TQEF Development, Scope and Impact

The Scottish Funding Council (SFC) took a co-creation approach to the development of the TQEF with its key partners and stakeholders from inception through to implementation. SFC developed a shared understanding of the strengths and areas for improvement in both sectors, and identifying areas of commonality and differences to refine a set of shared principles that underpins and informs every aspect of our new arrangements.

The SFC Review of Coherent Provision and Sustainability set out a vision for a coherent and better integrated tertiary education system that puts students at its centre. We believe that enhanced collaboration across the sectors is necessary to support the continued development of a quality culture across our institutions and that this is best achieved through a tertiary approach. We also want to support:

• More seamless learning pathways for students.
• Support more effective collaboration across colleges and universities.
• Remove barriers to the sharing of innovation and learning, across the tertiary system to deliver better and clearer student outcomes.

Continued compliance with the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG) is important for universities’ standing and reputation in an international context. However, ESG states that it applies to “all higher education offered in the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) regardless of the mode of study or place of delivery. Thus, the ESG are also applicable to all higher education including transnational and cross-border provision”. ESG also notes that “the term “programme” refers to higher education in its broadest sense, including that which is not part of a programme leading to a formal degree”. Therefore, higher education delivered in colleges is also subject to ESG. Although further education programmes do not need to meet ESG requirements, it is likely that institutions’ quality arrangements would span all of their provision.

SFC’s statutory duty is for assurance and enhancement of quality of fundable provision in fundable bodies (i.e., colleges and universities). The arrangements in colleges and universities for quality will be applicable to all of their provision and therefore, institutions have a strong interest in ensuring these processes are appropriate across all of their provision, notwithstanding SFC’s interest is only in the fundable provision. To ensure students have access to high quality provision, whatever they are studying, and to avoid duplication, the TQEF is designed to cover all provision. This enables quality arrangements to be considered as follows:

• By SFC as relevant to the fundable provision. Details of how this applies to the delivery mechanisms of the TQEF are set out in the relevant sections of the Guidance.
• By Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) as relevant to the scope of the Tertiary Quality Enhancement Review (TQER).
• By institutions as relevant to all of their provision.

Through this approach, we aim to ensure that the scope of  TQEF meets the wider requirements of the ESG, which are focused on higher education, wherever it is delivered, while also meeting our statutory responsibility to ensure the quality of fundable provision across further and higher education and ensuring that all students enjoy a high-quality learning experience. We have however, heard the concerns raised by institutions and wish to provide further clarity around what is expected in relation to each of the delivery mechanisms that form part of the TQEF.

So, while the TQEF covers all provision, we have sought to clarify that ILQR (also known as periodic review in the ESG) should include all SFC funded activity, recognising that the extent to which non-credit bearing activity will feature in ILQR processes will vary between institutions. In terms of ESG compliance, all higher education should be included in ILQR, regardless of whether it is SFC funded, but institutions might wish to consider how this links to the scope of the TQER when planning ILQR activities. As noted in the Guidance it is for institutions to decide the order and aggregation of programmes and subjects in ways which provide coherence and fit the organisational structure. In terms of reporting, it is also for the institution to decide how they wish to report the outcome of ILQR processes internally, noting that the high-level themes identified as areas for development or strength, should be considered and included in the SEAP where appropriate.

In terms of the SEAP, it is recognised that all provision within an institution will be subject to the same/similar quality assurance and enhancement processes.

When describing good practice or areas for development or enhancement the SEAP should focus on the areas of priority identified by the institution. The SEAP is designed to be used for a range of purposes including as part of the monitoring and assurance associated with the SFC Outcomes Framework.

To that end, the focus of the annual quality engagement meetings with SFC will be on SFC-funded activity (credit-bearing and non-credit bearing) for universities and colleges, however we recognise that there will be differences between institutions in terms of the extent to which non-credit bearing activity will feature in the SEAP.

The TQEF forms an integral part of SFC’s new Outcomes Framework. The  OFAM sets out high-level expectations of colleges and universities in return for funding. The Outcomes with respect to high-quality learning and teaching will be expressed and monitored through the TQEF. No additional reporting on learning and teaching and the quality of the student experience will be required of colleges and universities beyond that outlined in the guidance document as part of TQEF.

The cycle will be seven years and will run from Academic Year (AY) 2024-25 to AY 2030-31. The first year will be an implementation year and the last year will be reflection and preparation of the next cycle. The expectation is that future cycles will be six years, with the last year of each cycle being the reflection and preparation year.

For universities, the TQEF represents an evolution of the Quality Enhancement Framework (QEF), with the key elements reviewed and refreshed following the completion of the AY 2017-22 review cycle to ensure that they continue to remain fit for purpose. The parameters within which universities should conduct institutional-led quality review activity (ILQR) have remained largely unchanged.

For the college sector, the TQEF represents a shift in focus from annual scrutiny to cyclical enhancement. The introduction of a tertiary approach is in response to the clearly expressed calls for change from the college sector, recognising the progress made by colleges in developing their quality assurance arrangements in recent years. SFC has commissioned TQEF delivery partners to work together to put in place a range of support for colleges to adapt to the new approach. Work continues across the sector with the support of College Development Network (CDN), Student Partnership in Quality Scotland (sparqs) and Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) to begin to bring together best practice which can be shared.

Yes. The international standing and reputation of Scottish tertiary education sector is very important to SFC. The TQEF was developed to fully align with the requirements set out in ESG in line with Scottish Ministers commitments as signatories to the Bologna Process. Ensuring continued compliance with ESG will be a key consideration of future evaluations and reviews of the TQEF.

No. SFC is acutely aware of the current pressures on our colleges and universities. The elements of the TQEF have been designed to reduce the burden on institutions.

However, we do recognise that during implementation there will be new expectations on institutions and developing new approaches will/has brought some additional pressure.

We have worked closely with our TQEF delivery partners to drive out duplication and ensure that information is asked for only once. Each engagement with an institution will have a defined purpose and add value. Under the TQEF, the college sector will see a change in focus from annual external scrutiny to one of cyclical enhancement, allowing them to focus on improving outcomes for students.

Over time this will reduce the bureaucratic burden and streamline processes which will release pressure on our colleges and universities.

No, the TQEF has little, if anything, in common with the OfS’s approach to quality. OfS employs a purely data-driven and concerns-related approach in which it identifies risk and undertakes investigations itself, rather than using an expert quality agency or other external/third-party equivalent. There is no cyclical external review or assurance over quality in its approach. OfS, which regulates higher education providers in England, does not work with or use the expertise or judgement of the QAA.

In addition, the OfS’s approach is not compliant with the ESG, while Scotland remains fully aligned, see European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education (EQAR) country information.

Scotland’s TQEF, builds on the enhancement-led approach to quality that has been in place in Scotland for many years, and involves:

• Cyclical external review by the QAA using a methodology developed by the QAA, the Tertiary Quality Enhancement Review (TQER).
• Institution-led activities and self-evaluation by institutions, ILQR.
• Sector-owned national thematic enhancement activity, the Scottish Tertiary Enhancement Programme (STEP) managed by QAA and CDN working with the support of other sector agencies.
• Annual quality engagement with QAA (through institutional liaison meetings) and with SFC (to cover multiple outcomes within the new Outcomes Framework and Assurance Model (OFAM) that will be informed by the same data and evidence sources, thus minimising duplication).

Although data and evidence will underpin the TQEF; this will not be the prime driver of judgements about quality – this is a significant and key difference from the OfS’s approach. In addition, if a review of data, the outputs of review activity, and other intelligence from the OFAM process indicate a concern about quality that warrants closer investigation, in most cases SFC would ask an external agency, e.g. Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR), QAA, etc., to investigate rather than investigate the issue directly.

We believe that the TQEF and the broader OFAM, of which TQEF is a fully integrated part, will be less burdensome in time than the previous arrangements.

SFC provides significant funding to the sector to deliver high quality provision to students at fundable bodies (as per SFC’s statutory duties). It is important for SFC and for institutions that the reputation of Scotland’s institutions for delivering high quality provision and student experience is maintained. In developing the TQEF and the OFAM, SFC, through engaging with the sector and TQEF delivery partners, has endeavoured to ensure that the new arrangements work towards reducing burden for institutions.