Leadership, management and strategy for higher education in further
education colleges: an expert programme for senior managers
Notes of discussions on QAA developments
There were three group discussions on QAA developments with each group discussion
focusing on a somewhat different range of issues. The key themes are summarised here with
the more detailed summaries for each group following below.
Key points arising from discussion
Colleges relate to the QAA developments in a range of ways reflecting:
 their volume of HE provision
 aspirations (for FDAP and TDAP)
 and partnership arrangements (formal, single, multiple, indirect funding, validation
only)
Colleges are subject to other forms of QA including Ofsted (which is very different)
IQER:
 raises the profile of HE in colleges
 requires reporting/monitoring mechanisms, e.g. an HE academic board or committee
There are differing expectations of the impact of FDAP on partnerships these include:
 arrangements with partners
 competition
 progression internally and externally
Staff development materials suggested
Proposals included:
 a user friendly guide to the Academic Infrastructure and reference tools on ‘QAA
speak’
 tools for identifying lines of enquiry
 ways of soliciting and presenting student feedback
 supporting scholarly activity
 models of working in partnership to support IQER
 materials to support the role of a Director of HE
 interactive website
17 February, Manchester
Session facilitated by Angela O’Donoghue, Principal City of Sunderland College with
John Widdowson, Principal New College Durham
Notes taken by Penny Blackie, Project team
Discussion
The Facilitator started discussion with the following comments:





QAA very different from Ofsted – no benchmarks
Supportive process, focused on improvement
Developmntal engagement and summative review comparable with formative
and summative assessment
Familiar with action plans
Need to be confident about using the language of the QAA
John Widdowson, Principal, New College Durham

Transferability (or not) of the FE experience

Different mindset – party line with Ofsted; formative process with QAA

HE in FE is different – not better or worse. QAA offers opportunity to make an
argument for how you do it.

Must bring together the HE community

To grow HE, must be in a new environment

With FDAP, have had to review the kind of minutes they take – not always
detailed or discursive enough for QAA and FDAP process


City of Sunderland College has a significant training programme – e.g. a fact
sheet pack to offer individual training to staff and get them used to QAA speak
New sub-committee of Corporation – adult and HE – receives reports on HE
In discussion participants noted that:
IQER raises the profile of HE in the college

HE Academic Board in some colleges

Same policies but staff development for HE.

Need to involve cross-college managers in IQER (e.g. marketing, student
support, admissions, MIS – it’s harder t get them on board

JW: MEG working party looking at MIS implications

Benchmarks not available but would be useful for comparability

MEG has also looked at scholarly activity and research

HEFCE Statistics on Foundation degrees provides some useful information

Effect on numbers and enrolment because of the recession – a problem but
colleges can also be opportunistic. Can colleges collaborate (e.g. Economic
Challenge initiative Fund where HEIs go it alone but there could be intercollege collaboration.
26 February, London
Session facilitated by Michele Sutton, Principal, Bradford College and David Smith, Director of
HE
Notes taken by Penny Blackie, Project team
Discussion
The initial part of the session focused on how some colleges are working on issues related to
quality. This was led by Bradford with input from another large HE provider.

Bradford College is applying for Taught Degree Awarding Powers and will submit their
application to the Privy Council for 100 awards. When the merger with Bradford
University broke down, the college moved to a partnership with Leeds Metropolitan
University. They feel the future should be in their own hands.

There is much pressure: Bradford had an Ofsted inspection in October 2008, an IQER
Developmental engagement in November 2008 and is part of the Leeds Met
institutional audit.

The Principal is responsible for all these activities.

Colleges need a good understanding of the quality assurance processes of validating
partners. The College will need a robust set of systems in their own organisation, not
just for IQER but also for Foundation or Taught degree awarding powers.

Blackpool & the Fylde College had decided to focus on one partner (Lancaster
University) and has engaged with Lancaster to redefine the relationship into a more
strategic involvement.
Discussion covered the impact of FDAP on partnerships:

There may be benefits from FDAP relating to student progression in the college.

This depends on the nature of the relationship. Some are predatory. One college
moved from multiple partnerships to the Open University Validation Service for all its
provision.

When there are a large number of validating bodies, the risk is shared.

It is a question of competition (DIUS says the market is big enough).
The National Skills Academies:

The QAA has no formal discussion. Skills Academy Boards do not include FE or HE
representatives. Where is the dialogue?
Influence of the National Student Survey:





Bradford had mentioned the NSS in its IQER self-evaluation.
Blackpool & the Fylde believe the NSS gives important quality information,
The QAA believes that the NSS has given a success story of student satisfaction for
HE in FE. Issues also emerge.
The focus has been on feedback on assessment.
Newcastle College had only 17 of 80 courses included in the NSS because of the cut
off of 23 in the student cohort, They are producing an internal surevy more like the
NSS. There is some difficulty with the JACs codes.
The student written submission for IQER:

There was a discussion about how you would produce it, especially in a small college.
Hastings College has small HE provision. Bradford College use posters that say ‘You
said’ and then ‘This is what we did.
Staff development materials
 Ways of soliciting and presenting the student written submission for IQER
19 March, Birmingham
Session facilitated by Danny Clough and Jane Waldron, Colchester Institute
Notes taken by Penny Blackie, Project team
Discussion
The initial part of the session was by Colchester Institute describing their HE provision.
Colchester Institute has one main HE partner and is indirectly funded. The College has set
up a unit for HE operations. Higher level provision is changing – e.g. they are losing
longstanding work, like physiotherapy and occupational therapy to professional bodies.
The college has been using the Academic Infrastructure as a lynch pin for the HE provision.
Jane Waldron described the significance of elements of the Academic Infrastructure: the
Framework for higher education qualifications, the subject benchmarks, the Foundation
degree qualification benchmarks, programme specifications and, in some detail, the Code of
Practice. Whe believes that how a college engages with the Code of Practice gives evidence
for IQER of how HE provision is managed.
The Academic Infrastructure is also a way of managing multiple partnerships
Colchester has established an HE specific committee structure which links the HE Boards of
Studies to the HE sub-committee. A partnership board oversees new programme
development.
Discussion covered a range of issues with a particular focus on partnerships and scholarly
activity:

IQER requires some central control of HE but does that diminish responsiveness?

Colchester has a Research and Scholarly activity policy and a budget available to all
staff, not just HE.

There was a query about a definition for scholarly activity – one suggestion was that it
was anything beyond day-to-day teaching or preparation

One college allows 10 days a year for scholarly activity

The effects of multiple partnerships and the opportunity for colleges to cherry pick
partners
Staff development materials
Proposals included materials covering:

Scholarly activity

Partnerships

The Academic Infrastructure – to ensure familiarity, The language can be distant and
may need to be explained

Opportunity to network and have conversations

Hence, an interactive section on the website (Moodle?)

Lines of Enquiry for IQER