HEPI conference, 12 May 2011 Great expectations: how can students gain a great deal from their HEI, and how can quality assurance help? Anthony McClaran Chief Executive, QAA

The policy context Browne and changes to universities funding Choice-driven student market The White Paper Impact of access agreements Role of private providers / further education colleges

UK Quality Assurance Four key principles: Independent quality assurance UK wide framework Level playing field in a diverse market Student-led quality assurance

Five key principles for QAA reviews: Flexibility Clarity and simplicity Clear recognition of importance of public information Greater public assurance about threshold academic standards Minimising the administrative burden

Flexibility The inclusion of a thematic element will provide some flexibility... to look in a timely way at issues that are attracting legitimate public interest or concern, or may constitute current good practice Operational Description Page 24

Clarity and simplicity Virtually all feedback from non-specialist audiences on institutional audit reports suggested that they need to be clearer, more focused, and that part of the report should be easily accessible by readers who have no background in either quality assurance or the detailed organisation of higher education. Operational description p10

Public information We anticipate that review teams will be interested in how institutions keep the information up to date, complete, accurate and useful. Operational description Page 6

Public assurance on threshold standards To the extent that review will look at both processes and direct evidence from students we consider that it is justified to make judgments about academic quality and standards outcomes in an institution. Operational description Page 7

Minimising administrative impact The new process is designed to save institutions effort... The overall process is shorter so it should preoccupy institutions for less time. Operational description Page 12

Institutional Review Student centred quality assurance We have designed the process with students interests in mind, not only in the centrality of the student experience in the review judgments, but also in the way that students can participate in review. Operational description Page 12

The challenge of expectation What do students expect? Not just assurance but enhancement Communicating good practice Impact of Institutional Review on teaching quality A consumer revolution?

Student charters and public information Understanding and meeting student expectations: Charters will have real value and impact Public information and its use to current students

Consultation on public information Whatever their preferences are, it is difficult for students to make the right choices if they do not have relevant, useful information at their fingertips. And sometimes the differences between courses are subtle, and prospective students find it difficult to discriminate between them. In this consultation we seek to resolve these problems. Professor Janet Beer, Nov 2010

The First Year Student Experience Theme chosen by the sector The impact of the first year on retention Drawing on lessons from across the UK

Student engagement Student engagement linked to listening, learning and quality information Institutional review will engage students in the quality of their education Students at QAA – progress so far More to be done?

Private providers Report published last week by Hepi Private and publicly funded institutions: a level playing field? A diverse HE system needs a common framework Common criteria for degree awarding powers application and QAA review

Risk-based quality assurance Approach ruled out in the development of Institutional review Risk-based quality assurance is back on the agenda Proposed by David Willetts MP as a way of removing unnecessary burdens