1 Satisfying Student Demand Conference London– 10 June 2008 Managing student complaints – ensuring transparency and fairness Robert Behrens The Independent Adjudicator Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) for Higher Education in England and Wales

2 Managing student complaints  OIA Mandates  Some OIA statistics and trends  Case Examples  Recent Open Forum for SU advisers  Building trust and fairness into internal processes  Learning from complaints

3 OIA Mandates  Designated under Higher Education Act 2004  Excludes Visitors from adjudicating complaints  Scheme must be Independent of the parties  Internal University Procedures must be exhausted first  Qualifying complaints include “an act or omission” by a university  Governing bodies of all HEIs in England and Wales have a statutory obligation to comply with the Rules of the Scheme  No charges to complainants are allowed  Judicial Review – The Queen, Siborurema and OIA (2007)

– Some Statistics and Trends  734 applications (up 25% from 586 in 2006)  26% from ‘international’ students  26% of 639 closed complaints were upheld to some extent (up 3% from 2006)  £173,000 compensation was recommended  36% of complainants were postgraduates (compared with 23% of UK students)  64% were over 25 years old  64% of complaints related to academic results  Disciplinary matters/plagiarism accounted for 11%  Students in subjects allied to medicine, law and business studies formed the largest group of complainants

5 Case Examples  Academic Judgement - an allegation that a university did not act fairly in reconsidering the mark obtained for a module reviewed whether the processes were in line with HEI regulations, whether the mitigating circumstances had been considered, and whether the External Examiner was properly appointed. The academic judgements of the markers were not questioned.  Transparency – as a matter of policy staff responses to a complaint were not disclosed to the student. The OIA said that this lacked transparency and recommended a change in policy.  Timescales – the most common reason that the OIA recommends compensation is failure to adhere to published timescales and/or keeping students informed about delays, e.g. students were told that they would hear the results of their appeals within two weeks when it took three months.  Fairness – tutor who was in part subject of complaint was involved in investigating it at the informal stage and presenting the university’s case at a later formal stage.

6 Recent Open Forum for SU advisers Key messages about HEI’s procedures:  Students don’t read or understand them  They don’t always operate well  Informal stages can be dismissive and defensive  There can be inconsistencies and delays  There is a perception of bias  Resolutions are not always adequate  Alleged failure to learn from complaints or promulgate good practice

7 Building Trust/Ensuring Fairness 1  Informal Resolution is a laudable goal Requires engagement and clarity Need for staff training Move on when not working  Formal stages need to be separate Independent element Involve student unions Share all information Give reasons for decisions

8 Building Trust/Ensuring Fairness 2  Operate consistently Look across faculties and departments Learn from other HEIs and the OIA  Operate fairly Avoid perception of bias Follow procedures Keep students informed  Provide fair outcomes

9 Learning from complaints  Make sure key staff are informed  Spread the word across the HEI  Publish statistics and outcomes  Let student union advisers know  Continuously review procedures  View OIA as a resource not a police officer

10 How to contact us  By post: Fifth Floor,Thames Tower, Station Road, Reading RG1 1LX  Tel:  Fax:  Online: 