QAA reviews raise questions over sector expansion plans

Smaller, newer alternative providers are less likely to pass higher education review, analysis says

July 28, 2016
Child drives miniature car into people
Source: Reuters
Testing times: unsuccessful judgements were directed primarily at providers with small numbers of students

Further questions have been raised about the government’s plans to open up English higher education to alternative providers by a report that finds that smaller, newer institutions are less likely to meet sector standards.

An analysis conducted by the Quality Assurance Agency says that 19 of the higher education reviews of alternative providers it conducted in the past two years concluded that institutions met or exceeded expectations in all areas, while eight of the reviews uncovered shortcomings.

Significantly, alternative providers that had positive reviews tended to be larger – the majority had more than 100 students – longer-established, and working with universities as awarding bodies.

Unsuccessful judgements were directed primarily at providers with small numbers of students, including one, Luton International College, which had no learners at the time of the review but “had aspirations to recruit overseas students”.

The majority of these institutions had been in existence for fewer than 12 years and often offered qualifications by non-university awarding agencies.

This raises questions about the government’s plan in the higher education White Paper to allow new providers to award their own degrees on a probationary basis from the day that they open, without the oversight of an awarding university, and to scrap the minimum student numbers threshold, currently 1,000, for institutions hoping to gain university title.

The QAA says that institutions that failed higher education review typically had “a limited understanding of higher education in general”, and showed “superficial engagement” with the requirements of the Quality Code.

“The ability to teach and enable students to learn at higher levels is, therefore, compromised,” the report says.

However, the QAA says that successful reviews of the New College of the Humanities, established in 2012, and the London School of Business and Management, founded in 2000, show that new providers “can, and do, add to the richness of the higher education sector”.

Under current rules, passing higher education review is a key requirement for institutions that wish to recruit international students.

The QAA report says that 19 of the 23 providers that were inspected (four of them were re-reviewed) were located in the London area, with 12 clustered within a one-mile radius in the centre of the capital.

Although the total number of inspections is small, the proportion of unsatisfactory reviews appears to be increasing. In 2013-14, one of seven providers inspected failed to meet standards, and in 2014-15 seven of 20 fell short.

Aldwyn Cooper, vice-chancellor of private, non-profit Regent’s University London and chair of the Independent Universities Group, said that the government needed to offer reassurance over the standards of providers that would be admitted to the sector.

“There are some quite excellent institutions in the alternative provider sector that are delivering first-rate student experience and good employment outcomes,” Professor Cooper said. “The issue here is the extent to which any institution is able to set in place all the processes that are required to deliver a quality higher education to its students.” 

Will Naylor, the QAA’s director of quality assurance, said that more mature providers had benefited from long-term engagement with the watchdog’s reviews.

“We have definitely seen a trend for older and larger establishments to perform better in QAA review than those that are newer and smaller,” Mr Naylor said.

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

Reader's comments (4)

Has this analysis been published? And does it refer only to institutions that have undergone Higher Education Review (Alternative Providers)/Higher Education Review (Plus)? Although frankly, I find it impossible to keep track of how and when review methods have changed for all the different types of alternative providers. One of the most revealing ways to explore quality issues outside of the mainstream university sector (including FECs and alternative providers) is to use the QAA knowledge base. This allows you to look at what recommendations have been made in reviews organised by each chapter of the Quality Code. In many cases where the overall judgements for the provider has been 'meets expectations', the recommendations and detailed commentary reveal practice that is a long way off the mark of what is expected by the Quality Code, including basic things like accurately documenting and consistently​ applying key policies such as course approval or assessment regulations.
It was available from the link in the article, but that now appears broken.
That link is working fine for me.
It astonishes me that, once again, we are discussing 'new providers,' (or so called 'challengers') in the UK's HE system; and discovering that there is circumspection over their quality. We seem unable/unwilling/fearful of kicking the elephant in the room to make it trumpet an alert against what is happening. For as long as I can recall, EVERY sortie into any kind of alliance with these institutions ends with a hasty retreat when their true purpose is uncovered ... building the bottom line!! As Luton International College has been identified in this post, out of interest I went on their website and read that they were ... "Founded in 2003, Luton International College has ever since been delivering quality education. In addition, the College offers undergraduate, post graduate and English courses." ... really?? Does this statement mean that the QAA review was longer than 14 years ago?? or could it be that the statement made by the college is, let's say, inaccurate?? They also claim that they have a "good track record in the provision of education" ... really?? how did the QAA miss that achievement given that they wrote the college had 'no learners at the time of the review' ...!! Further the college claims to have "a tradition of innovation, leadership, and accomplishment unrivalled in business and health and social care" ... unrivalled?? tradition?? Astonishingly it offers International Students "free academic English classes if they wish" ... it would be interesting to learn of how a non English speaker manages to study and progress if they 'do not wish'. For the sake of us all, why don't we stop this constant denial of what these institutions are about?? Could it be that the Government consider the short term pain of putting up with them is more than compensated by the long term achievement of total privatisation of the sector??

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments