Preparing for Higher Education Review (HER)

June 2015

2

Preparing for Higher Education Review (HER)

Introduction

All colleges with higher education provision will undergo Higher Education Review,

or its successor, by 2018. This paper offers clarification and guidance for those

colleges preparing for review. It draws on the experience of some of the colleges

that have had successful, or less positive, reviews.

The QAA Higher Education Review Handbook provides a detailed description of

the features and processes associated with review and will be the most important

point of reference. Please see the QAA website for the latest version:

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews-and-reports/how-we-review-higher-education

The guidance in this paper is written by a former and a current QAA review

manager; it shares the experience of what has, in some instances, been difficult

for colleges undergoing HER so far. It is not intended to give a comprehensive

overview of HER (the Handbook does that) but focuses on areas where colleges

have expressed difficulties or where the judgments indicate incomplete

understanding or preparation. Please also see the QAA HER Toolkit:

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/College-Higher-Education-

Toolkit-0515.pdf

1. Why are FE colleges undergoing HER?

Higher education programmes delivered by further education colleges (colleges)

lead to awards made by higher education institutions (awarding bodies) or

Pearson. The awarding bodies and Pearson retain ultimate responsibility for

maintaining the academic standards of their awards and assuring the quality of

the students’ learning opportunities. The purpose of HER is, therefore, to

safeguard the public interest in the academic standards and quality of higher

education delivered in colleges. It achieves this by providing objective and

independent information about the way in which colleges discharge their

responsibilities within the context of their agreements with awarding bodies and

Pearson.

3

In March 2015, The Association of Colleges published a report of a survey of

colleges’ experience of Higher Education Review. The report notes that “overall the

survey demonstrated a high degree of satisfaction with HER. While the experience

of HER reviews is positive for the majority, there is for some respondents an

underlying question about the capacity of the system to take account of different

cultures and deal with them even-handedly”. The report can be found at:

http://www.aoc.co.uk/sites/default/files/QAA-HER-Analysis%20AoC-Survey-March-

15%20FORMATED_2.pdf

2. Key features of HER

Management of higher education

HER focuses on the college’s management of its higher education by making

judgements on the maintenance of academic standards, the quality of students’

learning opportunities, information about learning opportunities, and the

enhancement of learning opportunities in the context of its delegated

responsibilities agreed with awarding bodies and Pearson.

Themes arising from reviews with unsatisfactory outcomes for colleges often

focus on the processes associated with the management of higher education. This

includes lack of strategic oversight for higher education provision, over-reliance

on responsibilities delegated to faculty/subject areas, and overuse of

inappropriate FE management systems. It is not expected that colleges should

necessarily develop separate arrangements for higher education. However, it is

important that the arrangements in place provide effective oversight and planning

of higher education.

Preparation for HER provides colleges with an opportunity to reflect on and

critically assess management and quality assurance structures. Colleges

should also ensure that current strategies and policies, separate or

integrated into FE planning processes, address the specific needs of higher

education students.

A clear understanding of the respective responsibilities of the college and the

awarding body, or organisation, for each programme of study is important for the

4

effective management of HE and in the preparation for review. As part of the

preparation for HER, the QAA provides a responsibilities checklist which asks the

institution being reviewed to clarify whether the provider or the awarding

body/organisation is responsible for certain aspects of the higher education

provision. The checklist can be found in Annex 7 of the Handbook and at:

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/Responsibilities%20checklist%2

02014-15.docx. Colleges are asked to complete one checklist for each of the

awarding bodies they work with and to submit the checklists with the self-

evaluation.

It is worth taking some time to complete the responsibilities checklist

and to incorporate this into review planning. This can be a useful means of

reflecting on college processes and a way of involving college staff in

greater understanding of who does what and how that works across the

higher education provision.

The QAA has worked with Pearson to clarify the responsibilities it delegates to

providers for the management of its qualifications. A copy of the document can be

found at: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/AboutUs/Documents/Responsibilities-

Checklist-Pearson.pdf

Colleges are advised to ensure they are aware of the Pearson

responsibilities checklist and the important information it offers regarding

provider responsibilities.

The Quality Code for Higher Education

Review judgements are made by explicit reference to the Expectations in The UK

Quality Code for Higher Education. The recent survey by the Association of

Colleges of college experience of HER suggests that some colleges found the Code

difficult to use and interpret in preparation for review – for example in writing the

self-evaluation document (SED) – and in ongoing quality assurance. The QAA has

produced a toolkit focussing on how colleges can engage with the Quality Code.

This can be found at: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/College-

Higher-Education-Toolkit-0515.pdf

5

Guidance is also available to colleges on Part A of the Quality Code: Setting and

maintaining academic standards. This is intended to clarify what providers should

comment on in their self-evaluations. It is of particular relevance to providers who

do not have degree-awarding powers. See:

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/ReviewsAndReports/Documents/Guidance-note-HER-

reviewers-Part-A.pdf

The QAA has also provided guidance on the interpretation of Chapter B10 for

colleges without degree-awarding powers. This can be found at:

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications /Documents/Guidance-B10-providers-

without-degree-awarding-powers.pdf

Guidance about the enhancement expectation, intended to clarify what providers

of higher education should comment on in their self-evaluation document, can be

found at: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/Application-of-

enhancement.pdf

Using the Quality Code as a benchmarking tool in preparation for review can

be a useful way of self-assessment, action planning, and engaging staff in its

use and application. Colleges may wish to map sections of the Code to current

practice, identifying opportunities for improvement. Aside from preparing for

review, this can be a helpful staff development activity.

3. Stages and processes of Higher Education Review

In the following table, some of the key stages and processes of HER are listed on

the left; the middle column sets out what can be expected at each stage; the right

hand column provides comments to assist with review preparation.

Stages and processes of Higher Education Review

Activity What it means Comments

Nominating facilitator

and lead student

representative (LSR)

See Handbook, paras 37-

41, and Annex 4 and 5.

The QAA invites

providers to

nominate a

facilitator and

lead student

representative

(LSR) to support

Facilitator. This role is crucial for the

smooth running of the HER. Early

identification is helpful in planning

and preparing for review. The

facilitator role is active, not passive,

and the facilitator should be pro-

active during both the preparation

6

the review.

The role of the

facilitator is

intended to

improve the flow

of information

between the

review team and

the provider

before and

during the

review visit. The

facilitator works

with the Review

Manager and

QAA staff to

make

arrangements

for the various

stages of the

review.

The LSR will

normally oversee

the production

of the student

submission and,

if possible, work

with the Review

Manager to

select the

students that the

review team will

meet during the

review visit.

and the visit. The QAA has prepared

guidance on the role of the

facilitator which can be found here:

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publicatio

ns/Documents/HER-guidance-

facilitators.pdf

Some colleges appoint the person

with overall responsibility for higher

education as the facilitator. This

may also be the person who knows

most about HE. It is worth noting

that although the facilitator can

attend any staff meetings with the

team as an observer, their

contribution to the meeting will be

through the invitation of the review

team. You should think carefully

about who your facilitator should

be.

Nomination of the LSR is not

mandatory but is strongly

recommended to facilitate student

engagement in the review. Review

Managers and QAA staff recognise

the challenges posed for some

colleges in identifying students for

the role and can offer advice. In

some instances, colleges have two

or more LSRs to avoid the

involvement being a burden and to

represent all student groups, e.g.

full and part-time, undergraduate

and postgraduate.

The LSR must not be a member of

staff, for example, a lecturer doing a

teacher training qualification at the

college.

Briefing

HER Handbook, para 72.

The QAA invites

the facilitator

and lead student

representative to

Make sure you have read the

Handbook before you attend the

briefing. This opportunity to ask

questions won’t occur again until

7

a briefing about

26 weeks before

the review visit.

The briefing sets

out the duties of

both the

facilitator and

the LSR during

the review

process, in time

to plan, and it

gives the

opportunity to

clarify any

questions.

the Preparatory meeting or

conversations with the Review

Manager.

Contact with the

Review Manager

The Review

Manager (RM)

will make contact

with the college

about six months

before the

review.

The Review

Manager

coordinates the

review, supports

the review team

and acts as the

primary point of

contact with the

college.

College feedback indicates a

generally high level of satisfaction

regarding the management of

reviews.

It is worth setting up some regular

contact with your RM and to take

the opportunity to ask questions.

The RM is there to help.

It should reassure you to know that

the RM’s key role is to ensure that

the review follows the methodology

and that there is evidence for all

conclusions.

Managing the review

College

undertakes

activities to plan

and prepare for

the review.

Preparing for the review takes

longer than you might think. Try to

negotiate a team of people to work

on different aspects, and a time for

staff briefings and administrative

support. Even if the higher

education provision is a small

percentage of the college’s

provision, it is important that all

staff, especially senior staff

responsible for the higher education

strategy within the strategic

8

planning process, are aware of what

the review means for the college.

Writing the self-

evaluation document

(SED)

See Annex 3 of the

Handbook, and the

supplementary guidance

on writing the SED

provided by the QAA – see

Section 6 below.

The self-

evaluation

document

should be

structured

around core

elements and

themes; the

evidence base

supports the SE.

The SED is

submitted

electronically to

the QAA four

weeks before the

Review visit. This

means that the

Preparatory

meeting will take

place before the

review team has

read it.

Involve as many staff as possible.

Follow guidance in the HER

Handbook (Annex 3). A suggested

structure and contents for the self-

evaluation is provided.

Make sure you structure the SED

around the four judgement

headings for the review and address

the Expectations in the Quality

Code. You should describe your

approach of the management of

higher education; what you do to

meet the Expectations; how you do

it; how well you do it, and how you

know how well you do it.

Note – the Quality Code indicators

of sound practice are examples, not

a checklist, and colleges should

avoid structuring their SEDs against

them.

The QAA has published guidance on

interpreting sections of the Quality

Code to assist colleges in drafting the

SED – see paragraphs on the Quality

Code in Part 3 of this document

above.

The SED should include an update

on progress and the action plan

since the last review (probably

IQER).

Collecting and

presenting evidence

for the self-evaluation

See Annex 3 of the

Handbook.

Collect evidence

from existing

documents to

support what

you say in the

self-evaluation

QAA does not provide a list of

required evidence for the self-

evaluation, although some guidance

on the type of evidence is provided

in the Handbook. Evidence should

be selected by the college to

9

document.

Follow the

instructions you

will receive to

upload the self-

evaluation

document and

accompanying

evidence to the

QAA portal,

Qmmunity. A

numbered

evidence list

should be

provided too.

See also

‘requests for

additional

evidence’ below.

support the SE and should be clearly

referenced in the document.

Avoid providing too much evidence.

Focus on evidence that backs up

each claim and assertion. Not all

evidence is relevant and in any case

after the First Team Meeting there

will be requests for further

evidence.

Organise the evidence carefully and

ensure that it is numbered

sequentially and is easy to access.

Number your files in a three-digit,

linear sequence, starting with 001

for the SED and 002 for the student

submission. See guidance in

Handbook, and in the

supplementary guidance on writing

the SE:

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publicatio

ns/Documents/Supplementary-

guidance-on-writing-the-self-

evaluation-document-for-Higher-

Education-Review.pdf

Target the evidence to support

individual points in the SED and be

as explicit as you can – e.g. give

page and paragraph numbers for

long documents / sets of minutes.

Do not repeat documents in the

evidence base – just provide one

copy of each document, numbered

starting from 001, and use footnotes

to direct reviewers to specific parts

of the document if required.

Reviewers are unlikely to ask for a

couple of years’ worth of minutes

without specifying why they require

to see all of these. Don’t be afraid to

challenge them if you are not clear

why they are requesting additional

10

evidence.

Keep the evidence base as well

organised as possible, and use URLs

very sparingly or not at all, as URLs

can be hard to access consistently

and can present issues around

security.

Supporting the

students’ submission

Advice about developing a

student submission is

available on the QAA

website:

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en

/Publications/Document

s/Student_submissions_t

emplate.pdf

Optional

submission by

the student

body. An online

tool is available

for capturing

student views if

students are

unable to

provide a

college-wide

submission.

Although it is optional, the student

submission (SS) is extremely useful

to the review team. Efforts to

produce a student submission will

add depth to the review.

The team will normally expect the

student submission to be shared

with the college (and the SED to be

shared with students) and although

this is not compulsory, the college

(or the LSR) will need to explain why

this is not the case. The LSR should

be involved in the development of

the SS and it should be shared as

widely as possible with students

before submission.

During the review, students will

probably be asked how the

submission came about and

whether the college has seen it. It is

imperative that the student

submission remains impartial and

independent from the college. So

while support should be given to the

process, in terms of time,

administrative support and

resources, the college must not

interfere or influence the outcomes.

In cases where students are unable

to complete a college-wide student

submission, QAA provide an online

tool to allow students to contribute

their views directly to the review

11

team. See Annex 5 of the method

Handbook. There is also an LSR

guide available on the QAA website,

and various animations. See:

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publicatio

ns/Documents/HER-LSR-

guidance.pdf

Preparatory meeting

Handbook, paras 73-79.

An opportunity

for key staff, and

the lead student

representative,

to meet the

Review Manager

who will clarify

the review

process and

advise on the

self-evaluation

and student

submission.

The meeting

takes place

about 18 weeks

before the

review visit.

Think carefully about who should

attend the Preparatory meeting.

Preparatory meetings are intended

to brief the facilitator, lead student

representative, and other key staff

who are involved in the

development of the SED. QAA does

not regard the meeting as a general

staff briefing.

Prepare any questions you have and

take these to the meeting because

you won’t see the Review Manager

again until the visit starts.

If you have started the SED

beforehand, you can ask specific

questions about its development.

Clarification can also be sought on

the theme which you may wish to

address. Make sure the LSR can

attend before you agree the date

and time of the meeting.

Request for additional

evidence

Before the visit,

the reviewers

scrutinise the

self-evaluation

and begin to

develop lines of

enquiry for the

review. During

this desk-based

activity they

might ask for

additional

This request, and all others, will be

made through the Review Manager.

You have the right to ask why pieces

of evidence have been requested.

Some colleges have commented

that meeting requests for additional

evidence have been time-intensive

and difficult to manage. Colleges

should plan in advance to ensure

that sufficient resource is available

to meet review team requests.

12

evidence.

Further requests

can also be

made after the

First Team

Meeting.

Keep a careful record of what has

been provided; use consecutive

numbers for the additional evidence

like you did when you submitted the

SED, and be prepared to provide

everything electronically, including

additional evidence requested at the

review visit.

Preparing staff

Staff in a broad

range of roles

need to become

familiar with HER

and the self-

evaluation so

they can

contribute to the

review.

Allocating specific tasks to members

of staff will not only get the work

done more efficiently, but will also

increase awareness of the process.

Staff could be advised to collect

examples of good practice to give to

the review team.

Staff briefings are a useful staff

development opportunity, as well as

a way of sharing information and

developing solidarity.

Hold a ‘mock’ review visit meeting

with staff (and students) to

familiarise them with the process.

You could also seek external views

on preparation, perhaps from the

awarding bodies or in collaboration

with another college.

Preparing students

See Annex 5 in the

Handbook for a

description of students in

HER.

The college

needs to brief

students about

their role, the

optional student

submission, and

their part in the

review process.

See also

comments on the

role of the LSR

above.

Apart from contributing to the

written student submission, some

students will also attend a student

meeting during the review.

It is for the college and the LSR to

decide exactly which students will

attend meetings. However, the

review team will want to meet a

spread of students - reps and non-

student reps, from full-time and

part-time programmes, different

years, and different subject areas.

This will be confirmed after the

13

team’s First Team Meeting. Students

who attend meetings with reviewers

would do well to acquaint

themselves with the student

submission and the SED.

Meetings during the

visit

Following the

review team’s

first meeting

(referred to as

the First Team

Meeting in the

Handbook) the

Review Manager

will contact the

facilitator with a

timetable of

suggested

meetings and

broad categories

of attendees. The

college decides

who attends the

meetings in

addition to the

review team, the

facilitator and

the RM.

The review team prepare an agenda

in advance, but also ask

supplementary questions. Neither

the RM nor the facilitator (unless

invited) take part in the discussion.

The Review Manager will clarify in

advance the purpose of each

meeting and specify the roles of

attendees. It is important to select

appropriate staff – discuss with the

RM if unsure.

Try to get a spread of staff members

attending the meetings, rather than

having a few people attend all of

them. If possible try to avoid the

same member of staff attending

more than one meeting (apart from

the facilitator of course). This may

not be possible in colleges with

small higher education provision.

Meetings with employers are not a

mandatory part of review. The team

will decide whether to meet

employers based on the nature of

the provision and whether – based

on their desk-based analysis - they

feel that discussion with employers

will add to the review. This might

apply to Foundation Degrees more

than other awards.

The review team may meet

employers and some categories of

students in the evening to facilitate

their attendance.

14

The report The provider has

the opportunity

to identify

matters of

factual

inaccuracy and

return them to

the Review

Manager.

If the college

raises matters of

factual accuracy,

the Review

Manager will

check them with

the review team.

The QAA

publishes the

report and drafts

a press release

for the provider

to use.

The report will contain references to

the evidence that the reviewers

have used in their evaluations.

Evidence will be referenced using

the same system that you originally

used when you uploaded your SE

and SS and additional evidence. If

you are not convinced by the

evaluations and/or the provisional

outcomes, it is important to check

the references and make sure

evidence provided has not been

overlooked. This is not an

opportunity to contest the

evaluations, only the factual

accuracy of the reviewers’

comments and that their

interpretation of the evidence is

correct.

If you are unhappy with the

outcomes and wish to contest the

reviewers’ interpretation of the facts

make sure your comments are

firmly grounded in evidence

available to the team at the time of

the review.

QAA has formal processes for

receiving complaints and appeals

against decisions. Details of these

processes are available on the QAA

website:

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/about-

us/complaints-about-qaa-and-

appeals-against-decisions

Writing the action plan 22 weeks after

the visit, the

action plan is

published on its

website and will

be used as the

starting point for

subsequent

Guidance for colleges on producing

an action plan can be found at:

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/ReviewsAn

dReports/Documents/Guidance-

HER-action-plan.pdf

The guidance contains a suggested

template. If the college uses its own

15

reviews. template it is recommended that

colleges include information about

how they will evaluate the

effectiveness of any actions taken.

6. The self-evaluation document (SED)

The SED is the first indication of the quality of the provision. An effective self-

evaluation document (SED) will demonstrate:

Evaluation and analysis.

Team work.

An honest, self-critical, account of strengths and weaknesses against the

Expectations. Do not pretend you do when you do not.

What is being done to rectify weaknesses and promote strengths?

Data about enrolment, retention, withdrawal, achievement and destinations.

Evidence for claims, referenced in the SED.

Reflection on internal review and evaluation processes, not just description.

What you want reviewers to know.

Consideration of the Quality Code.

The SED provides the basis for the review. Judgements will be made against claims

the college makes.

As a working document for the review team, it needs:

To relate clearly to the expectations of the Quality Code.

Good layout.

Clear headings.

Paragraph and page numbers.

Clear references to evidence cited. Number your files in a three-digit, linear

sequence, starting with 001 for the SED and 002 for the student submission.

To be a reasonable length. This depends on the size of the provision but

reviewers are much more interested in the content than in the length. Try to

make the job of the reviewers as straightforward as possible and keep your

SED focussed.

More guidance on preparing the self-evaluation is provided in the HER method

Handbook (Annex 3), and in supplementary guidance on writing the SED which

16

can be found at:

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/Supplementary-guidance-on-

writing-the-self-evaluation-document-for-Higher-Education-Review.pdf

7. Judgements

There are four judgements in HER, reflecting the three parts of the Quality Code

(Part A: Setting and maintaining academic standards; Part B: Assuring and

enhancing academic quality; and Part C: Information about higher education

provision) and the embedding of enhancement throughout the Quality Code. See

Annex 2 of the Handbook.

Judgements in HER are very different from those colleges may have become

familiar with in IQER. They focus on whether institutions meet the Expectation of

the Quality Code in each of the four categories cited above. The four judgements

for each core element are:

Meets UK expectations

Requires improvement to meet UK expectations

Does not meet UK expectations

A ‘commended’ judgement is available for learning opportunities, information

and enhancement.

The outcome of the review visit is not communicated at the end of the visit. The

outcome is taken back to the QAA for moderation. The key findings letter, sent

to the college two weeks after the review, sets out the provisional conclusions.

The judgements also include information about features of good practice,

recommendations and affirmations (where it is acknowledged that the college is

taking action to address an identified weakness or area for development).

Enhancement

The judgement relating to the enhancement of learning opportunities has

produced a comparatively high number of unsatisfactory outcomes for colleges. It

has also produced a comparatively high number of commended outcomes.

17

Themes associated with unsatisfactory outcomes indicate that colleges need to

consider the following:

The potential for confusing enhancement with enrichment, and the need to

be clear about the definition of enhancement.

The development of systematic procedures to ensure the participation of

students in contributing information to inform the enhancement strategy

and shape activities.

The strategic implementation of enhancement initiatives as part of an

effective and informed overview of higher education.

The QAA’s recently published College Higher Education Toolkit provides further

guidance and explanation on enhancement:

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/College-Higher-Education-

Toolkit-0515.pdf. The Enhancement expectation is likely to cross-reference other

parts of the Quality Code, particularly around areas to do with oversight and

student engagement.

Information

Information is one of the four judgement areas of HER. The Quality Code sets out

an Expectation that higher education providers make available valid, reliable,

useful, and accessible information about their provision. The current

interpretation of Information in the Quality Code is different in some respects to

the way in which this judgement area was interpreted in previous review methods

(e.g. IQER). The focus in HER is on all information, not just published or public, and

that it should be fit for purpose, accessible and trustworthy (FAT), rather than

simply being accurate and complete. It is about the right information for the right

people at the right time, as well as providing a fair and accurate reflection of the

higher education learning opportunities that colleges offer. The QAA’s recently

published College Higher Education Toolkit provides further guidance and

explanation for colleges on Information:

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/College-Higher-Education-

Toolkit-0515.pdf

18

8. What you can do to prepare for HER

Make sure that staff have a knowledge of the Quality Code appropriate to their

position and role in delivering, supporting and managing higher education in

the college.

Make sure that all staff involved in the higher education provision at the

college are aware of what is required for Higher Education Review.

Read the Handbook carefully and more than once.

Make sure that staff are aware of awarding body/organisation regulations and

the respective responsibilities of the college and the awarding body.

Produce an internal planning timetable and allocate tasks.

The facilitator (or other nominated staff member) will check on progress.

Keep in touch with the Review Manager about the arrangements and to ask

questions.

Gather evidence electronically (as per the Handbook) ready to upload onto the

QAA portal. Make sure the evidence is robust and appropriate.

Reading HER reports published on the QAA website is extremely useful.

Talking with a local college which has been through HER can also be helpful.

Use external advice and input to test your preparations, for instance, your

awarding body or other colleges.

Make sure that staff understand their role in meeting each Expectation.

This paper was written by Penny Blackie, a former QAA Review Manager, and Judith

Foreman, a current Review Manager. We are grateful for the comments and

suggestions provided by Ian Welch, QAA Assistant Director, and Phil Markey and Freda

Richardson, both current Review Managers.

19