wide remit Funding comes from: subscriptions from universities and colleges contracts with the higher education funding councils Offices in Gloucester / Glasgow / Cardiff ~180 staff (plus reviewers) QAA was established in 1997 to provide independent external assessment of how universities and higher education colleges in the UK maintain their academic standards and quality. Note: although it was set up as a new organisation, QAA resulted from a merger between the Higher Education Quality Council and the quality assurance divisions of the national higher education funding councils. QAA is a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee. It is governed by a Board that has overall responsibility for the conduct and strategic direction of business. We are not a government department. QAA has a UK-wide remit that covers England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, within a higher education system that is devolved. QAA is funded by subscriptions from universities and colleges, and by contracts with the higher education funding councils. We also have contracts with a small number of professional bodies. Note: Our funders endorse our annual programme of work, but have no influence on the appointment of reviewers, nor can they influence the content or outcome of an individual institution’s review. QAA has its head office in Gloucester and also offices in Glasgow (Scotland) and Cardiff (Wales). We have ~180 staff – not counting the pool of experts that we recruit from universities and colleges and train as reviewers.

QAA: What We Do Mission: to safeguard standards and improve the quality of UK higher education External review UK Quality Code for Higher Education Other aspects of our work access to higher education concerns scheme degree awarding powers international work work with students Our mission is to safeguard standards and improve the quality of UK higher education. We do this by reviewing how well universities and colleges meet their responsibilities as self-regulating institutions by carrying out external review. Following each review we publish a report on the institution. QAA is responsible for the upkeep of what is now called the UK Quality Code. Rather than being a rule-book, this sets out ‘expectations’ for universities and colleges to meet when developing their internal systems. Other aspects of work draw on our expertise as quality assurance practitioners. For example we are able to respond to specific problems through our Concerns Scheme.

How QAA fits into the overall UK system Take responsibility for their own quality and standards Conducts external reviews that check on internal quality assurance systems, and publishes reports QAA works with students who are increasingly involved in both internal and external reviews QAA works with others having a mutual interest in the quality of HE, such as professional bodies and employers Universities and colleges QAA Students PSRBs and employers Here is a brief summary of how QAA fits into the overall system in the UK: Higher education providers take responsibility for their own quality and standards. They continually review their systems and courses to ensure these remain fit for purpose. On a yearly basis they evaluate student performance and feedback, including, where relevant, from the NSS. They review the design of their courses normally within a five-year period. QAA conducts external reviews that check on internal systems and publishes reports that recommend improvements. We also publish overview based on analysis of our review reports. These encourage universities and colleges to learn from experience and from each other contributing to quality improvement. QAA works with students, who are increasingly involved in internal and external review. QAA works closely with bodies having a mutual interest in the quality of the higher education. We liaise with professional, statutory and regulatory bodies (abbreviated to PSRBs) through common membership of policy-making groups, as well as through informal networks and forums. We liaise with employer organisations and are doing a lot of work currently around employer collaboration

QAA Values Integrity Professionalism Accountability Openness Independence Not-for-profit QAA's values Integrity We always aim to be fair, objective and honest in our work, basing our judgements on sound evidence. Professionalism We set high professional standards in everything we do, providing relevant and effective services that are trusted by all with an interest in UK higher education. Accountability Through safeguarding standards and driving improvements we fulfil our responsibilities. We consult on the development of our work and assess its impact, seeking to provide a high level of service and to be responsive to external demands. Openness We are open and approachable about the work we do, and how we do it, believing that this encourages trust and confidence. We publish full details of our review methods, as well as our reports on institutions. We are committed to communicating clearly and accessibly about all aspects of our work. Independence To fulfil our responsibilities we must be an independent voice in UK higher education, basing our work on expert, objective scrutiny and analysis.

QAA’s Educational Oversight Remit QAA’s remit as a UKVI designated body for higher education providers extends to overseas providers operating in the UK who are seeking educational oversight study abroad providers foreign providers offering whole degree programmes (now reviewed through Higher Education Review [HER] for Foreign Providers) Explain QAA’s involvement Peer review systems are set within processes in order to achieve consistent judgments – have QAA officers and reviewers who are now very experienced in this method Previously, study abroad providers and foreign providers were reviewed under the same method e.g. RSEO – foreign providers offering whole degree programmes now reviewed under HER (FP) QAA is experienced in dealing with the diversity of UK HE and the different missions of HE providers - we apply processes flexibly. QAA began RSEO reviews in 2012. Currently work with 14 SA providers We recognise that overseas providers may use different reference points, from UK providers, but the use of reference points is crucial to all QAA processes. The Quality Code is a set of principles not a rule book - if they have looked at QC, they will see much of it is common sense. That is how it should be because it was developed with the HE sector and based on their expectations of one another. We look for other forms of externality, such as use of expert advisers, although we recognise that the external examiner system is peculiar to the UK and not used in many of their 'home' countries. We also look for use of student data and student opinion - particularly in relation to quality improvement   Where providers are not awarding or credit-awarding bodies, the context for the scrutiny relies on there being a written agreement between the awarding body and the provider. How effectively the provider discharges its responsibilities is the focus (not the awarding body). Nevertheless, we may make checks with awarding bodies. As the scrutinies are set in the context of relationships it is vital that providers are clear about how the various entities involved relate to one another.

RSEO Aims Safeguard academic standards and contribute to the improvement of the quality of higher education offered in the UK Encourage all parties to work together to ensure that students benefit from a high-quality learning experience Produce reports that are useful to providers, students and other interested parties

Key Features of RSEO Employs existing review methodologies and standards Is designed specifically for study abroad providers Students’ interests at the heart of the review

Key Features of RSEO Focuses on how providers carry out their responsibilities for the management of academic standards, quality of learning opportunities and information published about its learning opportunities Takes into consideration the provider’s use of relevant external reference points

Key Features of RSEO Discussions with staff and students Peer review - QAA officer and two panel members Self-evaluation/student submission Institutional facilitator Preparatory meeting One-day visit Published reports Reviewers are trained in particular to ensure that reviews are conducted in an open way, through discussion with staff and students. The meetings are organisation specific in that reviewers judgements will be based on the mission of that provider. Reviewers will not arrive with pre-conceived ideas of what a provider is like – they will start to draw their conclusions from the self evaluation and student written submission. When asking for information reviewers will explain what they are trying to understand. Reviewers will be polite and professional. They will seek to triangulate what they read / hear in meetings and never reach a conclusion based on a single source. In return we expect you to behave in a similar manner – to be open and honest with the review team. No where is perfect – our reviewers know this from their own experience – and what they want to know is what you are doing well and what you are doing to try to resolve areas of weakness. Published reports

RSEO: Timeline 1 Week Activity Who At least 14 weeks before review visit QAA informs provider of the review visit QAA following consultation with the provider At least 8 weeks before review visit Preliminary meeting QAA Officer Provider Student representatives 4 weeks before the review visit Provider's self-evaluation and student submission are submitted to QAA Review Visit Review visit to provider (normal duration one day) QAA review panel

RSEO: Timeline 2 Week Activity Who 2 weeks after review visit Key findings letter to provider and UKVI QAA Officer 6 weeks after review visit Draft report to provider for comments on factual accuracy 10 weeks after review visit Provider submits comments on factual accuracy to QAA and supporting evidence Provider 12 weeks after review visit Review report published on www.qaa.ac.uk QAA

Students’ Role in RSEO By submitting optional submission In confidential meetings with the review team By commenting on and accessing the published report

RSEO Review Outcomes A published written report containing: recommendations: essential advisable desirable good practice for dissemination commentary on management of responsibilities for academic standards judgements and evaluation of learning opportunities and information an action plan (possible second visit) Discuss report and action plan template. You will be sent a draft of the report and invited to identify any factual inaccuracies Commentary on provider’s management of its responsibilities for academic standards – the commentary will state whether or not the review panel was/was not able to conclude that the provider satisfactorily manages its responsibilities for academic standards, as set out in contractual arrangements with its academic partners Judgment on management and improvement of quality of learning opportunities – confidence, limited confidence, no confidence judgments Judgment of whether reliance can or cannot be placed on the information the provider produces about the learning opportunities it offers

RSEO Judgements Judgement Management of responsibilities for academic standards Commentary Management and improvement of the quality of learning opportunities Confidence / Limited confidence / No confidence Management of information about learning opportunities Reliance / No reliance

Reporting Key findings letter sent to provider with copy to UKVI Draft report and submission of additional evidence Published report (12 weeks after panel visit) Annual return on actions and developments to QAA - annual monitoring (section 3 of RSEO Handbook)

Annual return Desk-based analysis No material changes or concerns Significant change or concerns Monitoring visit Full review takes place Short update to report New report published

Any Questions?

Self-evaluation Respective responsibilities of the provider and the credit-awarding body Provider’s strategic approach Applying academic standards Provision of learning opportunities Information Use of reference points Use made of external expert advisers Use made of student data and student opinion Refer to paras 24-26 and Annex F in the RSEO Handbook Provider’s need to describe and evaluate their responsibilities for the management of academic standards, quality of learning opportunities and public information. Therefore, providers need to make clear who is responsible for doing what in terms of the management of academic standards, quality of learning opportunities and public information. When maintaining standards and measuring the achievement of students we will be interested to know about the external reference points that are used. You need to tell the panel about how standards of achievement expected of students are set. Who is responsible for this and what is the role of the provider? What quality assurance processes are used to assure that standards remain at the right level and that students are achieving them? Need to specify provider’s responsibilities for the provision of learning opportunities. What is the provider contractually required to provide? What are students told they should expect? How does the provider assure itself that the quality of learning opportunities – whether or not it or a third party provide them - enable students to attain the academic standards of the programmes for which they are studying? In particular, how does the provider assure the quality of the teaching staff that teach students which it is sponsoring? What information is the provider required to publish about itself and how complete and accurate is that information? That is – information in prospectuses, student handbooks and on websites.

End