What is the Higher Education Review (HER)?
A briefing paper from Education Policy Support (November 2014)
A.
The national framework for quality assurance
1.
Degree-awarding bodies in the UK are autonomous, responsible for setting and
maintaining their own academic standards. HEFCE has a legal duty, under the terms of the
Further and Higher Education Act 1992, to ensure that provision is made for the assessment
of the quality of education provided in institutions for whose activities it provides financial
support. HEFCE fulfils this obligation by contracting with the QAA to conduct external
reviews of HEIs.
2.
The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) is an independent body
funded by subscriptions from universities and through contracts with HEFCE and the other
UK funding bodies. The QAA was established to safeguard the public interest in sound
standards of higher education (HE) qualifications and to inform and encourage continuous
improvement in the management of the quality of HE. The main responsibilities of the QAA
are to review standards and quality, by means of Higher Education Reviews (HER) and
other review mechanisms, and to provide reference points that help to define clear and
explicit standards and expectations. These are set out in the UK Quality Code1 which
incorporates the frameworks for higher education qualifications, subject benchmark
statements and a set of Expectations and Indicators.
B.
Higher Education Review
Purpose and overview of the method
3.
The purpose of the HER process is to inform students and the wider public as to
whether a provider meets the requirements of the higher education sector for:

the setting and/or maintenance of academic standards;

the provision of learning opportunities;

the provision of information; and

the enhancement of the quality of students' learning opportunities.
4.
The method is ostensibly risk-based, in that providers with a strong track record in
managing quality and standards are formally reviewed less frequently and less intensively
than providers without such a strong record. However, apart from abolishing the preliminary
visit, the methodology is very similar to that used in previous exercises.
5.
The review team is made up of peer reviewers – staff from other HE providers and at
least one student reviewer. Students are central to the process, as the HER Handbook notes
in its introduction: ‘They are full members of review teams. There are also opportunities for
the provider's students to take part in the review, including by contributing a student
submission, meeting the review team during the review visit, working with their providers in
response to review outcomes, and acting as the lead student representative.’
6.
The Review results in a report containing judgements relating to the four areas listed
in paragraph 3 above as well as other findings. The possible judgement outcomes are:
1
More information on the UK Quality Code can be found in a separate briefing paper.
1

commended2;

meets UK expectations;

requires improvement to meet UK expectations; or

does not meet UK expectations.
The institution is then required to produce an action plan in consultation with students
detailing how it will respond to the findings of the report.
7.
In addition to the core element described above, the Review also has a thematic
element, which is not subject to a judgement. The possible themes (of which the institution
under review chooses one) change periodically and have not yet been announced for 201516. The themes for Reviews in 2013-15 have been ‘Student Involvement in Quality
Assurance and Enhancement’ and ‘Student Employability’.
Difference between HER and the previous method of review in 2009
8.
While the underlying purpose and overall format of institutional audit or review has
remained largely unchanged, the detailed objectives and approach have been significantly
developed. The Institutional Audit in 2009 required reviewers to reach two judgements on
the reviewers’ confidence, limited confidence or lack of confidence in the institutional
management of academic standards and of learning opportunities. Only commentaries
(rather than judgements) were to be made on the institution’s management of quality
enhancement and published information. Under the new approach, each of these categories
now becomes the object of formal judgements. In addition the institution’s approach to the
specified thematic element (not part of the earlier process) will be the subject of a separate
commentary.
9.
While the earlier reviewers paid significant attention to how an institution engaged
with the then QAA Code of Practice, the report dealt with the various sections necessary to
reach the two judgements and to provide the necessary commentaries under broad
headings. For institutional management of academic standards, these were:

approval, monitoring and review of award standards;

external examiners;

academic infrastructure and other external reference points;

assessment policies and regulations; and

management information – statistics.
Under the new approach, the judgements will be based on how far an institution meets the
nineteen ‘Expectations’ set out in the three parts of the UK Quality Code, plus an additional
Expectation on Enhancement. In practical terms the format of the review visit – a review
team meeting relevant groups of staff and students – remains largely unchanged, but with
the clear indication that the greatest priority is to be attached to the meeting with students.
Details of the HER for Oxford
10.
We have now received confirmation from the QAA that our Higher Education Review
visit will take place during week 8 of HT 2016 (week commencing 7 March 2016).The visit is
the second part of a two-stage process, with the first part being a desk-based analysis by the
review team of a range of information about the higher education provision of the institution.
The evidence base used for the desk-based analysis includes:

the Self Evaluation Document (SED) that we submit

a submission from our student body (the Student Written Submission (SWS))

other information gathered by the QAA (including previous QAA review
reports and professional, statutory and regulatory body (PSRB) reports).
2
This judgement is not available in relation to the setting and/or maintenance of academic standards, where only
the other three judgements are used.
2
11.
We do not know yet the length of the visit (it will be between one and five days), as
this is determined by the review team after the desk-based analysis described above, once
they have assessed the scale and complexity of the University’s provision, and the evidence
provided in and alongside the SED about whether the Expectations are met. We will be
notified of the length of the visit about four weeks before it occurs.
12.
The number of reviewers depends on the characteristics of the institution. The
University’s size, and its proportion of PGRs, means that we expect the Review team to
have five members, including at least one student member. The team will be supported by
an officer from the QAA.
13.
The Review team will decide whom they want to meet after the desk-based analysis
(about four weeks before the visit occurs) but it will include the VC, PVC (Education),
members of staff, a wide variety of students and possibly alumni, employers and external
examiners. A great deal of emphasis is placed on the contact with students – the HER
Handbook states ‘the review team will ensure that its programme includes meetings with a
wide variety of students, to enable it to gain first-hand information on students’ experience as
learners and on their engagement with the providers’ quality assurance and enhancement
processes.’ The QAA envisage that the responsibility for identifying students for the Review
Team to meet will fall to the Lead Student Representative3.
14.
The process relates to the academic standards and learning across the collegiate
University as a whole and does not involve any review of individual colleges. Nonetheless, it
will inevitably look carefully at the overall provision for students across the collegiate
University and so the effectiveness and quality assurance of the combined provision made
by colleges, divisions, faculties and departments, and University support services is bound to
be a major item of interest and scrutiny.
The Self Evaluation Document (SED)
15.
The SED and the evidence that accompany it are critical elements in the process.
These must be uploaded twelve weeks before the visit. The evidence that accompanies the
SED will be included to provide confirmation of the statements made within the SED about
how the University’s practice meets the Expectations. The evidence will include (but not be
limited to):

relevant Policy and Guidance documents;;

diagrams representing the structures and bodies by which the collegiate
University conducts its quality assurance and enhancement activity;

minutes of relevant committees (including, but not limited to, Education
Committee, QASC, the Panels of Education Committee, Divisional Boards
and divisional educational committees);

annual reports (e.g. examiners’ reports); and

recent departmental review reports and responses.
16.
As part of the SED, we are expected to report and comment on our performance in
the National Student Survey (NSS), the Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education
(DLHE) survey and the HESA Performance Indicator for non-continuation, the number and
type of OIA complaints and other relevant nationally or internationally benchmarked data.
3
The HER Handbook states: ‘The role of the lead student representative (LSR) is designed to allow student
representatives to play a central part in the organisation of the review. The LSR will normally oversee the
production of the student submission.’ After initial discussion with OUSU, we anticipate that the LSR for Oxford
will be the OUSU VP (Access and Academic Affairs).
3
The Student Written Submission (SWS)
17.
The HER Handbook explains that ‘the function of the student submission is to help
the review team understand what it is like to be a student at that provider, and how students'
views are considered in the provider's decision-making and quality assurance processes.
Where the student submission indicates significant problems in the provider's assurance of
standards and quality, this may lead the review team to spend longer at the provider than
they would do if the submission suggests the provider is managing its responsibilities
effectively. The student submission is, therefore, an extremely important piece of evidence.’
After the review visit
18.
We will be notified of the provisional key findings of the review two weeks after the
visit, with the draft review report provided a month later, for factual corrections. The report
will be published twelve weeks after the review visit.
19.
The HER Handbook explains that, if all judgements are satisfactory: ‘After the report
has been published, you will be expected to provide an action plan, signed off by the head of
the provider, responding to the recommendations and affirmations, and giving any plans to
capitalise on the identified good practice. You should either produce this jointly with student
representatives, or representatives should be able to post their own commentary on the
action plan.’
C.
Further information
20.
Further information can be provided by Education Policy Support (contact
Catherine.whalley@admin.ox.ac.uk). Additional information will be posted on the EPS
website (http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/edc/) in due course.
CJW 10Nov14
4