Failing college 'furious' at QAA

March 31, 2000

Stockport College is set to become the first higher education provider to have funding withdrawn for teaching quality failure. But it will contest the action in a fight that will challenge the methodology and protocol of teaching quality assessments.

Following a 1998 review that left Stockport with its teaching quality "not approved" by the Quality Assurance Agency in three subject areas, the QAA has since revisited the college and reached the same conclusion, The THES has learned.

The re-inspection report is due to be published next month.

Under the Higher Education Funding Council's procedures, the decision will lead ultimately to the withdrawal of funding for the courses judged to be failing.

But Stockport is to contest the decision, claiming procedural flaws and a breach of protocol.

Principal Richard Evans said he could not make any comment, but sources have confirmed that the college is furious and is making formal representations to the QAA to overturn the decision before publication.

Failures were originally identified during a single inspection visit covering building, civil engineering and electrical and electronic engineering. Of the six aspects of provision judged by the QAA, Stockport was failed for the quality of its "student progression and achievement".

Although provision was deemed satisfactory with limited scope for improvement in four of the six areas, and a pass-mark was given for the fifth area, the single failure constituted an overall failure.

Stockport was unhappy with this because three programmes in two distinct subject areas had been examined in a single visit, leading the college to claim the review had been blighted by "complications".

But the college is particularly angry about the conduct of the re-inspection. The aspect of provision originally failed by the QAA - student progression and achievement - has been given the all-clear in the re-inspection, it is understood.

But during the revisit, the QAA ruled that an aspect of provision that had originally passed - quality assurance and enhancement - was now failing. Had there been no reinspection, this would have escaped further scrutiny for several years.

There are also concerns that the representation process has been prejudiced by QAA chief executive John Randall. Mr Randall, who has already been accused of bias against college-based higher education providers, announced to a conference in Oxford earlier this month that he had recently encountered the first case of a higher education institution failing a re-inspection.

The QAA cannot comment on unpublished reports.

Please login or register to read this article.

Register to continue

Get a month's unlimited access to THE content online. Just register and complete your career summary.

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Most commented

Recent controversy over the future directions of both Stanford and Melbourne university presses have raised questions about the role of in-house publishing arms in a world of commercialisation, impact agendas, alternative facts – and ever-diminishing monograph sales. Anna McKie reports

3 October


Featured jobs

Programme and Delivery Manager

University Of Leeds


Maynooth University

Occupational Health Manager

University Of The West Of Scotland

Senior Veterinary Epidemiologist

Scotland's Rural College (sruc)