Changes in student complaints and appeals, and responses to them
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•339 views
12 years’ experience of adjudicating on complaints from students across the HE sector has provided the OIA with a unique perspective on how students’ complaints have changed during a time of rapid change in the sector; and how HE Providers’ procedures and approaches have evolved in order to address them. This session will inform participants of current trends and emerging themes in the complaints which students bring to the OIA. The impact of the OIA’s Good Practice Framework will be assessed. We will set out how it has been, and continues to be developed since its initial publication in December 2014 and in light of the expansion of the sector and of OIA membership. The session will use case studies and will give delegates an opportunity to discuss examples of good practice and challenges faced when dealing with complaints and appeals, with particular reference to embedding good practice and to emerging trends.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (19)
Similar to Changes in student complaints and appeals, and responses to them
Similar to Changes in student complaints and appeals, and responses to them (20)
More from Association of University Administrators
More from Association of University Administrators (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Changes in student complaints and appeals, and responses to them
- 1. April 2017 Christine Child Adjudication Manager CHANGES IN STUDENT COMPLAINTS AND APPEALS , AND RESPONSES TO THEM
- 2. A brief introduction • The main purpose of the Scheme • Operating since 2005 • Over 15,000 complaints • England and Wales • Almost universal compliance
- 3. •Justified? •Partly Justified? •Not Justified? We review student complaints • Regulations & procedures? • Were procedures reasonable? • Decision reasonable in all the circumstances? Key issues: 3
- 4. Overviewof themes and changes 1. Current issues in complaints Student Mental Health issues Late evidence to support complaints and appeals Reasonable Adjustments Representation 2. Other changes Providers Legislation/sector change
- 5. 1. Student Mental Healthissues • OIA Approach • Growing concern in the sector • Disabilities which may impair engagement with Provider processes • Students’ responsibility for their own learning
- 6. 2. Late evidence to support an appeal or complaint Check • Previously undiagnosed disability/ill health • Did the student suspect • When was the evidence produced • What difference does the new evidence make • Did the Provider consider the evidence “If a case arose in which, unlike the present case, some quite unsuspected and undiagnosed condition was revealed by medical evidence soon after the failure of an examination, when there had been no reasonable possibility that it was diagnosable beforehand, it might very well be appropriate, if not necessary, for the matter to be looked at afresh by the University. “
- 7. 3. Reasonable adjustments • Communication and signposting • Understanding • Implementation • Review
- 8. 4. Representation • Legal representatives – Professional courses • Management of expectations • Parents • Students’ Unions • Friend or Representative? • Career ending decisions • Blanket rules
- 9. Providers – changes in approach • Dealing with greater complexity • ‘Consumer issues’ • Increase in numbers of complaints and appeals
- 10. Legislation/sector changes • New members – Different approaches – Different resources – Different complaints – Increase in collaborative partners
- 11. Case studies 1. Late evidence 2. Mental health issues 3. Representation issues 4. Specific Learning Difficulties 5. Reasonable Adjustments 6. Academic Appeal 7. Partner College/collaborative arrangements 8. Service complaint (course provision)
- 12. Questions about the case studies 1. What issues should be the focus of the University during an investigation of the complaint? 2. How would you respond to the complaint and what actions would you take? 3. If the complaint is justified/partly justified what recommendations would you make? 4. Any other observations?
- 13. Case Study 1 - Late Evidenceof Mitigating Circumstances/mentalhealthissues • Student A failed and was withdrawn from the course. • The student appealed saying he suffered from anxiety and fatigue. The student provided new medical evidence of depression with his complaint to the OIA.
- 14. Case Study 2 Specificlearningdifficulty/Representation • Student has Aspergers’ Syndrome and epilepsy and was registered with Disability Services at the start of her studies • Difficulties with reasonable adjustments • Mother (representative) says she should have been informed when there were problems with the examinations
- 15. Case Study 3 Specificlearning difficulty/ Representation • The student, has Aspergers’ Syndrome and a sleep disorder. • He missed all his examinations in year 3 and was awarded a third class degree. He then moved into university managed accommodation • Represented by his mother who said she should have been told of his award and the accommodation issues
- 16. Case Study 4 – Academic Appeal/Partner College • Student appealed against the mark awarded for her dissertation and alleged bias by marker • Marking sheets were reviewed. She needed a higher mark to get a 2.1 classification • Student said she suffered from depression and submitted a late EC claim
- 17. Case Study 5 - Service Complaint • Complaint by a number of students • Programme leader left and provision allegedly suffered as a result • Allegations that elements of the provision were not available as advertised in the prospectus • One student said he went to the university as he specifically wanted the programme leader to supervise his dissertation
- 18. Updates • Good Practice Framework – December 2014 • New chapters – Supporting Disabled Students (consultation until 31 May 2017) – Delivering learning opportunities with others (published Feb 2017) • Disability Experts Panel – informal, expert advice
- 19. OIA Contact Second Floor, Abbey Gate 57-75, Kings Road Reading, RG1 3AB Tel: 0118 959 9813 Christine Child Adjudication Manager
Editor's Notes
- Read title Pleased to see so many people and I want this session to make use of the expertise and experience in the room so please participate. The session will consist of a presentation from me Then case studies for discussion followed by time for feedback. Please ask questions as we go through. I will attempt to answer them but I may take some of them at the end just to be sure we can get through the presentation. In the presentation, I have drawn on feedback we received from providers during recent visits. We visited around 100 providers recently and met staff and student representatives who told us what their main concerns were with regard to complaints and appeals. Some of these reflected the issues we see in complaints brought to the OIA. We can’t cover everything here but I hope we cover something that is helpful for you. We have an hour and a quarter This is a mixed group from different types of providers so some quick background about the OIA `to start with
- The main purpose of our scheme is the independent, impartial and transparent review of unresolved complaints by students about acts or omissions of member HE providers and through learning from complaints the promotion of good practice. We were established by the Higher Education Act 2004 We have no regulatory powers and cannot punish or fine providers. A note about terminology. The membership of our scheme is wider than just universities so we now use the term ‘providers’.
- Our reviews of a complaint will come to one of these 3 decisions Key issues in our review of complaints are as shown on the slide
- The presentation will look at these areas. These are recurring themes in complaints from students or factors that have brought about change in the complaints we review. So we will look at READ SLIDE
- As I mentioned, we have recently visited about 100 providers as part of our outreach development. We wrote reports when we came back and analysed them to see what issues were raised by providers and whether there were any themes. Mental health issues amongst students was the most common issue raised by providers. We understand why it’s of concern. UUK report “Student mental wellbeing in higher education” (feb 2015) states that the proportion of students who declared a mental health condition increased from 5.9% in 2007-08 to 9.6% in 2011-12 and from 0.4% to 0.8% of the entire student population. We also know that providers are increasingly embedding support for disabled students across the organisation. This is welcome and good practice and helps to raise awareness of mental health issues amongst staff and students and possibly to encourage disclosure. Our approach – we consider mental health issues in the same way as other disabilities i.e. we are looking for timely evidence and how the provider dealt with the complaint, taking this evidence into account. We are looking to see if the provider took account of its responsibilities under the Equality Act . Did it address the following five points: Ask if the student had a disability Was the student at a disadvantage What could the provider do to ensure there was no disadvantage Would it be reasonable to take those steps Did the student suspect she had a disability? If there is evidence that a student was too impaired by their disability to properly engage with a provider's processes at the prescribed time, our view is that providers should consider the likely impact of a disability on a student and show some flexibility in its processes However, we also consider that students have a responsibility for their own learning so there is a balance to be struck. The balance will be different in each complaint.
- I’m starting with the issue of late evidence. Students often only provide evidence to support their appeal or complaint at a late stage. For example, a typical example may be that a student says they were ill during an examination or something affected their performance but they did not tell the provider until after they received their result and the student then appeals. The challenge then occurs when the student produces evidence of disability or ill health to support an complaint late in the provider’s appeal or complaint process. Fr example after the internal procedure is complete, or when the student submits a complaint to the OIA. Many of you will know that we address the submission of late evidence in our rules Rule 4.8 of our scheme states The OIA will not normally consider a complaint which arises from information or evidence which the student has obtained 4.8.1 after the date of the Completion of Procedures Letter, or 4.8.2 if no Completion of Procedures Letter has been issued, more than 28 days after the student ceases to be a student There may be an exception if the student could not have obtained that information or evidence at an earlier date. We ask Does the evidence relate to a previously undiagnosed disability? Could the student have reasonably suspected they had a condition why was the new evidence not available during the appeal? what difference does the new evidence make? We will also ask, if the provider been given the opportunity to consider the evidence If it has rejected the evidence, has it given reasons for rejecting it? Are those reasons reasonable? Gopikrishna JR judgment The quote above is from the judge in the case which was brought to judicial review ADD DATE. The case related to AJ, MCs and late diagnosis of disability. We refer to this, as necessary, when reviewing cases. READ THE QUOTE In these circumstances the judge considered that the provider should look at the late evidence.
- The interpretation, application and availability of reasonable adjustments to facilities or assessment is an issue for some complainants. Students sometimes claim that they were not aware of facilities to support them or the right processes to follow. We will look to see if signposting to information and support was reasonable – directing to the website may not be enough for some students with particular impairments. Students may not understand what has been agreed for them or the implications of not sharing the information with the department. We are also looking to see if the adjustments were implemented. Was there a delay, was it unavoidable? We have dealt with cases where there is a conflict between disability support services which recommend an adjustment and the student’s department which says that an adjustment will compromise academic standards and give disabled students an advantage although the Act permits the treating of disabled students more favourably! Disabled student services should have authority not to be pressurised into changing recommendations in face of opposition from departments. Are the adjustments reviewed to see if they are still appropriate? Is it reasonable to expect the student to be proactive in this regard? Does their disability mitigate against this?
- The next area I want to look at is Representation. We sometimes encourage students, not just those with a disability or medical problem, to have a representative when they bring a complaint to us. They are often extremely helpful. Some providers only permit a ‘friend’ who cannot speak for the student. This may not be reasonable, for example, if student has a learning difficulty and self representation may be difficult. We advise against blanket policies with regard to representation. Where a Fitness to Practice case is being heard for example, the student may be represented by a career professional or a member of the SU. We recommend SU’s as representatives because they understand the provider, usually have professional expertise and are familiar with the provider’s regulations Where the process may lead to a career ending decision. Representation may be particularly helpful e.g. from a member of the professional organisation although, Please note – it’s quite rare for a decision to be ‘career ending’. Often the student has a way to go before qualifying. Students may have other representatives such as: Legal representatives . However, there is a risk that they may not manage students’ expectations. May try and deal with matters not related to the appeal or complaint i.e. not in the COP. May produce late evidence from their experts, may have their own view of ‘reasonable adjustments’. More often representing students who have been withdrawn or had problems on professional courses e.g. medicine. The decision is potentially career ending and the investment in legal costs may be more likely to be seen by students as worthwhile. Or parents may represent the student. They can be tenacious and not necessarily accepting of the limitations of what can be achieved. Conversely, parents may not understand internal processes and simply restate the issues or ask for compassion/discretion, neither of which can be terribly helpful. They can sometimes make assurances of a particular outcome to the student which then cannot be met
- This slide shows some of the feedback we received from providers at outreach events They were concerned about READ SLIDE
- The sector is more complex now We have new members of the OIA scheme who joined as a result of the Consumer Rights Act The sector is more diverse READ SLIDE New providers may offer awards which are validated by more established providers With regard to collaborative partners it is now more likely that both parties, in other words the course delivery provider and the validating provider, may be members of the OIA scheme and when we receive a complaint we will first look to see who has responsibility for which procedures. This isn’t always the case as not all validating bodies are members of the OIA scheme.
- We have 5 case studies so that we can look at some of the issues listed on the slide in greater detail. Some of them deliberately cover more than one issue and have an element of complexity In your groups please answer the following questions about the case study you have on your table. I want lots of time for feedback and discussion afterwards. SET TIME FOR THE CASE STUDIES
- Notes to Case study 1 What issues should be the focus of the University during an investigation of the complaint? Factors to consider Mental health issues – judgment affected Procedure followed correctly How would you respond to the complaint and what actions would you take? Factors to consider Ask if the student had a disability Was he at a disadvantage What could the university do to ensure there was no disadvantage Would it be reasonable to take those steps Did the student suspect he had a disability? Factors to consider Consider whether the university considered that the student had a disability Ask the university to consider the evidence now Our five questions Is the student disabled? If so, what provisions are we now applying to him/her? Do these provisions place him/her at a disadvantage? What could be done to prevent that disadvantage? Would it be reasonable for us to take those steps? Decision was NJ It was reasonable for the university to apply its regulations and require a clear and valid reason why the student could not submit evidence at the time. The evidence did not explain why it was not possible for the student to do this. It was reasonable for the university to conclude that there was no evidence showing that the student was not able to make clear, rational and timely decisions at the time the evidence could have been submitted. Depression is a variable condition and it was therefore reasonable for the university to require evidence that she was unable to submit evidence about her condition at the appropriate time.
- Notes to Case study 2 What issues should be the focus of the University during an investigation of the complaint? How did they address requirements of the Equality Act No signposting to complaints procedure Why adjustment was removed Delay in providing note taker, note taker replaced, scientific language, accent (recall discussion at DEP, i.e. university’s actions were reasonable) Should it have been dealt with as an appeal and/or complaint? How would you respond to the complaint and what actions would you take? Ensure apology was given for meeting problems i.e. Dean not there Apologise for not directing to complaints procedure Good practice recommendations Communication between DDS and Department e.g. on recruitment of note taker Award of compensation? If the complaint is justified or partly justified what recommendations would you make? Any other observations? Did the provider deal adequately with the requirements of the Equality Act? Five questions regarding disability: Is the student disabled? If so, what provisions are we now applying to him/her? Do these provisions place him/her at a disadvantage? What could be done to prevent that disadvantage? Would it be reasonable for us to take those steps? Conclusion – adjustments were reasonable.
- Notes to Case study 3 What issues should be the focus of the University during an investigation of the complaint? Were reasonable adjustments made? Was there more to be done to encourage him to continue with the specialist mentor? Should the Department have contacted him personally after he failed to attend his assessments in year three? Was it reasonable to allow him to move into university accommodation? How would you respond to the complaint? What actions would you take? If the complaint is justified/partly justified what recommendations would you make? Any other observations? Difficulties in process if the complainant doesn’t say what they want to happen next (in this case for review at stage 3) Was the representative reasonable in their requests? Data protection issues, could not disclose initially to parents PJ – due to delays but not substantive issues Compensation
- Notes to Case study 4 What issues should be the focus of the University during an investigation of the complaint? Allegation of bias Promise that Dr X wouldn’t mark the work, although this was acknowledged but did this go far enough as a remedy? Late submission of evidence How would you respond to the complaint? What actions would you take? Advice to college? Advice to markers (mark awarded 65 – 70) is this how the marks should be awarded? Follow up on anonymity of marking dissertations with the college or be explicit that dissertations won’t be marked anonymously If the complaint is justified/partly justified what recommendations would you make? Any other observations? Did college give good information to students about EC process? Responsibilities of validating providers. How far in this case?
- Notes to Case study 5 – service complaint What issues should be the focus of the University during an investigation of the complaint? Substance of complaint i.e. what was put in place after the lecturer left? Was the standard maintained i.e. PhD students could be fine. What was advertised in the prospectus in terms of module availability and links to industry? Have staff had the time to provide feedback? How would you respond to the complaint? What actions would you take? If the complaint is justified/partly justified what recommendations would you make? Any other observations? Is it really a group complaint or is it one person with their own agenda? How would you assess the issue of reduced standard of staff Student’s own choice to follow one particular member of academic staff. University not responsible. Additional question If this had been a franchised course provided by a college and validated by a university, what would be the responsibility of the university in such a situation?
- We are revising our guidance to keep up with these changes and to reflect the concerns of the sector Good Practice Framework - The OIA is in the process of drafting a new chapter on guidance for dealing with students with disabilities. This is currently out for consultation which closes on 31 May. Please respond to the consultation, we want to hear your comments. We understand the need for the sector, including us, to develop our understanding of the impacts of disability on students. We have established a disability experts panel. Members of the Panel give informal advice to the OIA on disability-related matters that arise in the course of our work. Members advise OIA staff on issues relating to the support of students with a disability and Provider also policies and procedures. For example, members may be asked to advise on the provision of reasonable adjustments and the possible impacts of specific types of disability. Current members of the DEP are from Mind, British Association of Counsellors and Psychotherapists, National Association of Disability Practitioners, University Mental Health Advisors Network, National Deaf Children’s Society, RNIB and the Royal College of Ophthalmologists.
- Mention reminder