1

Cases relating to international students : the challenges of managing expectations and cross cultural sensitivity

Anne Lee, Adjudication Manager, OIAENOHE 12 April 2013

2

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.

33

Rules of the Scheme

5th edition of the Rules effective from March 2013Sets 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

44

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

5

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

6

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

7

Ten subject areas with most complaints

Busine

ss an

d Adm

inistr

ative

Stud

ies

Subjec

ts Allie

d to M

edici

ne Law

Creati

ve A

rts an

d Des

ign

Medici

ne an

d Den

tistry

Engine

ering

and T

echn

ology

Social

Stud

ies

Compu

ter S

cienc

eOthe

r

Educa

tion

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Complaints closed by principal category

Non EUEUHome

8

Level of study and student status

Undergraduate Postgraduate PhD0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Complaints received by student status

Non EUEUHome

9

Complaints overall

70%

23%

7%

Complaints received by financial status

HomeNon EUEU

10

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

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)

11

OIA approach and process 2

• Justified, Partly Justified or Not Justified• Recommendations• Suggestions or Observations

• Compliance – very strong record. • Monitoring compliance

12

1313

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

1414

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

15

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

16

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.

17

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!)

18

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.

19

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.

20

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.)

2121

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?

22

OutcomesOIA 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 re-

examined