Background: A reputable higher education institution in England offers a variety of undergraduate and postgraduate programmes. Recently, the Business Management programme has been flagged for being below the B3 threshold set by the Office for Students (OfS). The B3 threshold assesses student outcomes including continuation, completion, and graduate employment rates.

Challenge: The university's quality team is concerned about the performance of the programme and is tasked with identifying underlying issues and implementing improvements to meet the threshold.

Action: The quality team ask QAA to conduct a comprehensive review of the Business Management programme to understand the factors contributing to its low student outcomes.

Steps taken:

• Expert analysis: The QAA team begins a desk-based analysis by reviewing evidence provided by the university which includes:
  • Data related to student continuation, completion and graduate employment rates which are compared with other programmes at the university and with national benchmarks such as that provided by the OfS
  • Policy and process documentation, including student feedback, external review, teaching methods, assessment practices and the programme's resourcing to identify potential areas for improvement.
• The QAA team provide an objective assessment of the programme's strengths and weaknesses, and their findings are fed back to the university online, in-person and/or in writing. They highlight key issues such as:
  • Curriculum gaps: The curriculum lacks alignment with current trends, employer expectations and external benchmarks
  • Teaching quality: Inconsistent teaching quality in this programme
  • Student support: Academic and career support services for students that require improvement 
  • Assessment practices: Clarity and consistency in assessment criteria and feedback.
• The QAA team support the university by developing an Action Plan in collaboration with the programme leaders. A clear and comprehensive action plan with actionable insights is developed. The plan includes:
  • Curriculum revision: Updating the curriculum to include more industry-relevant content and practical skills
  • Faculty development: Training and support for faculty to enhance teaching quality and consistency
  • Enhanced support services: Expanding academic support and career services for students
  • Improved assessment practices: Standardising assessment practice in the university and providing clear, constructive feedback to students.
• Implementation and monitoring: The university implements the action plan and establishes a monitoring framework to track progress. Regular reviews and feedback mechanisms are established to ensure continuous improvement and alignment with the B3 threshold requirements. QAA provides support to review the effectiveness of implementation.

Outcome: By conducting a thorough investigation and implementing targeted improvements recommended by QAA, the university successfully addresses the issues in the Business Management programme. Over time, student outcomes improve, and the programme meets the B3 threshold, ensuring positive outcomes for students and maintaining the university's reputation for high-quality education.

Background: A well-regarded institution in England offers a variety of undergraduate and postgraduate programmes. Recently, the university's Computer Science programme received lower-than-expected scores in the National Student Survey (NSS), particularly in areas related to teaching quality, assessment and feedback, and overall student satisfaction.

Challenge: The university's Academic Quality and Standards Committee highlighted their concerns about the low NSS scores and the potential impact on the institution’s reputation and student recruitment. They decide to conduct a targeted analysis to identify the underlying issues and implement enhancements to improve the programme.

Action: The Committee commissions QAA to conduct a comprehensive review of the Computer Science programme, focusing on the areas highlighted by the NSS scores.

Steps taken:

• Expert analysis: The QAA team begins a desk-based analysis by reviewing evidence provided by the institution which includes analysing the detailed NSS results for the Computer Science programme. They identify specific questions and areas where scores are significantly lower compared to other programmes and national benchmarks. They review teaching methods, assessment practices, and resource allocation to identify potential areas for improvement.
• The QAA team conducts additional meetings with the Computer Science students to gather more in-depth feedback, understanding the specific concerns and experiences that contributed to the low NSS scores.
• The QAA team holds meetings with faculty members and programme leaders to discuss the NSS results and gather their perspectives on the challenges faced by the programme.
• The QAA team highlight key issues such as:
  • Teaching quality: Inconsistencies in teaching quality within the programme and across modules
  • Assessment and feedback: Lack of timely and constructive feedback on assessments
  • Student support: Insufficient policies supporting academic and pastoral support for students
  • Curriculum relevance: Curriculum not fully aligned with student expectations.
• Developing an Enhancement Plan: QAA, in collaboration with the programme leaders, develops a targeted enhancement plan to address the identified issues. The plan includes:
  • Faculty development: Plan for training and support for faculty members to enhance teaching quality and consistency
  • Improved assessment practices: Implementing clear and consistent assessment criteria and providing timely, constructive feedback to students
  • Enhanced support services: Expanding career support for students and mechanisms by which action can be taken on student feedback
  • Curriculum revision: Updating the curriculum to include more employer-relevant content.
• Implementation and monitoring: The institution implements the enhancement plan and establishes a monitoring framework to track progress. Regular reviews held to ensure continuous improvement and alignment with student expectations. QAA provides support to review the effectiveness of implementation.
  

Outcome: By conducting a thorough analysis and implementing targeted enhancements, the institution successfully addresses the issues in the Computer Science programme. Over time, NSS scores improve, leading to higher student satisfaction and a stronger reputation for delivering high-quality education.

Background: Universities are responsible for the academic standards of all awards granted in their name, including those awarded under collaborative arrangements. A well-established institution in England offers a range of undergraduate and postgraduate programmes. Recently, the university has expanded its offerings through collaborative arrangements with international partner institutions. However, concerns have arisen regarding the consistency and alignment of academic standards across these collaborative programmes.

Challenge: The university's Partnerships Committee is unsure if the current academic policies adequately address the complexities of these collaborative arrangements and internal resourcing is too stretched to conduct a thorough review.

Action: The Committee decides to seek external assistance to review and enhance their academic policies and they reach out to QAA for guidance and support.

Steps taken:

• Initial consultation: The Committee Chair schedules a consultation with QAA representatives to discuss the concerns and the specific challenges related to collaborative provision. They provide an overview of their current policies and the areas where they seek improvement.
• Review workshop: QAA organises a workshop with key stakeholders from the institution involved in collaborative partnerships, including faculty members, professional services staff, and representatives from partner institutions. The workshop focuses on best practices for maintaining academic standards in collaborative arrangements.
• Gap analysis: During the workshop, QAA gains insights that lead to the development of a gap analysis to identify areas where collaborative provision policies may fall short. They compare the university's policies with QAA's guidelines and sector benchmarks. QAA provides a written report detailing the findings and an online engagement meeting with the Committee Chair and other senior managers is held.
• Developing revised policies: Based on the findings from the gap analysis, the Committee revises their academic policies. These policies include clear guidelines for quality assurance, assessment, and monitoring and review of collaborative programmes.
• Implementation and training: The university implements the revised policies and conducts training sessions for faculty and professional services staff. QAA provides resources and support to ensure a smooth transition and effective implementation and facilitates a joint training session with committee members.
• Ongoing monitoring and evaluation: The Committee establishes a robust monitoring and evaluation framework to ensure the revised policies are consistently applied across all collaborative programmes and it is appropriately approved in the academic governance structure. The Committee has learned to use feedback from students, faculty, and partner institutions to continuously improve the policies.

Outcome: By seeking assistance from QAA, the institution successfully reviews and enhances its academic policies. The revised policies ensure that all awards granted in the university's name, including those from collaborative programmes, meet the institution's high academic standards. This leads to improved consistency, transparency, and quality across all collaborative provision and contributes to the growth of high-quality international partnerships.

Background: A prominent institution in England offers degree apprenticeships in fields such as public services, engineering, business management and healthcare. These programmes have been popular among students and employers, providing a blend of academic learning and practical work experience.

Challenge: The university's Academic Board has received feedback from students and employer-partners indicating variability in the quality and delivery of degree apprenticeships. Concerns have been raised about the consistency of academic standards, assessment practices, and the overall student experience.

Action: The Board decides to conduct a comprehensive review of the degree apprenticeships and analyse the institution's policies and processes to ensure they meet the required quality and standards. The Board commissions QAA to carry out this work due to timeliness, expertise and capacity.

Steps taken:

• Initial assessment: QAA conducts a desk-based assessment of the current degree apprenticeship programmes. They analyse evidence provided by the university on student outcomes, employer satisfaction, and feedback from apprentices. The QAA team identify key areas that need improvement as well as areas for enhancement.
• QAA reviews the university's existing policies and processes related to degree apprenticeships. They compare these with the guidelines provided by QAA and the Office for Students (OfS) to identify any gaps or areas for enhancement.
• QAA hosts a one-day in-person workshop to consult with key stakeholders including students, faculty members, industry partners, and apprenticeship coordinators. These sessions aim to gather insights and perspectives on the strengths and weaknesses of the current provision.
• Developing an improvement plan: Based on the findings from the assessment and consultations, QAA develops a comprehensive improvement plan in collaboration with the Board. This plan includes:
  • Benchmarking: A mechanism to benchmark degree apprenticeship programmes against those offered by other leading institutions to help identify good practice and innovative approaches that can be adopted to improve the quality and standards of their own programmes
  • Curriculum enhancement: Updating the curriculum to ensure it is aligned with employer needs
  • Standardised assessment practices: Implementing consistent and transparent assessment criteria and providing clear feedback to apprentices. Ensuring policies are aligned and consistent across the university’s provision
  • Faculty development: Offering training and support for faculty members to enhance their teaching skills
  • Enhanced support services: Enhancing career services for apprentices to ensure they receive the necessary guidance and assistance.
• Implementation and monitoring: The university implements the improvement plan and establishes a monitoring framework to track progress. Regular reviews are set up to ensure continuous improvement and alignment with quality and standards requirements. QAA provides support to review the effectiveness of the implementation.

Outcome: By conducting a thorough review and implementing targeted improvements, the university enhances the quality and standards of its degree apprenticeship programmes. This leads to improved student outcomes, higher employer satisfaction, and a stronger reputation for delivering high-quality education and training. It helps to secure and grow apprenticeship funding streams.

Background: The UK Quality Code for Higher Education acts as the definitive reference point for all UK higher education providers. The Code outlines what higher education providers can do, and what they can expect of each other, and what the public can expect of the providers. A mid-sized institution in England prides itself on delivering high-quality education and fostering a supportive learning environment. However, recent student feedback has highlighted inconsistencies in assessment practices across different departments, leading to concerns about fairness and transparency.

Challenge: The university's Academic Board is tasked with addressing these concerns. They recognise the need to standardise assessment practices to ensure they are fair, transparent and aligned with sector-wide expectations.

Action: The Board decides to utilise the UK Quality Code for Higher Education. They focus on the section related to ‘Assessment’ within the Quality Code, which provides principles and guidance on designing, implementing, and reviewing assessment practices.

Steps taken:

• Reviewing the Quality Code: The Board reviews the relevant sections of the Quality Code, particularly the principles related to assessment. They identify key practices and advice that can help address the inconsistencies highlighted by students.
• Consultation with stakeholders: The Board organises workshops and focus groups with faculty members, students, and external examiners to gather insights and feedback on current assessment practices. They use the Quality Code as a reference point to guide these discussions.
• Renewal of the university’s standardised framework: Based on the insights gathered and the guidance from the Quality Code, the Board renews its standardised assessment framework and asks QAA to conduct a desk-based critical analysis of the framework before it is rolled out. This framework includes clear criteria for designing assessments, marking schemes, and providing feedback to students and is finalised using the feedback from QAA.
• Training and implementation: The university asks QAA to conduct a one-day in-person training session for faculty members to ensure they understand and can implement the new assessment framework. The Quality Code, and the renewed assessment framework, is used to design the training session.
• Monitoring and evaluation: The Board establishes a monitoring and evaluation process to ensure the new assessment practices are effectively implemented and continuously improved. They use the Quality Code's principles on monitoring and enhancing provision to guide this process.

Outcome: By leveraging the UK Quality Code for Higher Education, the university successfully standardises its assessment practices, enhancing fairness and transparency. Student satisfaction with assessments improves, and reputation for delivering high-quality education is strengthened.

Background: A university in England has developed a growing portfolio of subcontracted higher education provision delivered through a number of partner organisations. With the introduction of OfS Condition E10, the institution recognises that it must demonstrate robust oversight of its subcontractual arrangements, supported by clear governance, effective risk management and a comprehensive Subcontractual Information Source (SIS). The university wants assurance that its existing arrangements will withstand potential regulatory scrutiny and protect the interests of students across all partners.

Challenge: The university's senior leadership team is confident that many of the required processes are already in place. However, they are concerned that documentation, governance arrangements and evidence may not be sufficiently consistent, accessible or aligned to the new regulatory requirements. Internal teams have limited capacity and would benefit from an independent assessment to identify any gaps and prioritise necessary improvements.

Action: The university commissions QAA's Targeted Quality and Standards Service to conduct an external review of its readiness for OfS Condition E10, with particular focus on its SIS, risk-management arrangements and oversight of subcontracted provision.

Steps taken:

• Diagnostic analysis: QAA undertakes a desk-based review of documentation provided by the university, including:
  • the institution's draft SIS and supporting evidence
  • policies and procedures relating to subcontracted provision
  • risk-management frameworks and escalation processes
  • governance structures, committee reporting arrangements and assurance mechanisms
  • due diligence, partner approval and ongoing monitoring processes.

• Gap analysis: QAA evaluates how effectively the institution's arrangements align with the expectations of OfS Condition E10. The review identifies strengths and areas for development, including:
  • inconsistent documentation describing partner-selection criteria
  • gaps in evidence supporting assessments of partner capacity and capability
  • overlapping governance responsibilities that could make accountability less clear
  • opportunities to strengthen risk-monitoring processes and supporting evidence
  • areas where the SIS narrative could be made more coherent and defensible.
    

• Collaborative review and recommendations: QAA facilitates discussions with senior leaders and key professional services teams to explore findings and share sector-informed good practice. A tailored report is produced, providing:
  • clear recommendations to strengthen the SIS
  • advice on improving governance and oversight arrangements
  • guidance on evidencing risk management and assurance processes
  • a prioritised action plan highlighting both immediate and longer-term improvements.

• Development support: Following the review, QAA delivers a bespoke workshop focused on E10 readiness. The session helps staff understand where evidence is held, how responsibilities are documented and how institutional processes can be more clearly reflected within the SIS.
  

Outcome: Through an independent review and targeted support from QAA, the university gains confidence that its subcontractual oversight arrangements are robust, well documented and aligned with OfS Condition E10. The university implements the recommendations and establishes a revised framework for reviewing subcontracted provision. This strengthens its ability to demonstrate effective governance, risk management and student protection, while creating a more sustainable process for managing future collaborative partnerships.