TQEF Delivery Mechanisms

All SFC-funded provision (credit-bearing and non-credit bearing) falls within the scope of ILQR for universities and colleges, although there may be differences between institutions in terms of the extent to which non-credit bearing activity will feature in ILQR.

To meet Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG) compliance, ILQR for colleges and universities should include all higher education provision regardless of whether it is funded by SFC. This ensures that the TQEF is ESG compliant.

The mechanism for reporting the outcomes of ILQR to SFC is through the Self-Evaluation and Action Plan (SEAP), which should focus on strengths and/or priority areas for development drawn from themes arising from the ILQR process. It is for institutions to decide how they report on ILQR internally.

ILQR is an opportunity to undertake a deeper evaluation of the delivery of teaching, learning and assessment, student outcomes and the associated support in place for students over a longer period of time. This contributes to the identification of strengths and areas for development or enhancement across a subject or support service area. This process will build on existing monitoring and review activities undertaken in colleges and will contribute to the evidence base for the SEAP and TQER.

Periodic review (or ILQR as it is described in the Guidance) is a requirement of the ESG for all higher education (wherever it is delivered) and as such should include this provision in colleges. While ESG requirements do not pertain to further education, we expect that all SFC funded provision including further education should be included in college ILQR processes to ensure that the quality of provision for all students is considered in an equitable manner. However, there is an added benefit to including further education programmes in the process as they often act as progression routes into higher education programmes and together form a coherent suite of provision across a subject area in colleges.

We recognise the concerns about the level of burden that applying ILQR to all provision may imply. We note that institutions will not be required to report on all provision to SFC in the SEAP or to the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) in the TQER. In the Guidance we have reiterated that colleges already undertake activities including annual monitoring and other review activities that will contribute to the periodic review of subjects and support services.

The description of the ILQR process in our Guidance reflects the guidance included in the ESG for this standard. We would encourage institutions to map their existing processes to the Guidance and consider in particular how they include students and other stakeholders in ILQR as it develops within the college.

Outcome Managers play an important role, and take the lead, for SFC in institutional liaison.

They will ensure that an Annual Quality Engagement (AQE) meeting is held in the Spring with institutions each year and will focus on the High Quality Learning and Teaching outcome of the Outcomes Framework and Assurance Model (OFAM). They will review the relevant Self-Evaluation and Action Plans (SEAPs) and be supported in the analysis of the SEAPs by feedback from SFC’s Student Interests, Access and Quality team and the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA).

The focus of these discussions with institutions will be on institutional data and outcomes.

Institutions will also have an annual meeting with the QAA which provides an opportunity to seek advice on key areas of quality assurance and enhancement and prepare for, or follow-up from, external review.

More details on the above topics can be found in the Quality Guidance.

The purpose for the meetings is to give SFC assurance on the quality of provision delivered by our institutions as part of the OFAM. Meetings are part of the ongoing engagement between institutions and SFC (e.g., with Outcome Managers) and will focus on the outcomes associated with funded provision. They are arranged in advance, giving the institution the time to decide who would be most appropriate to attend to discuss quality related matters and to ensure that a student representative is included.