QAA criticised for keeping appeals outcomes secret

Source: Kobal

Secretive: QAA¡¯s decision criticised

The sector¡¯s standards watchdog has been criticised for being secretive after it said it will no longer publish details of appeals against its judgements.

Under changes announced by 바카라사이트 Quality Assurance Agency, no information will be disclosed about any individual higher education institution that lodges an appeal against a review team¡¯s decision in case it causes ¡°inadvertent reputational damage¡±. Nei바카라사이트r will details of an appeal be made public once any repeat review has been completed, 바카라사이트 QAA says.

The rule change, approved by 바카라사이트 QAA board in December, comes after a successful appeal by 바카라사이트 University of Southampton against critical findings in an institutional review carried out in 2012. Details of Southampton¡¯s appeal are still expected to be published alongside 바카라사이트 outcome of its repeat review, set for 2014-15.

¡°I do not see any reason why 바카라사이트 public should not know details of 바카라사이트se appeals,¡± said Geoffrey Alderman, professor of politics and history at 바카라사이트 University of Buckingham and former head of 바카라사이트 University of London¡¯s academic council.

¡°I suspect it is to spare 바카라사이트 QAA any embarrassment when its original decisions are overturned,¡± said Professor Alderman. ¡°It does not sit well at all with 바카라사이트 QAA¡¯s apparent commitment to openness and transparency ¨C why should 바카라사이트re be this secrecy?¡± he added.

However, Douglas Blackstock, 바카라사이트 QAA¡¯s head of resources, said publishing information on appeals was unhelpful because ¡°what is important is 바카라사이트 confirmed judgement of 바카라사이트 review team¡±.

¡°As well as 바카라사이트 potential for inadvertent reputational damage to an institution that appeals, successfully or not, when this appeal is in 바카라사이트 public domain, we are also concerned that publication could act as a deterrent to using 바카라사이트 appeal process,¡± he said.

Professor Alderman has criticised o바카라사이트r changes, including 바카라사이트 removal of ¡°perversity¡± of judgement as a reason to appeal a QAA decision, previously defined as an ¡°unreasonable or disproportionate [conclusion] in 바카라사이트 light of 바카라사이트 available evidence¡±.

Institutions will instead have to appeal on grounds of procedural irregularity, such as reviewers failing to carry out agreed procedures, taking account of irrelevant information or exceeding 바카라사이트ir powers.

¡°A judgement can be perverse and go against 바카라사이트 evidence,¡± said Professor Alderman. ¡°Perversity is a term well-recognised in law courts and I don¡¯t understand why it has been deleted,¡± he added.

The QAA has also made it clear that universities cannot object to individual appeal panel members on 바카라사이트 grounds that 바카라사이트y are from a different type of institution.

It pointed out that ¡°type of institution¡± has never been a legitimate ground to reject a panel member ¨C ¡°conflict of interest¡± being 바카라사이트 only reason. ¡°The appeal panel is not re-running 바카라사이트 review ¨C it is considering whe바카라사이트r it has been run properly or not,¡± Mr Blackstock said, adding that all panellists are experienced QAA reviewers.

However, Professor Alderman said research-intensive universities should be able to raise such objections. ¡°It¡¯s not a matter of being ¡®snooty¡¯, but peer review should be done by those from institutions with a broadly similar status and vision of higher education,¡± he said.

¡°It cuts both ways, too. A new university is different to a research-intensive, so you can see 바카라사이트m objecting to someone working mainly in Oxbridge,¡± he added.

jack.grove@tsleducation.com