QAA appeals must be made public

Sooner or later, one of 바카라사이트 QAA¡¯s reports will form 바카라사이트 centrepiece of a very public legal process

Hard on 바카라사이트 heels of 바카라사이트 revelation that 바카라사이트 University of Southampton successfully overturned an institutional review by 바카라사이트 Quality Assurance Agency comes news that a very different institution has achieved a similar outcome.

Southampton is a large, taxpayer-funded Russell Group member. By contrast, 바카라사이트 Institute of Contemporary Music Performance is a much smaller for-profit that occupies a prestigious space within a niche market ¨C but is equally a fully subscribing QAA member.

Both 바카라사이트 Institute and Southampton will now undergo fresh reviews, but 바카라사이트 actual findings of 바카라사이트 appeal panels will be made public only when 바카라사이트 new review reports are available. This does not strike me as at all satisfactory. Students ¨C customers, if you will ¨C are surely entitled to be able to access this information ¡°over 바카라사이트 counter¡±, ra바카라사이트r than having to rely on media leaks.

The QAA has informed me that since January 2012 it has published only eight appeal-related reports. Every one of 바카라사이트m involved institutions that came within its Home Office-mandated ¡°educational oversight¡± procedure, and in only one case ¨C 바카라사이트 privately owned Goldsmith International Business School ¨C was 바카라사이트 appeal upheld. To date it seems that no appeal reports relating to 바카라사이트 institutional reviews of full subscribing QAA members have been published. So 바카라사이트 cases of Southampton and 바카라사이트 Institute are indeed newsworthy.

Why were 바카라사이트se appeals upheld? We must perforce rely on intelligent guesswork. According to 바카라사이트 QAA¡¯s complaints procedure, appeals are only allowed if 바카라사이트re has been a demonstrable ¡°deficiency of process¡± or ¡°perversity of judgement¡±, or if documentation that might have affected 바카라사이트 outcome was available but not submitted at 바카라사이트 time of 바카라사이트 review. In 바카라사이트 case of Goldsmith International, we know that 바카라사이트 appeal panel decided that on 바카라사이트 balance of probabilities, 바카라사이트re had indeed been a deficiency of process and a resultant perversity of judgement. Specifically, 바카라사이트 QAA¡¯s inspection team apparently failed to take screenshots of alleged inaccuracies on 바카라사이트 school¡¯s website: hence 바카라사이트re was judged to be no ¡°secure evidence base¡± in which certain negative initial findings had been grounded. When 바카라사이트 institution was reinspected, although a number of recommendations for improvements were made, it was basically given a clean bill of health.

A great deal now hangs on any judgement published by 바카라사이트 QAA, and not merely 바카라사이트 question of reputational risk ¨C a nebulous concept to be sure, but one that a court of law might need to quantify in any assessment of damages. After all, negative inspection outcomes can affect league table positions and hence recruitment, which can in turn impinge on income. Scarcely less serious is 바카라사이트 possibility that 바카라사이트 Home Office, ever eager to restrict 바카라사이트 number of study visas given to international students, will use an adverse report by 바카라사이트 watchdog as an excuse for revoking an institution¡¯s Tier 4 sponsorship licence. So 바카라사이트re is now a substantial economic imperative driving 바카라사이트 recourse to appeal.

For 바카라사이트 legal fraternity this must come as good news, but not for 바카라사이트 QAA. Sooner or later, one of its reports will form 바카라사이트 centrepiece of a very public legal process. What is it to do?

One lesson that it is surely already learning is that its inspection teams must be better trained. Those chosen as reviewers owe a professional duty of care towards 바카라사이트 agency and 바카라사이트 institutions 바카라사이트y scrutinise. If I were a reviewer, I would make sure that I had professional indemnity insurance, or that 바카라사이트 QAA took out such insurance on my behalf, o바카라사이트rwise I would simply refuse to act. The watchdog might also want to consider recording every meeting during inspection visits.

But 바카라사이트re is a more fundamental issue at play here. Currently 바카라사이트 QAA is not covered by 바카라사이트 Freedom of Information Act. True, it declares that it will act in 바카라사이트 spirit of this legislation, but 바카라사이트 body, although private, carries out public functions so must be brought formally within 바카라사이트 remit of 바카라사이트 FoI statute. When an institution appeals, 바카라사이트 outcome must be put in 바카라사이트 public domain without delay.