1. CONFIDENTIALITY AND TRANSPARENCY ENOHE CONFERENCE, INNSBRUCK, AUSTRIA, MAY 2015. Rob Behrens Chief Executive and Independent Adjudicator ENOHE 2015 Robert.behrens@oiahe.org.uk Twitter @OIAChiefExec 1

2. THE ROLE OF OMBUDSMEN   To provide redress for individuals and groups where there are evidential grounds for doing so.   To do so in a way which is independent and   Impartial (not the champion of complainants)   To ensure that the service or profession overseen receives policy and operational feedback from complaints decisions. Sian Griffiths, ‘The gowned crusader’ The Sunday Times 19 May, 2013.

3. WHAT DOES OIA DO? 3   We review complaints to see whether they are Justified, Partly Justified or Not Justified :   Did the universities properly apply regulations and follow procedures?   Were those procedures reasonable?   Was the university’s decision reasonable in all the circumstances?   We recommend changes to university practice and/or redress for students   Dissemination of good practice and feedback to HE sector

4. TYPES OF RECOMMENDATIONS OIA CAN MAKE   Refer back to the university to reconsider a final decision, allow another opportunity to take an assessment or take some other action   Financial compensation (£400k in 2014)   University to change its internal procedures   University to implement staff training   Parties to undertake formal mediation 4

5. THE UTILITY OF TRANSPARENCY Transparency has its costs, which must be managed. Reassures parties of the integrity of the process Is the vehicle for promoting independence and good practice Prevents complaints from remaining ‘private grief’ Ensures that ‘reputation’ does not belong solely to bodies complained against Provides a route for educating and informing the public and demystifying process. 5

6. A MATRIX OF OIA TRANSPARENCY ISSUESTATUSCOMMENTSCHEME RULE 1. COMPLAINT REVIEW CONFIDENTIALRELIES ON EVIDENCE FROM PARTIES ONLY. COMPLAINANTS SEE ALL THE EVIDENCE. RULE 6. 2. COMPLAINT OUTCOME ROUTINELY CONFIDENTIAL COMPLAINANT FREE TO PUBLISH. CASES PUBLISHED IN JUDICIAL REVIEW RULE S 10.1, 13.4. 3. NON- COMPLIANCE PUBLISHEDCOMPLAINANT NOT IDENTIFIED. 3 CASES SINCE 2010. RULES 6.5, 7.2. (expected to comply), 11 4. PUBLIC INTEREST CASES PUBLISHED BY NAME OF UNIVERSITY 50 CASES PUBLISHED SINCE 2014 RULES 10.1, 13.4 6

7. A MATRIX OF OIA TRANSPARENCY (2) ISSUESTATUSCOMMENTSCHEME RULE 5. GOOD PRACTICE CASES PUBLISHED IN ANONYMISED FORM RULE 13.3 6. ANNUAL REPORTPUBLISHEDDETAILS OF COMPLAINTS BREAKDOWN IN YEAR RULE 13.2 7. ANNUAL OIA LETTERS PUBLISHED BY NAME OF UNIVERSITY COMPREHENSIVE DATA PUBLISHED SINCE 2012 RULE 13.6 8. CAUSE FOR CONCERN OIA SHARES COMPLAINT OUTCOME WITH QUALITY ASSURANCE AGENCY MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH QAA. RULE 13.1 7

8. PUBLICATION – NON-COMPLIANCE BY NAME OF UNIVERSITY  3 cases of Non-compliance (Southampton, Westminster, and London South Bank) all publicly reported. London South Bank University In 2013 the OIA Board agreed unanimously with the Independent Adjudicator’s recommendation to publish details of non- compliance by LSBU. The decision related to the University’s management of an appeal brought by a student on grounds of extenuating circumstances. In its Formal Decision the OIA had found the student’s complaint Partly Justified on procedural grounds. The University had not provided the student with information presented by the Faculty to the appeal panel and had not given the student the opportunity to attend in person. We recommended that the University re-hear the appeal, and that the student be given the opportunity to attend the appeal hearing. LSBU failed to follow the formal Recommendations. The student attended an initial re-hearing but was not invited to attend when this was reconvened. Information presented by the Faculty following the initial re-hearing was not provided to the student. Further, the re-hearing was not set up within the specified time frame. The repetition of failures identified in the OIA’s first Decision served to compound the failure of LSBU to comply. 8

9. PUBLICATION – PUBLIC INTEREST CASES “We support the OIA’s drive for increased transparency by publishing summaries of their Decisions.” Higher Education White Paper, 2011, 3.24 University of Bristol A student was accused of extensive plagiarism and a penalty was imposed. The student appealed the decision on the basis that the University had not taken account of the difficulties that he had experienced in adjusting to studying in the UK. He also stated that the training and information he had received still left him insufficiently educated about academic misconduct. The OIA was satisfied that the University’s final decision and the penalty imposed were both reasonable and in line with its regulations. The University provided evidence that the student had attended a plagiarism training session, that it had considered the impact of the penalty on the student and that information and guidance on how to avoid plagiarism was readily available to students. It was the student’s responsibility to seek further advice from the University if he was still unsure how to avoid plagiarism after the training. The OIA also noted that the student had not taken the opportunity provided by the University to run his work through the Turnitin software earlier on in his course. The OIA’s decision was that the case was Not Justified. www.oiahe.org.uk 9

10. PUBLICATION – ANONYMISED CASE STUDIES 10 A group of students complained that the University had misrepresented important facts about an MA course. The students felt that this disadvantaged them academically and financially as a result of committing to and undertaking the course, which did not meet aspirations or requirements. The University made an initial offer of £500. Reasons: The OIA found that for two of the three semesters of the course much of what the students could reasonably have expected in terms of teaching, content, delivery and learning experience was not delivered. Although the University sought to address some of the shortcomings, and by semester three had taken steps to provide much of what it had advertised, this was in large part because students pursued complaints in a highly constructive way, from within six weeks of the course beginning. Recommendations: We recommended, and the parties accepted, a refund of two thirds of the total tuition fees for the course should be paid to each of the students, in addition to the payment of £500 that the University had already proposed. The OIA settled a case arising from an appeal that was rejected based on late submission of mitigating circumstances. The University decided that the student had no good reason for not declaring his problems sooner and capped his marks. After the OIA’s initial review of the case, we asked the HEI for some documents, making reference to the Equality Act. We received an email from the University advising that they would like to reconsider the appeal at the next meeting, which was to take place in seven days’ time. After much difficulty getting hold of the student he agreed and the appeal was reheard the following day. The student was allowed to have the cap removed from his retake marks because they are being considered as a first opportunity, given his circumstances when he first attempted the assessments.

11. PUBLICATION – COMPLAINANT ACTION 11

12. ANNUAL LETTERS The annual letters set out: the number of students at the university the number of Completion of Procedures Letters issued. This is a letter the university must provide to a student when an appeal or complaint has gone through all of the stages in the university’s process. Only a minority of students follow up a complaint to the university by bringing their grievance to the OIA the number of complaints from students at the university that the OIA has closed, broken down by complaint category a comparison with the number of complaints made by students of other universities of a similar size a breakdown of complaints by outcome. In 2013 the letters will be developed to include 12

13. IMPACT OF PUBLICATION OF ANNUAL LETTERS (1) Smallest institution Largest institution Trendline Number of complaints 13

14. IMPACT OF PUBLICATION OF ANNUAL LETTERS (2) Institutions which issued least COP Letters Institutions which issued most COP Letters 14