1.
A MORE RISK-BASED APPROACH
TO QUALITY ASSURANCE
Anthony McClaran
Chief Executive, QAA
Monday 12 November 2012

2.
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

3.
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

4.
BACKGROUND TO A MORE RISK-BASED
APPROACH TO QUALITY ASSURANCE

5.
White Paper:
Students at the Heart of the System (June 2011)
Technical Consultation:
A New Fit-for-Purpose Regulatory Framework for
the Higher Education Sector (August 2011)

6.
“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)

7.
OUTCOMES OF THE
HEFCE CONSULTATION:
A RISK-BASED APPROACH TO
QUALITY ASSURANCE

8.
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

9.
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

10.
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

11.
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

12.
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

13.
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

14.
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)

15.
NEXT STEPS &
ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

16.
PROVISIONAL TIMETABLE
Date Activity
Nov 2012 HEFCE publishes response to the consultation
QAA produces draft Operational Description and
Handbook
Dec 2012 – QAA holds consultation on Operational Description and
Feb 2013 Handbook
March 2013 Handbook published
May 2013 Institutional briefings begin on the revised method
onwards
Reviewer training begins
Sept 2013 Implementation of the new method
Jan 2014 First reviews begin, under the new method
2015-16 Independent evaluation

17.
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

18.
REGULATORY PARTNERSHIP GROUP FOR
ENGLAND

19.
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?

20.
www.qaa.ac.uk