170 likes | 298 Views
Handling Complaints in Small and Specialist Institutions: the Role and Remit of the OIA. Susanna Reece Deputy Adjudicator 29 June 2010. Establishment of the OIA. Higher Education Act 2004 Transitional scheme: March - December 2004
E N D
Handling Complaints in Small and Specialist Institutions:the Role and Remit of the OIA Susanna Reece Deputy Adjudicator 29 June 2010
Establishment of the OIA • Higher Education Act 2004 • Transitional scheme: March - December 2004 • Designated operator of student complaints scheme in England and Wales from 1 January 2005 • Replaced existing Visitor arrangements • Provided for independent review across the sector • Common system for all HEIs in England and Wales
Structure and Operation of the OIA • OIA Board has 6 Directors nominated from the HE sector: AHUA, CUC, GuildHE, Higher Education Wales, NUS and UUK • Remaining 8 Directors are independents, including the Chair, Ram Gidoomal, who replaced Prof. Norman Gowar in 2009 • Board has duty to preserve the independence of the Scheme and does not get involved in individual complaints • Ruth Deech was the first Independent Adjudicator. Rob Behrens was appointed in May 2008 upon her retirement. • Current Organogram is in the OIA’s 2009 Annual Report • Pathway Review of the Scheme – report published Feb. 2009
Some Statistics (Annual Report 2009) • 1007 complaints in 2009, a 12% increase on 2008 and a 37% increase on 2007. (537 cases in 2005, 586 in 2006, 734 in 2007 and 900 in 2008). 811 of these were found to be eligible. • A tiny percentage of the student body but a capacity challenge for the OIA at a time of public sector financial constraints when complaint numbers are likely to rise • Pathway Report Implementation Groups are looking at processes, remedies, publication and funding
Some Statistics continued • Vast majority of cases (64%) relate to academic status • Most common subject areas are medicine-related and law (240) • 39% of complainants are postgraduates, compared to 23% of the student body as a whole • 65% of complainants are over 25 • 75% of cases found not justified in 2009 • 5% Justified and 13% Partly Justified • 24 cases from GuildHE institutions – small number of other cases where another HEI is the awarding body
OIA Scheme and Remit • The OIA can look at any act or omission of an HEI (not AJ) • The OIA Scheme Rules set out the approach the OIA takes to its role and remit. The current version is dated May 2008. • The OIA is a review body - students must first have completed an HEI’s internal procedures (COP Letter Guidance May 2010) • The approach taken is two-fold: • has the University correctly applied its regulations and followed its procedures? • Was the University’s decision fair in all the circumstances? • Court of Appeal ruling in the case of Siborurema (2007)
Academic Judgment/Professional judgment • The OIA cannot interfere with the operation of an institution’s academic judgment: • Part 2 of the Higher Education Act 2004 • Our Rule 3.2 states that we do not cover a complaint to the extent that it relates to a matter of academic judgment • Academic judgment is a decision about scholarship that only an experienced academic can make • Professional judgment is a decision about professional standards that only an experienced professional can make • Plagiarism and fitness to practise: we look at procedural issues and fairness not the underlying academic or professional decisions
OIA approach and process 1 • The OIA’s approach is not the same as a court’s. We don’t make legal findings, although we have regard to law and guidance (see disability) • Our normal approach is to conduct a paper review of the complaint based on what has been considered within the HEI’s procedures • We have not found it necessary to hold oral hearings, although we have the power to do so (Budd JR 2010) • 50% of cases are resolved through our Fast Track procedure (without full review). A Preliminary Decision is made, upon which comments may be made by either party. This is followed by a Formal Decision Letter unless the representations made lead us to conduct a full review.
OIA approach and process 2 • After full review, a Draft Decision is issued, followed by a Formal Decision. At Draft Decision stage the parties may comment on: • Factual or material inaccuracies • Practicality of any recommendations made • Recommendations may be made where a complaint has been upheld in whole or in part • In other cases we may make Suggestions or Observations • Compliance with our recommendations is strongly encouraged – all HEIs have complied so far. We monitor compliance and will ask for evidence. • Higher Education Advisory Panel
Some general issues that have led to Justified or Partly Justified outcomes after an OIA review • Unreasonable delay • Failure to follow procedures/regulations • Failure to have regard for principles of natural justice (duty to act fairly) • Student not made aware of all evidence to be considered. • No proper records kept • Guidance and regulations/procedures not clear • Not having proper regard to student’s disability
Common Issues: Procedural Fairness • Natural Justice – duty to act fairly • Nobody shall be a judge in his/her own cause • Hear the other side • Reasons for decisions • Requirement of reasonableness
Common issues: disability • OIA approach: not the same as a court’s. Looking to see that an HEI has an understanding of its obligations and can demonstrate that it has considered and applied them appropriately and fairly. • Some helpful questions: • Is the student disabled? • If so, what provisions are we now applying to him? • Do those provisions place him at a substantial disadvantage? • What could be done to prevent that disadvantage? • Would it be reasonable for us to take those steps?
Common issues: disability disclosure • HEIs must encourage disclosure • Responsibility on student to disclose • Late disclosure • Dyslexia • Mental health issues • QAA Code: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/codeOfPractice/section3/Section3Disabilities2010.pdf
Current Issues: Placements • Placement arrangements – what will the OIA look at? • Memorandum of agreement • Complaints handling arrangements • Clarity about responsibilities and procedures • What happens when things go wrong on a placement? • Disability arrangements • Mentoring and learning outcomes • Fitness to practise
Current Issues: Informal Resolution • Preference for earliest possible resolution at local level • Local resolution encouraged • Is it compulsory • When is it inappropriate? • Recognise when informal approaches are not working • Who decides? • Time scales? • Informal does not mean unrecorded • Potential to use mediation or other means of resolution • Capturing complaints information – good practice and QAA code
Current Issues: Complaints Handling • Relationship between complaints handling and disciplinary processes – staff/students • Anonymity – of complaints/complainants • Concluding remarks on good practice: • Encourage students to raise issues constructively and at the appropriate time • Signpost processes and have clear pathways • Deal with issues in a timely manner • Accept that some cases will go all the way