Transcript Document
Case study: Hartpury College Admissions Policy and the QAA Quality Code – Are you ready? Paul Featonby, Director of Admissions and Enquiries, Hartpury College Paul Featonby Head of Admissions and Enquiries Overall approach • Aim was good practice • SPA Good Practice Checklist RAG analysis Hartpury HE Admissions Policy Audit Sheet Reference No. Policy Statement / Artefact Detail (If RAG applicable) Status Core admissions policy (§4.2) 4.2.3 Commitment to applicants and the application process, transparency, consistency and providing a good quality applicant experience G 4.2.4 Commitment to equal consideration of all ‘on time’ applicants- covered ok G 4.2.5 Support at a senior level for recruitment, admissions and WP A 4.2.6 What qualifications, knowledge, qualities and skills applicants should have A 4.2.7 How you assess merit and potential G 4.2.8 How applications are considered and assessed, where responsibility for decisionmaking lies, and likely timescales for different stages of the application process- A 4.2.9 Commitment to handling complaints, appeals and reviews of admission decisions appropriately, professionally and within a given framework G Audit Assessment Recommended Corrective Actions Action Action Owner Overall approach • Workshops for process and procedures – Enquiries and pre-application – Application – Confirmation, Clearing, and enrolment – International – Part Time – Student Support and Disability • QAA code mapping GAP analysis • Self Evaluation Document and evidence Key themes • No major changes • Linkage to university strategy and resourcing • Customer journey, end to end supporting informed choices – – – • Sign posting for various stakeholder groups Accessibility of information Signposting other information Provision of information – – – Public information policy, Policy and process Roles • Transparent entry requirements and no unnecessary barriers • Feedback, monitoring and reviewing – – Student feedback Benchmarking – use of SPA Lessons Learned • Start early and compile evidence as you go along • Use stakeholders in the process • Use existing material, QAA, SPA checklist and quality code itself • Think end to end and use the customer lens • Not just an assessment – make it more that that Quality Code Mapping Quality Code Mapping Section: Responsibility: Last Updated: B2 Recruitment, selection and admission to higher education Director of Admissions June 2014 Indicator 1 – Recruitment, selection and admission policies are informed by the strategic priorities of the higher education provider. Higher education providers promote a shared understanding of their approach among all those involved in Recruitment, selection and admission. Detail of indicator Each provider sets out strategic approach to recruitment, selection and admissions in light of its context. Policies and procedures for recruitment selection and admission are clear and explicit They articulate the values underpinning the providers process and clarify where authority and responsibility for each stage lies. Policies and procedures make provision for equitable treatment of a diverse body of applicants Higher education providers that use contextual data and information in recruitment, selection and admissions are open and transparent about what data and information are being used for what purpose and with what intended outcomes. HE providers ensure that those involved with rsaa are familiar with policies and procedures and can access them easily. Where degree-awarding bodies are working with other delivery organisations the written agreement between the parties specify which of them is responsible for the management of rsaa Evidence Practice if different Questions Paul Featonby [email protected]