ABSTRACT
Section 7 of the Code, covering programme approval, monitoring and review (AMR), is of particular importance within the Code overall for several reasons. First of all, the section relates to what is in many senses the core of QA in higher education: the standards of programmes of study, which in turn reflect the defining authority of HEIs: namely the right to award degrees. Secondly, the arrangements for AMR need to incorporate systems for ensuring that other sections of the quality framework are being addressed by an HEI, such as the curriculum content (through the benchmark statements), award structures (through the FHEQ) and the management of course delivery (through other sections of the Code). In that sense this section of the Code serves as a metacode, articulating how institutions should ensure that other sections are being addressed. Thirdly, there is the issue of alignment, that is, the extent to which institutional arrangements for internal QA map onto external arrangements. This can be a general issue in the sense that both internal and external processes may seek to reflect the underlying principles of transparency, QE and quality design, but can also be a pragmatic and concrete issue, such as the exhortation by the QAA for annual programme review statements to have a format and focus which anticipates the requirements of a SED for external QAA audit. Alignment serves to reduce duplication of effort, often criticized during the comprehensive subject review cycle, but alignment has the consequence of replicating at institutional level the externally specified quality framework. Thus, although alignment may serve to reduce duplication of effort it can heighten alienation of academic staff from the QA process.
