Transcript Open Forum for Students’ Union Advisers

Cases relating to international
students : the challenges of
managing expectations and
cross cultural sensitivity
Anne Lee, Adjudication Manager, OIA
ENOHE 12 April 2013
0
The OIA
• Framework for a single complaints Scheme independent of HEIs
was set out in the Higher Education Act 2004.
• From 1 January 2005 all Universities in England and Wales were
covered by the Scheme Rules and have to have compatible
internal procedures in place. Not a regulator. SPSO in Scotland.
• Funded exclusively from compulsory subscriptions from HEIs
based on the number of registered students.
• Independent of both Government and HEIs.
• Private Company with a Board of Directors.
1
Rules of the Scheme
5th edition of the Rules effective from March 2013
Sets out
•
•
•
•
•
•
Who can complain and when
Issues of eligibility
Obligation to provide information requested
Recommendations and failure to comply
Additional obligations of Independent Adjudicator and the Board
Publication
2
2
What do we do?
• We review complaints to see whether they are
justified, partly justified or not justified :
•
•
Did the HEI properly apply regulations and follow procedures?
Was the HEI’s decision reasonable in all the circumstances?
• We also make good practice recommendations
• Dissemination of good practice and feedback to
HE sector
3
3
What does the Scheme cover?
We review complaints about any act or omission of an HEI e.g.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Academic Appeals and Mitigating Circumstances
Teaching and Facilities
Student Accommodation
Research supervision
Welfare issues
Contractual and service issues
Breach of HEI procedures
Discrimination
Poor or unfair practice
Disciplinary matters including plagiarism
Fitness to practise procedures
4
What we don’t look at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Admissions
Student Employment
Matter is or was subject of court proceedings
(unless formally stayed)
Academic Judgment
“Does not materially affect the complainant as a
student”
Outside time limits
Matters better considered in another forum
5
Ten subject areas with most complaints
Complaints closed by principal category
350
300
250
200
Non EU
EU
150
Home
100
50
0
Business and Subjects Allied
Administrative to Medicine
Studies
Law
Creative Arts Medicine and
and Design
Dentistry
Engineering Social Studies
and
Technology
Computer
Science
Other
Education
6
Level of study and student status
Complaints received by student status
1400
1200
1000
800
Non EU
EU
600
Home
400
200
0
Undergraduate
Postgraduate
PhD
7
Complaints overall
Complaints received by financial status
7%
23%
Home
Non EU
EU
70%
8
Setting the scene 2011 – 2012 figures
•
On average 70% of complaints each year are about academic status –
(academic appeals rather than service complaints)
•
Complaints from both international students and postgraduates higher
than the proportions in UK student population as a whole
•
UK one of highest percentages of HE international students
•
Transnational education – many students on UK HE programme abroad
•
Non UK students studying in UK 435,230, of that number non - EU
302,680 (79,000 from China, biggest group by country)
•
Education as an export for UK estimated as worth over £14 billion per
annum
•
UUK universities receive 10% of their total income and 33% of tuition fee
income from non - EU students
9
OIA approach and process 1
• “Any act or omission” of an HEI
• Not Academic Judgment
• Completion of HEI’s internal processes
• Approach is not the same as a court’s:
• No legal findings;
• Have regard to law and guidance (e.g. disability)
10
OIA approach and process 2
• Justified, Partly Justified or Not Justified
• Recommendations
• Suggestions or Observations
• Compliance – very strong record.
• Monitoring compliance
11
The OIA’s Complaint
Outcome sets out…
• Our understanding of the complaint
• Background
• The OIA Review Process
• Our review of the complaint and our conclusions
• Decision and Recommendations (if any) or
Suggestions
12
12
Why we decide complaints
about academic appeals are
justified
• University failed to follow procedures
• Breaches of the duty to act fairly (natural justice)
• Information not properly considered
• Delay or maladministration
• Non-implementation of appeal panel decision
• Cohort dealt with inconsistently
• Inadequate supervision/tuition/equipment
• Poor communication or misinformation
• Discrimination issues, especially disability
13
13
Types of Recommendation
• Refer back to the university to reconsider a final decision, allow
another opportunity to take an assessment or take some other
action
• Financial compensation
• University to change its internal procedures
• University to implement staff training
14
Cases 1
•
Student A – registered on MA by research.
•
Supervisor (X) said thesis required only stylistic changes. However, X
believed A’s English was inadequate but did not advise her about
appropriate classes. X ambiguous in feedback about what required in thesis
and asked for advice from another colleague. Thesis subsequently referred.
Student complained about inadequate supervision. The University rejected
complaint.
•
We found Justified – the University unable to provide record of supervision.
X had not provided many of the elements set out in Handbook. Our review
showed supervisor had many other commitments and ill health and was not
able to respond to A. The University failed to demonstrate it complied with
normal professional levels of supervision and guidance routinely anticipated.
Also delays in handling case throughout.
•
The University should offer £3,500 in compensation for legitimate concerns
about supervision and delays.
15
Cases 2
• Student B on 2 year taught masters. Applied for study on basis of
prospectus which promised gold standard of course. Tuition fee
was proportionately much higher than similar courses elsewhere.
• OIA found Partly Justified as advertising partly misrepresented
the course. OIA also found time taken to deal with complaint
unreasonable – by time the University was dealing with case B
had left his studies and was working abroad so more onerous to
deal with case.
• Compensation to be offered by the University was £3000 – it
would have been higher but record showed that the student had
already withheld £3000 because of his dissatisfaction (the
University had not noticed!)
16
Cases 3
• Student C was UG and had place in halls of residence for first
academic year. C did not enjoy experience: noise, dirty kitchens
etc… The University responded to initial complaints and acted to
tackle these problems. C did not like communal life and wanted to
leave after one term. The University explained nature of contract
and need to have a replacement tenant. C left, no replacement
and owed two terms’ rent which she asked to be waived.
• Not Justified: the University clearly explained at each stage and
responded to C accordingly. Had taken active steps to deal with
noise even before C complained. C had expectations of a
different type of experience from that in standard model of shared
flats. She had wanted a single sex old style hall which was not
available at HEI.
17
Cases 4
• Student D was reading for PhD and appealed about outcome of
viva. D was registered at a college which could not award PhDs
at this point and therefore the PhD was to be awarded by a
University. In the four years that D was registered, college
obtained awarding powers. D’s appeal initially appeared to be
based on AJ – that the examiners did not understand his subject.
• We found the case Justified: on examining the University’s
regulations it became clear that the University had confused
which procedures applied and did not comply with its own
regulations requiring that examiners had a particular profile of
academic and examination experience.
• We asked the University to offer D a further year at the University
with supervision followed by a fresh first submission of his thesis.
18
Cases 5
•
Student E was awarded a scholarship to read for a PhD. He
researched his supervisor’s (Y) work and believed Y had plagiarised
another student. He registered his concern at the University but
there was no response. The relationship between E and Y broke
down and E reported evidence of plagiarism to a publisher of Y’s
work. There were allegations of H & S breaches against E. All of this
culminated in various procedures including a disciplinary against E.
E’s bursary was also threatened.
•
We found this case Justified: the University did not properly
investigate significant allegations of malpractice when it should have
done and there was strong evidence that E was treated less
favourably. We recommended £5,000 for the distress and
inconvenience along with a written apology. (E had completed his
PhD successfully otherwise this might have been a much larger
figure.)
19
What happens after the
decision is issued?
• Communication with the OIA
• Copies of offers made to student
• Evidence of changes to procedures
• Reports on other actions taken
• Communication within HEI/ SU?
• Non-compliance?
20
20
Outcomes
OIA recommendations after complaints have
been found to be Justified or Partly Justified
have resulted in:
• Degree classifications being changed
• Students being reinstated on courses
• Students being allowed further assessment
opportunities or re-marking of work
• PhD students being allowed to have their theses reexamined
21