higher education review (alternative providers): key ...€¦ · they will be covered in a future...

a

Higher Education Review (Alternative Providers): Key Findings 2015-16

Analysis

Contents

Introduction 1

Types of provider 2

What has worked well 3

What could be improved 4

Conclusion 5

Appendix 1: Background information 6

Appendix 2: Alternative providers reviewed 2013-15 7

Appendix 3: Review outcomes 8

1

IntroductionAlternative providers (APs) are independent colleges and universities that offer UK higher education. Some of these have degree awarding powers, or university/university college title, in which case they are mandatory subscribers to QAA and subject to the same review requirements as publicly funded higher education providers were in Higher Education Review. However, the majority of alternative providers are not degree-awarding bodies and are subject to different review requirements, currently under a review method known as Higher Education Review (Alternative Providers).1

QAA have been offering Higher Education Review (AP) since 20132 in order to satisfy two main eligibility requirements for APs:

§§ to have their higher education courses designated by the Department for Education for public (student loans) funding

§§ to apply for or retain Highly Trusted Sponsor status from the Home Office, an essential requirement for providers wanting to recruit international students via a Tier 4 licence.

This report summarises the findings of higher education reviews of APs conducted by QAA over the academic years 2015-163. It covers 38 reviews: 32 for educational oversight, five for specific course designation and one voluntary subscriber - St Patrick’s International College Limited.

AP EO, SCD, voluntary split

1 Specific Course Designation for Alternative Higher Education Providers: Guidance for Providers: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/535846/bis-16-293-specific-course-designation-2016.pdf.

2 Higher Education Review (Alternative Providers): Key Findings 2013-15: www.qaa.ac.uk/publications/information-and-guidance/publication?PubID=3103.

3 This report covers reviews published between October 2015 and September 2016. Four review reports were not published by the cut-off date: Cliff College, ICON College of Technology and Management Ltd, London Bridge Business Academy, and London Churchill College. They will be covered in a future analysis.

QAA have been offering

Higher Education Review (AP) since 2013

32 HER (AP EO)

5 HER (AP SCD)

1 HER (AP voluntary subscriber)

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/535846/bis-16-293-specific-course-designation-2016.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/535846/bis-16-293-specific-course-designation-2016.pdf

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/publications/information-and-guidance/publication?PubID=3103#.WJ2ogE3cu70

2

Types of providerWhile the 38 reviews encompassed a variety of different course awards including HNDs, diplomas and degrees the curricula was relatively limited: theology, design and business tend to dominate. The providers range from newer established providers, such as Edge Hotel School Limited (2011), to providers who have existed for over two centuries - St Patrick's International College Limited (1803).

The providers operate predominantly in England, in cities including Oxford and Bristol, with the greatest concentration being in London (25). One provider (Al-Maktoum) is situated in Dundee, Scotland.

1803 St Patrick's International College London

2011 Edge Hotel

School Limited up to 1900 1900-1970 1971-2000 2001+

1015

20

10

Date provider established

Range of Provision

8Business

7Mixed curriculum

Design

5Theology

12

3

What has worked wellOf the 38 providers reviewed over 80 per cent received a positive outcome, a higher proportion than in previous years. However, it should be noted that the sample size continues to be small (27 reviews in 2013-15 and 38 reviews in 2015-16) so these changes may not be significant. APs perform better than further education colleges, of which around 30 per cent received one or more negative judgements.

Four providers received commendations: SAE Education Ltd for quality of student learning opportunities and enhancement; BIMM and Edge Hotel School Limited for quality of student learning opportunities; and London School of Business and Management for enhancement. All institutions demonstrate a strategic and considered approach to higher education.

Case studies for these provider are available on the QAA website.4

As indicated in the previous AP findings report5, a number of factors seem to be associated with high performing APs: universities as awarding bodies, a sustainable volume of higher education provision, longevity, and having a distinct mission and purpose. So for example in this year’s cohort only one provider established before 1960 received a negative outcome (Inchbald School of Design) while four providers established after 2000 received a negative outcome (AA Hamilton College, Luton International College, Al-Maktoum College of Higher Education, and London College of Business).

Higher Education Review has a core element and a thematic element. The themes for 2015-16 were student employability and digital literacy. Over two thirds of providers opted for the student employability theme, eight chose digital literacy. One provider (Inter Ed UK) looked at student involvement in quality assurance, a theme from the previous year.

4 QAA Good Practice Case Studies: www.qaa.ac.uk/research/analysis/case-studies.

5 Higher Education Review (Alternative Providers): Key Findings 2013-15: www.qaa.ac.uk/publications/information-and-guidance/publication?PubID=3103.

Features of good practice mapped against the Quality Code (chapter B areas)

Enabling student development and

achievement

31 29

Learning and teaching

Enhancement

20

There were

102 areas of

good practice

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/research/analysis/case-studies

4

What could be improvedSeven providers received negative reviews (18 per cent), a lower proportion than reviews undertaken in 2013-15 (details are given in Appendix 2). Of the providers with negative reviews only three have a relationship with an HEI - Christ the Redeemer (Roehampton University), London College of Business (University of Wales) and Inchbald School of Design (Glyndŵr University). However Inchbald received a split judgement for academic standards: awards offered on behalf of its degree awarding body met UK expectations while awards offered by Inchbald required improvement.

Five providers received two or more unsatisfactory judgements. Typically, these providers have a limited understanding of higher education and tend to have a superficial engagement with the Quality Code. The ability to teach and to enable students to learn at higher levels is therefore compromised. Teaching characteristically reflects the norms and expectations associated with lower levels of study.

Of the 38 providers reviewed just under half (16) had a relationship with Pearson to deliver Higher National Diplomas (HNDs) and Higher National Certificates (HNCs). Of these a sub-set of over 80 per cent received a recommendation related to their Pearson delivery.

Recommendations mapped against the Quality Code (chapter B areas)

Programme monitoring and

review

30 22

Programme design,

development and approval

Learning and teaching

20

There were

208 recommendations

5

ConclusionAlternative providers are an important part of the higher education landscape, contributing to the diversity, choice and opportunities available. Although collectively referred to as ‘alternative providers’, QAA’s reports have consistently shown that this is a highly diverse group in terms of mission, size, specialism, reputation and track record.

Government policy actively supports new, high quality providers in entering the sector, while safeguarding quality and standards. In the past three years the Privy Council has granted degree awarding powers to four alternative providers, university title to three, and university college title to two. And as this report illustrates, the APs reviewed in 2015-16 performed better than their college HE peers: although these are relatively small numbers, around 80 per cent of the 38 HER (AP) reviews concluded with positive outcomes.

While we have identified four factors that are associated with the better performing APs - a sustainable volume of HE students, a university awarding body, longevity and a strategic commitment to and investment in higher education - these factors are not, however, hard and fast determinants of provider quality in themselves. The New College of the Humanities (established in 2012), London School of Business and Management (established as a higher education provider in 2002) and the Royal School of Needlework (fewer than 50 students) demonstrate that new entrants and smaller providers can and do perform well.

An enhanced annual monitoring process will scrutinise APs in 2018 ahead of the Office for Student’s scrutiny and quality framework in 2019. In the meantime, we can say that HER (AP) has had a very positive impact on the regulation and quality of these providers. Since QAA began working with alternative providers in 2012, through to October 2016:

§§ 462 alternative providers have applied for QAA review (educational oversight, course designation)

§§ 246 of these providers have withdrawn, transferred or had poor outcomes

§§ 216 are still in the programme (47 per cent).

There is and has been a high bar for quality to safeguard the interests of students and the hard-won reputation of the higher education sector.

6

Appendix 1: Alternative providers reviewed 2015-16Provider Date of review/monitoring

AA Hamilton College February 2016

ABI College February 2016

Al-Maktoum College of Higher Education May 2016

Architectural Association School of Architecture June 2016

BIMM January 2016

Bristol Baptist College March 2016

BRIT College February 2016

British Institute of Technology Ltd October 2015

Centre For Advanced Studies Ltd t/a City of London College September 2015

Christ the Redeemer College February 2016

Christie's Education Ltd November 2015

Edge Hotel School Limited March 2016

EThames Graduate School April 2016

Grafton College Ltd t/a Grafton College of Management Sciences

June 2016

Inchbald School of Design May 2016

Inter-Ed UK t/a The City College October 2015

Istituto Marangoni April 2016

Kaplan Financial Ltd May 2016

KLC School of Design June 2016

London College of Business February 2016

London College of International Business Studies January 2016

London School of Business and Management October 2015

London School of Theology June 2016

Luton International College October 2015

Markfield Institute of Higher Education April 2016

Nazarene Theological College March 2016

Oxford Business College April 2016

SAE Education Ltd June 2016

Sotheby's Institute of Art, London February 2016

Spurgeon's College June 2016

St Patrick's International College Limited November 2015

The Institute of Ismaili Studies April 2016

The Kingham Hill Trust (Oak Hill College) June 2016

The Queen's Foundation for Ecumenical Theological Education March 2016

The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust April 2016

Trinity College Bristol March 2016

UCK t/a The London College April 2016

West Dean College - The Edward James Foundation March 2016

7

Appendix 2: Unsatisfactory outcomes

Provider Academic standardsQuality of learning

opportunities

Quality of Information

Enhancement

AA Hamilton College

meets UK expectations requires improvement to meet UK expectations

requires improvement to meet UK expectations


Al-Maktoum College of Higher Education

meets UK expectations requires improvement to meet UK expectations

meets UK expectations


Centre For Advanced Studies Ltd t/a City of London College

does not meet UK expectations




Christ the Redeemer College

meets UK expectations meets UK expectations



Inchbald School of Design

The maintenance of the academic standards of the awards offered on behalf of its degree-awarding body meets UK expectations. The setting and maintenance of the academic standards of the awards offered by Inchbald School of Design requires improvement to meet UK expectations.




London College of Business

meets UK expectations does not meet UK expectations



Luton International College

meets UK expectations meets UK expectations



8

Appendix 3: Review outcomesJudgement Outcome Percentage Number

Academic Standards meets UK expectations 95% 36

require improvement to meet UK expectsations

3% 1

do not meet UK expectations 0%

Higher National provision does not meet UK expectations; all other provision does

3% 1

Total 101% 38

Learning opportunities

are commended 8% 3

meets UK expectations 79% 30


10% 4

does not meet UK expectations 3% 1

Total 100% 38

Information is commended 0%



8% 3


Total 100% 38

Enhancement is commended 5% 2



14% 5


Total 100% 38

9

QAA1847 – April 2017

© The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education 2017 Southgate House, Southgate Street, Gloucester GL1 1UB Registered charity numbers 1062746 and SC037786

Tel: 01452 557 050

Website: www.qaa.ac.uk

higher education review (alternative providers): key ...€¦ · they will be covered in a future...

Documents