UK Quality Code for Higher Education

Chapter B9: Complaints and appeals on academic matters

Consultation discussion eventJanuary 2013

Programme

11.00 – 11.20 Introduction to the day, and to the Quality Code

11.20 – 11.45 Introduction to the Chapter scope and Expectation

11.45 – 12.30 Small group discussions

12.30 – 13.15 Lunch

13.15 – 13.30 Introduction to the Chapter Indicators of sound practice

13.30 – 14.45 Small group discussions

14.45 – 15.00 Tea/coffee break

15.00 – 15.30 Questions and closing plenary

•Setting and maintaining threshold academic standards

Part A

•Assuring and enhancing academic quality

Part B

•Information about higher education provision

Part C

UK Quality Code for Higher Education

www.qaa.ac.uk/qualitycode

Chapters of the Quality Code

A1: The national level

A2: The subject and qualification level

A3: The programme level

A4: Approval and review

A5: Externality

A6: Assessment of achievement of learning outcomes

B1: Programme design and approval

B2: Admissions

B3: Learning and teaching

B4: Supporting student achievement

B5: Student engagement

B6: Assessment of students and accreditation of prior learning

B7: External examining

B8: Programme monitoring and review

B9: Complaints and appeals

B10: Management of collaborative arrangements

B11: Research degrees

Part A: Setting and maintaining threshold academic standards

Part B: Assuring and enhancing academic quality

Part C: Information about higher education provision

General introduction

What is the UK Quality Code for

Higher Education?

How does the Quality Code

relate to legislation?

What are Expectations?

What are Indicators? What are the

overarching values?

Why does the UK need a Quality

Code for Higher Education?

How has the Quality Code

been developed?

Who is the Quality

Code for?

Who enforces the Quality Code?

How is the Quality Code organised?

General Introduction

Explanation

Indicators of sound

practice

Expectation: what higher

education providers expect of each other and which students and the public can expect of all higher education providers

Quality Code: components

Quality Code – under construction

The existing elements of the Academic Infrastructure put back together in a different

order

Some reworking to cover topics in a more

appropriate way

Some completely new chapters e.g. student

engagement

Review and editing of the whole for

consistency and to reduce duplication

Part A: Setting and maintaining threshold academic standards

Part B: Assuring and enhancing academic quality

Mar 2012 Part C: Information about higher education provision

Oct 2011 Chapter B7: External examining

Jun 2012 Chapter B11: Research degrees

Chapter B5: Student engagement

Sep 2012 Chapter B3: Learning and teaching

Dec 2012 Chapter B10: Management of higher education with others

Apr 2013 Chapter B9: Complaints and appeals on academic matters

Chapter B6: Assessment of students and accreditation of prior learning

Mar 2013 Chapter B4: Supporting student achievement

Chapter B1: Programme design and approval

Chapter B2: Admissions

Chapter B8: Programme monitoring and review

Oct 2013 Chapter A1: The national level

Chapter A2: The subject and qualification level

Chapter A6: Assessment of achievement of learning outcomes

Chapter A3: The programme level

Chapter A4: Approval and review

Chapter A5: Externality

Building the jigsaw

Creating the pieces

•Scoping

•Advisory Group

•Consultation

•Publication

In numbers...

Number of delegates at all consultation events = 1183

Number of consultation responses = 673

Chapter B9:Complaints and appeals on

academic matters

Timescales

July – August 2012 Scoping and planning

September 2012 First Advisory Group meeting

October 2012 Second Advisory Group meeting

26 November-31 January Consultation period

9, 11, 15 and 17 January Consultation events

March 2013 Third Advisory Group meeting

April 2013 Publication

Feedback from…

Equality Challenge Unit

Office of the Independent Adjudicator

Scottish Public Services Ombudsman

The role of the OIA

Cardiff17 January 2013

Imran AbrahamsAssistant Adjudicator

THE UK QUALITY CODE – STUDENT COMPLAINTS AND APPEALS

imran.abrahams@oiahe.org.uk

• The OIA – Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education

• Independent of HEIs and of Government• Majority of Board from outside the world of higher education• Operates in England and Wales

The OIA and the Quality Code

Not a regulator, but:• Member of the Regulatory Partnership Group• Part of QAA Advisory Group developing Chapter B9 of the

Code• Memorandum of Understanding signed with QAA, December

2012– Sharing of information including:

• Information gathered through complaints to the OIA that suggests broad concerns about academic quality

• Information gathered through the QAA Complaints and Concerns scheme that suggests issues with HEI complaints or appeals systems

• Appropriate remedies for higher education• Free service for students• Common system across England and Wales• Faster, cheaper, specialist alternative to courts• Feedback that can be used to improve complaints handling

and the student experience• Independent Adjudication, free from government or HEI

influence

The OIA provides:

Complaint handler of last resort• The OIA receives a small number of complaints compared to

the number of enrolled students in England and Wales• Around one in seven of complaints that have reached the end

of internal HEI procedures is referred to the OIA• Number of complaints increases each year; provisional figure

for 2012 is over 2000 complaints received (25 per cent increase on 2011)

• We review complaints about any act or omission of an HEI – Academic appeals, assessments and grades (2011: 70 per

cent).– Contractual and service issues (2011: 10 per cent).– Discrimination and Human Rights (2011: 3 per cent).– Others.

• Student must normally have exhausted HEI’s internal processes (appeal or complaint) before complaining to OIA

What does the Scheme cover?

What do we do?

• We review complaints to see whether they are Justified, Partly Justified or Not Justified :– Did the universities properly apply regulations and follow

procedures?– Was the university’s decision reasonable in all the

circumstances?• We also make good practice recommendations• Dissemination of good practice and feedback to HE sector

What we can’t look at (ineligible complaints)

• Academic Judgment.– Matters for which only the opinion of an academic expert will suffice

• Outside time limits (three years from event; three months from COP letter).• Matter is or was subject of court proceedings (unless formally stayed).• Admissions.

1: QAA Quality Code B9

• Trends in OIA complaints:– Procedural fairness– Lack of clarity in complaint/appeal processes– Perception of bias– Delay!

• OIA considers what is “good practice”• Significant factor: has HEI followed QAA indicators of sound

practice?

2: QAA Quality Code B9

• OIA’s Pathway 3 – sector wide consultation and report:– Early Resolution pilots – Jan to March 2013– Good Practice Framework – sector wide; voluntary; complement QAA

Quality Code

How to contact us

• By post:– Third Floor, Kings Reach, 38-50

Kings Road, Reading, RG1 3AA• Tel: 0118 959 9813• Online: www.oiahe.org.uk • Email: enquiries@oiahe.org.uk

Themes and the Expectation

Definitions

• Complaint: the expression of a specific concern about matters that affect the quality of a student’s learning opportunities

• Appeal: a request for a review of a decision made by an academic body about student progression, assessment and awards

Scope

• All students including graduates• Admissions covered in B2: Admissions • Further guidance for research students

in B11: Research Degrees• Important to have clear arrangements

with partners (further guidance in B10: Managing higher education provision with others)

Themes (1)

• Equality and diversity embedded • Working in partnership with students in

the design and review of procedures • “informal” arrangements for resolution• Fit with independent review

Themes (2)

• Complaints and appeals as a source of information (but distinction between feedback and complaints/appeals)

• Positive engagement • information and guidance• Good design and implementation

Expectation

Higher education providers have procedures for handling student

complaints about the quality of learning opportunities and appeals against academic decisions which are fair,

efficient, accessible and timely and which promote enhancement.

Questions

• Is the scope and limits of the Chapter sufficiently clear?

• Have equality and diversity issues been adequately addressed?

• Is the wording and scope of the Expectation appropriate?

 

Indicators of sound practice

General principles (1-2)• Providing the opportunity

(scope/application)• Creating the confidence to use

the opportunity

Students have the opportunity to raise matters of concern

without risk of disadvantage.

• Engaging positively when do use the procedures

• alternative means – how much detail?

An approach that encourages positive

engagement and offers opportunities for early resolution.

Information, advice and guidance (3-4)

• Change of language – e.g. ‘publicly’ dropped

• Accessible – broad meaningAccessible

information on procedures

• Enabling informed decisions• Procedural advice versus advocacy• Inclusion of reference to staffAppropriate advice

and guidance for students and staff

Internal procedures: design and implementation (5-6)

• Separate indicators?• Separate roles?• Level of detail?Good design

enables...

• Reasonable or efficient?• Same words different

meanings?...procedures that are

timely, fair and reasonable

Action, monitoring and enhancement (7-8)

• Communication – reasons?• Remedies• Independent reviewAppropriate action is

taken

• Improving the procedures• Monitoring data - examples• Learning from – part of systematic

approach to enhancementMonitor, evaluate and

reflect

Questions

• Are the Indicators appropriately worded to reflect the Expectation?

• Are the indicators ordered and grouped in a logical order?

• Is anything missing from the Chapter?

Key points from earlier events

Expectation

• Generally supportive• ‘handling’ – no better alternative• ‘efficient’ – some reservations• Clarify ‘promote enhancement’• remit of chapter – academic matters – is clear

cf not sure about ‘learning opportunities’• Timely – different HEI and student

expectations?

Indicators

• Importance of interaction with other procedures – harassment, discipline

• Equality and diversity over repeated• 50/50 split on whether to keep 5 & 6 as two

indicators• Meaning of accessible• Split 2 – early res could be part of 5• Welcome reference to staff (4)• Include sharing of good practice as part of

evaluation (8)

Order of indicators

• Majority content with existing order• Some suggestions that 5&6 belong after

1

Website:www.qaa.ac.uk/qualitycode

Email:qualitycode@qaa.ac.uk

Sign up to QAA News:www.qaa.ac.uk/Newsroom/News/Pages/QAA-news-alert.aspx

Further information

Scoping events: Part A: Setting and maintaining threshold academic

standards, B1: Programme design and approval and B8:

Programme monitoring and review, B6: assessment of students and accreditation of prior

learning

• 25th February- Cardiff • 28th February- Belfast• 4th March- London• 5th March- Glasgow