In the wake of a Home Office investigation that led to the suspension of 57 private UK colleges and international recruitment at three universities, The PIE News spoke to the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA)’s Director of Quality Assurance Stephen Jackson about QAA’s own inquiry into the management of London branch campuses.
The PIE: Can you explain what the QAA is doing in its inquiry into London campuses?
SJ: We are looking at the arrangements in place for the management of London campuses, using our basic review methodology for partner institutions that deliver transnational education. We have a series of questions: the number of students involved, programmes they’re offering, how they’re ensuring those programmes are properly validated, and so on. It’s essentially an information gathering exercise. From time to time we do thematic inquiries on topics of current relevance, and because of the Home Office’s interest we have agreed to conduct this inquiry to see whether there was any substance behind the Home Office’s concerns about the practices on some campuses.
“The Home Office’s allegation was that these campuses were being used to give legitimacy to colleges that had failed their tests for highly trusted sponsor status”
The PIE: To what extent has what you’re doing been shaped or impacted by the Home Office investigation?
SJ: This is an issue the Home Office raised with us some months ago, and we agreed that we would gather the evidence. Their allegation was that these campuses were being used to give legitimacy to colleges that had failed their tests for highly trusted sponsor status.
The rationale as offered by universities in the more remote parts of the UK is that London campuses give them the opportunity to recruit international students. But Glyndwr [University], which was named in the Home Office statement, had gone into partnership with a failed educational oversight college, and that was what had triggered the Home Office’s concern.
The PIE: Where do your lines of inquiry overlap with the investigations the Home Office is conducting into the three universities that were named?
SJ: They don’t really. The Home Office has responsibility for procedural matters to do with the monitoring of student attendance and the issuing of confirmation of studies letters. We have responsibility for the quality and standards of academic programmes. Attendance is a sensitive issue and universities haven’t in the past traditionally kept registers, but it is a requirement for international students with visas to have their attendance recorded.
The PIE: That’s quite a recent policy – what do you make of it? It’s been quite controversial.
“The whole ethos of universities is one of an academic community which shares responsibility for the learning experience of students, and we don’t want to lose that”
SJ: The Home Office clearly has an agenda about restricting immigration and ensuring that students who come to study in the UK are here to benefit from the higher education system, and they are trying to outlaw any institutions which are abusing those responsibilities. It’s difficult. I think none of us wants to see a highly policed university system in the UK. I think the whole ethos of universities is one of an academic community which shares responsibility for the learning experience of students, and we don’t want to lose that – but at the same time, we can’t condone inappropriate behaviour by institutions and we recognise the need to ensure that students are bona fide.
The PIE: There’s some concern that quality assurance isn’t watertight…
SJ: I don’t think it is. I saw the Panorama programme [revealing systematic cheating on a TOEIC exam at four London colleges], I was as shocked as anybody else. The scale of impersonation was shocking. How you can guard against that sort of criminal behaviour through a peer review process – our methods are just not geared to dealing with those issues. Our process is based on trust; we recruit our reviewers from institutions.
We’re not Home Office police. We don’t have that obligation or mindset about monitoring the responsibilities of institutions and it’s never been a problem with the publicly-funded institutions. There’s an ethos in higher education which is very well established. It’s a very different situation in some of the private organisations. I wouldn’t say it’s commonplace across the sector; there are many private organisations which are doing a perfectly good job, but there are obviously some others as well.
“We’re not Home Office police. We don’t have that obligation or mindset”
The PIE: You investigated the colleges featured in the documentary through your concerns scheme, didn’t you?
SJ: Yes, we investigated Eden and Leyton College. Both have gone out of business. Our reports were critical – not just for the issues that were identified by the programme, but events had sort of overtaken our reporting activity.
The PIE: Had their practices changed considerably since you last reviewed them? They received good reviews previously.
SJ: They had, and I don’t think the concerns scheme raised issues with the academic programme – the programmes in both cases were reasonably well secured. It was particularly issues around admission that we identified. Admissions policies and practices seem to be two different things. The colleges have admission policies which generally reflect the policies of the code, but the practice seems to be very much more varied.
Problems about using agents, for example, acting in a freelance capacity and bringing in students, is one area where I think they identified difficulties.
The PIE: Is there any form of quality assurance that can be introduced there?
SJ: Admissions is part of our remit so we do ask questions about admissions. I think the challenge in these circumstances is going beyond the current remit to look at other aspects of college management. We’ve done this now with the introdution of financial and governance checks into the review of educational oversight providers and that is in effect making our methodology more like an accreditation process. There may be an argument for us needing to go further. We don’t sit in on classes, for example. There may be an argument for us to see delivery of teaching first hand.
The PIE: Will you be reviewing any of the 57 colleges that have had their licences suspended?
SJ: Too early to say. We are in the process of assessing them at the moment and looking at those we have already reviewed and what issues there are in association with that. If there are problems, then we will use our concerns scheme to follow up.
The PIE: Are the Home Office pushing you to do more?
SJ: We have a continuing dialogue with the Home Office. As part of their review of the whole process of student migration, they are asking both ourselves and the Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI) to reassess our processes to see if there are areas in which we plan to enhance our methodologies.
Part of our problem is we don’t have any statutory powers. We are not a government organisation, we’re an independent body. Our authority, such as it is, comes from our member institutions. One way in which we could extend our effectiveness would be to be given statutory powers to inspect colleges. One of the areas we’re looking at at the moment, and would be my own preference, is to look at the licensing of private colleges. There would be a process to establish whether or not a private college was a fit and proper place to deliver higher education, and that new entrants should go through a process which would include things like financial and governance checks.
Part of the problem at the moment is we’re using a review process in effect to do this accreditation of private providers, and I think separating out the two processes would be a more effective way of trying to tackle these issues. And some of these colleges would never get established in the first place.
“It’s a particular feature of the UK system that there are no barriers to entry into the sector”
It’s a particular feature of the UK system that there are no barriers to entry into the sector, and the Department of Business, Industry and Skills, I think, is quite keen to maintain that because they’re very keen to encourage new providers of higher education. Anyone can set up a college. That’s what the Home Office has been concerned about – the relative ease with which the more doubtful providers can gain access to the sector, and through that, get access to funding sources like student loan support.
The PIE: Do you think it’s likely you’ll be given statutory powers?
SJ: It’s something we have raised with the Home Office. Part of the problem is there is a different perspective for the Home Office and for BIS, and I think our established institutions would not want us to have statutory powers, because our whole approach of peer review is based on this understanding between the Agency and institutions as autonomous bodies to manage their own quality and standards. But increasingly I’m coming round to the view that we can’t easily apply the methodology to different types of institutions. I think private institutions do operate in a different way.
I think it’s going to be very interesting to see what happens as a result of the Home Office statement. It’s quite likely that a significant number of those 57 colleges will go out of business as a consequence. They tend to operate on quite tight margins, and if they can’t recruit students then the business model itself may not be viable, and then you end up with a large number of students who can’t complete courses.
The PIE: So presumably some students will have to leave the country?
“It isn’t a very happy state of affairs and many of the students have signed up in good faith, and then found themselves abandoned.”
SJ: It’s a very pertinent question, because in the past when private colleges have closed down students tend to redistribute among other private providers and that can exacerbate the situation rather than resolve it. In the case of Tasmac, the Indian college which closed a couple of years ago, a lot of students had to go back to India.
It isn’t a very happy state of affairs and many of the students have signed up in good faith, and then found themselves abandoned.
The PIE: Do you think this will damage the UK’s reputation long-term?
SJ: I don’t particularly – I think the fundamental issue here is about malpractice. They’re not criticisms of the quality and standards of the academic programme, of the learning that students have been receiving, and I think that remains intact. The academic issues are not the focus of the Home Office’s attention at the moment. It’s about how colleges are managed and governed.
