Professor Andrew Wathey Vice Chancellor, University ...

Download PDF
6 downloads 0 Views 177KB Size Report
Comment
Jan 31, 2017 - Observatory, University of Wolverhampton of UK-wide ... Committee of University Chairs representative@UK-wide standing committee for.
To: Professor Andrew Wathey Vice Chancellor, University of Northumbria Chair of UK-wide standing committee for quality assessment [email protected] To: Mr. Scott Court Head of Quality Team, HEFCE Secretary of UK-wide standing committee for quality assessment [email protected] To: Professor Andy Westwood Professor of Politics and Policy, University of Manchester; Associate Vice President for Public Affairs, University of Winchester; and Director of the University Observatory, University of Wolverhampton of UK-wide standing committee for quality assessment [email protected] To: Professor Lorna Milne Vice-Principal (Proctor), University of St Andrews Sector member of UK-wide standing committee for quality assessment [email protected] To: Professor Ben Calvert Pro-Vice Chancellor, Learning, Teaching and Student Experience, University of South Wales Sector member of UK-wide standing committee for quality assessment [email protected]

To: Ms. Alison Wheaton GSM London Sector member of UK-wide standing committee for quality assessment [email protected] To: Mr. Steve Denton Chief Operating Officer and Registrar, Nottingham Trent University Sector member of UK-wide standing committee for quality assessment [email protected] To: Mr. Arti Saraswat HE Policy Manager, Association of Colleges Association of Colleges representative@UK-wide standing committee for quality assessment [email protected] To: Mr. John Rushforth Executive Secretary, Committee of University Chairs Chair of UK-wide standing committee for quality assessment [email protected] To: Ms. ​Claire Thompson Department for the Economy Northern Ireland Committee of University Chairs representative@UK-wide standing committee for quality assessment [email protected]

To: Ms. Susan Lapworth Director (Regulation and Assurance), HEFCE HEFCE representative@UK-wide standing committee for quality assessment [email protected] To: Ms. ​Celia Hunt Director of Strategic Development, HEFCW HEFCW representative (alternating)​@UK-wide standing committee for quality assessment [email protected] To: Ms. O’Neill Cliona Head of Student Experience, HEFCW HEFCW representative (alternating)​@UK-wide standing committee for quality assessment [email protected] To: Mr. Ben Elger Chief Operating Officer, Office of the Independent Adjudicator Office of the Independent Adjudicator representative@UK-wide standing committee for quality assessment [email protected] To: Mr. Bethan Dudas Executive Secretary, Committee of University Chairs National Union of Students representative (alternating)@UK-wide standing committee for quality assessment [email protected]​.

To: Ms. ​Sorana Vieru

Executive Secretary, Committee of University Chairs National Union of Students representative (alternating)@​UK-wide standing committee for

quality assessment [email protected] To: Ms. Alison Cook Assistant Director of Learning and Quality and Outcome Manager Ayrshire, SFC SFC representative@UK-wide standing committee for quality assessment [email protected]​​ To: Mr. Douglas Blackstock Assistant Director of Learning and Quality and Outcome Manager Ayrshire, SFC Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education representative@UK-wide standing committee for quality assessment [email protected]​​ We are two foreign, doctoral (Ed.D - DProf) students at Derby University UK. We are both mature students (aged 54 and 36) and experienced Psychotherapists dealing mainly with children and adolescents and their families, for the past 25 and 11 years respectively, living and practicing in Israel. We were very pleased to discover the existence of your committee, because for the past four and a half years we have experienced a traumatic ordeal concerning the academic supervision of the EdD research program, ethical misconduct and grave procedural negligence at the University. Following unsatisfactory and negligent internal complaint procedures that the University conducted with each of us individually, we appealed to each of the organizations which you represent. Since March 2015, we have corresponded with and undergone official procedures at the OIA, QAA, HEFCE, the CMA, BERRA and the Fraud squad of the British police.

We enrolled on the Ed.D program at Derby in order to investigate our individual style of therapy, develop our professional techniques and joint practice and produce training programs for professionals in ours and related fields. These goals are the precisely the predefined objectives of the EdD program, and we conducted research which achieved these goals on our own accord, despite negligent supervision. In fact, the staff at the college of Education impeded our research, and prevented its completion and presentation for examination, with no regard for the important professional knowledge produced within it. Their behavior severely affected our professional practice, causing huge financial damage and almost caused the collapse of our joint professional practice. In our appeals to all the above regulatory organizations we provided a large amount of organized documents, which comprise unequivocal evidence for our claims. However, we have yet to receive a satisfactory solution to the grave issues which we raised, or even a serious response concerning intentions to take action to rectify the general situation, reprimand the staff of the University involved and prevent recurrence of such misconduct. Since Sep 2014, we have been waiting for adequate supervisory arrangements, which would enable us to complete our research and present it for examination. We carefully read about the roles of each of the supervisory organization, and corresponded with them concerning the aspects of our case which were relevant to each of them. Dr Anna Cristal- Lilov, a British born physician and professional colleague assisted us with our correspondence, in order to prevent any misunderstanding related to language or culture. Each organization reviewed the documents we presented, and one by one replied that the issues we complained about were not part of their role or remit. Only the OIA found justification in the procedural negligence aspect of Ofer’s complaint, but did not address the other aspects especially those related to academic supervision and research ethics. The collective response of the supervisory organisations, comprised escalation of the traumatic ordeal which we had already experienced at the University, as none of them were willing to take any action against the University, rectify the situation and prevent the recurrence of such misconduct. We understand that your committee was established to create communication and cooperation between the regulatory organizations which you represent. It is likely

that you are already aware of our case, and that it played some part in the reasons for the establishment of the committee. Regardless, we are appealing to you as individuals, whose roles concern the quality of British Higher Education and as a single regulatory body, to review our case as a prime example of the academic, ethical and procedural misconduct of a British University and collective malfunctioning of the supervisory organizations. We expect you to oversee our experience from a higher level and inform us if your committee or one of your organisations is supposed to examine the grave concerns we raised and take action. We continue to raise this concern, not only for us as individual students but because we believe that someone must confront and address a severe and generalised problem in the British academy. If two sincere mature doctoral students are being prevented from presenting their significant professional research for examination, what hope is there for any research student in the UK? We are corresponding with each of you individually in order to receive your personal reaction to our complaint. No response from you will register with us as further evidence of the disregard of the British Academy for doctoral students and academic research in general . It will also be further evidence of the waste of UK taxpayers money in establishing more supervisory organizations and committees who publish idealistic roles and functions but in practice do nothing when faced with a case of severe misconduct on the part of a UK University. Furthermore, we expect you to investigate our case as a single body, each member of your committee being able to contribute his speciality related to the organization which he represents. Perhaps, if you sit together and communicate you will finally realize that someone must take responsibility for investigating the events which occurred in our case and take action. We are attaching a more detailed explanatory letter of our experience, and timelines of our correspondence with the individual organizations and can provide any further documentation necessary. Yours Sincerely Ofer Erez

Anat Ben Salmon Dr Anna cristal-Lilov __________________________________________________________________ Bibliography (hyperlinks) UQS form Ofer.pdf Complaint To HEFCE OFER Correspondence With QAA.pdf UQS form Anat.pdf Anat letter to HEFCE .pdf

__________________________________________________________________ From: Anat ben salmon [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 30 October 2016 20:47 To: QAA enquiries Subject: Concern about University of Derby Dear Concerns team, I refer you to the concern sent to you bu from my fellow Ed.D student Ofer Erez, reviewed by Ms Gxxxxx Lxxxxx and closed without further investigation. I am know appealing to you with my case which is inseparable from Ofer's , in order to show the systemic misconduct of the staff at Derby University. _____________________________________________________________________________ from: QAA enquiries to: Anat ben salmon date: 31 October 2016 at 16:48 subject: RE: Concern about University of Derby ENQ032018 Dear Anat, Thank you for your enquiry. With effect from 1st August 2016, The Higher Education Funding Council (HEFCE) has launched The Unsatisfactory Quality Scheme. This applies to HEFCE funded higher education in both England and Northern Ireland. For assistance with your enquiry, please refer to the HEFCE website and Register of Providers for more information. If you have any further queries about this process, you will need to contact HEFCE: [email protected] or telephone 0117 931 7381.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. With best wishes, XXXXXXX Information and Enquiries Team _____________________________________________________________________________ From​: To:​ Date: Subject:

Ofer Erez​ ​ [email protected]​ 20 Dec 2016 21:32 Complaint against University of Derby - Ofer Erez

I am a mature International doctoral student studying at Derby University UK since 2007, residing in Israel. In Dec 2015 I appealed to the QAA concern scheme concerning my experience on the Doctor of Education (Ed.D) program at the University. I am attaching this original concern form to the QAA and the correspondence that followed. In Feb 2016 Ms. Gemma Long, the assistant director, of the Concerns team informed me that after their initial inquiry, they found that many of the issues I had raised had already been addressed in my complaint to the University, and that the University has acknowledged some shortcomings and was engaging in the OIA process. She stated that there was little evidence to indicate that other students have been affected by the academic management at the University, which leads them to believe this was an isolated case. She recommended that I continue with my complaint through the OIA, who investigate isolated cases and not systemic issues, and recommend recompense for individuals. I was on the verge of lodging a complaint against the QAA, when I discovered that now HECUK is now responsible for investigating concerns regarding academic standards in England. You have also received a concern form from my co-researcher and Ed.D student, Anat Ben Salmon. I am now appealing to you together with her to investigate this systematic academic misconduct. If required, I can provide more supporting documents than are presented here in this PDF. UQS_form Ofer.pdf Complaint To HEFCE OFER Correspondence With QAA.pdf _____________________________________________________________________________ from: to: date: subject:

Anat ben salmon [email protected] 20 December 2016 at 21:48 Complaint against University of Derby - Anat Ben Salmon

I am 35-year old, mother of three and have been practicing as a Psychotherapist and parental councilor in Israel for the past 11 years. My appeal to you concerns my experience in the Ed.D doctoral research degree programme at Derby University UK. ​Prolonged, unjustified and non-academic behavior towards me on the part of the senior academic staff ​over the past two years lead to the termination of my studies and research process of nine years, three times!! ​I refer you to the concern sent by Mr Ofer Erez, my co-Ed.D student and co-researcher at Derby University and my professional partner, ​previously to the QAA in 2015, and now to you. UQS_formAnat.pdf Anat letter to HEFCE .pdf _____________________________________________________________________________ from: Anat ben salmon to: [email protected] date: 20 December 2016 at 21:58 subject: Fwd: Complaint against University of Derby - Anat Ben Salmon As your policy dictates, I am forwarding to you our complaints to HEFCE, to whom we are appealing regarding the Academic standards aspect of our cases UQS_form Anat.pdf Anat letter to HEFCE .pdf _____________________________________________________________________________ from: to: cc: date:

[email protected] "[email protected]" "[email protected]" 21 December 2016 at 18:47

Dear Ms Ben Salmon Thank you for your email of 21 December containing a submission to the Unsatisfactory Quality Scheme. I confirm that we have received your email and two pdf attachments and we will respond to you more fully in the new year when we have had an opportunity to review the documentation that you have provided. Yours sincerely XXXXX _____________________________________________________________________________ From: To:

[email protected]​ [email protected] ​​​

Copy​: [email protected] ​​​ Date: 21 Dec 2016 18:47 Subject: RE: HPRM: Complaint against University of Derby - Ofer Ere Dear Mr Erez Thank you for your email of 21 December containing a submission to the Unsatisfactory Quality Scheme. I confirm that we have received your email and two pdf attachments and we will respond to you more fully in the new year when we have had an opportunity to review the documentation that you have provided. Yours sincerely XXXXX _____________________________________________________________________________ From: [email protected]​ To: [email protected] ​​​ Copy​: [email protected] ​​​ Date: ​09 Jan 2017 19:12 Subject: RE: HPRM: Complaint against University of Derby - Ofer Erez Dear Mr Erez Further to my email of 21 December, please note that we are still in the process of reviewing your submission to the Unsatisfactory Quality Scheme. The volume of the documentation provided and the connection to the submission of Mrs Ben Salmon mean that a full review of both submissions is requiring additional time before a response is possible. I will be in contact again by the end of January 2017. Yours sincerely XXXX _____________________________________________________________________________ from: to: cc: date:

[email protected] "[email protected]" "[email protected]" 9 January 2017 at 19:12

Dear Mrs Ben Salmon Further to my email of 21 December, please note that we are still in the process of reviewing your submission to the Unsatisfactory Quality Scheme. The volume of the documentation provided

and the connection to the submission of Mr Erez mean that a full review of both submissions is requiring additional time before a response is possible. I will be in contact again by the end of January 2017. Yours sincerely XXXXX _____________________________________________________________________________ From: [email protected]​ To: [email protected] ​​​ Copy​: [email protected] ​​​ Date: ​31 Jan 2017 18:31 Subject: RE: HPRM: Complaint against University of Derby - Ofer Erez Dear Mr Erez My apologies that I have not been able to send a response to you today. I hope to be able to reply by early next week. Yours sincerely XXXXX _____________________________________________________________________________ From: [email protected] To: Anat ben salmon date: 31 January 2017 at 18:31 subject: HEFCE UQS submission Dear Mrs Ben Salmon My apologies that I have not been able to send a response to you today. I hope to be able to reply by early next week. Yours sincerely XXXXX _____________________________________________________________________________ From​: To:​ Date: Subject:

Ofer Erez​ ​ [email protected]​ ​31 Jan 2017 22:39 Re: UQS submission

Dear XXXXX, Thank you for your two emails, updating us that you are still reviewing our submission.

We understand from your emails that you are relating seriously to our joint concern. We enrolled on this odyssey at Ed.D program at Derby University tens years ago, in order to conduct genuine academic research related to our professional practice. We were attracted to the program because its guidelines were precisely suited to our goals for our professional practice and development. Having waited for two and a half years for an authority in the UK to relate to the issues we raised, we are willing to wait another week if we can expect to receive a response that relates seriously to our concern after a comprehensive review. Odysseus journey took ten years, so mine must nearly be over. We will soon know if you are another Cyclops or the gates of the Ithaca harbor. We have a lot of patience, and we are waiting for a clear statement from your organization regarding the serious issues we raised and the charade made by the supervisory organizations so far. We have provided you with all the solid evidence you need to make such a clear statement. Your verdict will show if you based your judgement on this or on alternative facts. Ofer Erez & Anat Ben Salmon _____________________________________________________________________________ From: [email protected]​ To: [email protected] ​​​ Copy​: [email protected] ​​​ Date: ​07 Feb 2017 14:01 Subject: RE: HPRM: Complaint against University of Derby - Ofer Erez Dear Mr Erez We have now completed our review of the documentation that you submitted to the HEFCE Unsatisfactory Quality Scheme (UQS) on 21 December 2016. The purpose of this initial review is to assess if a submission is eligible for consideration under the UQS and if so whether the issues raised fall within the scope of the UQS and warrant further investigation under this scheme. You have requested that your submission should be considered as one case with that of your colleague Mrs Ben Salmon and we note that much of the information provided in your separate documentation relates to both yours and your colleague’s experience at the University. We have therefore reviewed the documentation from both submissions fully before making an assessment of either against the scope of the UQS. As we advised by email, the extensive documentation provided within both submissions has required additional review time and delayed our response until this time. (Please note that our response is based on the information provided directly within the PDF documents provided and not on information or documents held on external sites hyperlinked from the document.) Following completion of the review we have determined that although the academic dispute relating to the joint examination of your collaborative research is shared across the two submissions, your individual experiences at the University and submission of complaints to the University, OIA and QAA are significantly different. It is therefore necessary for your cases to be

dealt with individually and we have responded to you separately to give the conclusion and feedback that is relevant to each of you in your individual circumstances. In order to give some context to our response, we have also provided some additional information about the UK higher education landscape at the end of this email. This includes information about where responsibility for academic judgement lies, the UK quality code and the role of HEFCE. Submission of Mr Erez to the Unsatisfactory Quality Scheme Complaint history We understand from the documentation you have provided that you are dissatisfied with the service and supervisory advice provided by the University of Derby. A brief overview of our understanding of your interactions with the University, the OIA and the QAA is given below: You enrolled on the Ed D programme in 2007 as a part time student and were initially provided with a supervisor based in Israel and Cyprus. In 2012 the supervisor left the employment of the University and your supervision was passed to a UK based team. There was some initial communication and issues relating to a missed re-enrolment which resulted in your studies being terminated. You were subsequently reinstated. The University was unable to identify a first supervisor with subject specialist knowledge in the same area so you were supervised by the programme leader with a subject specialist as second supervisor. In May 2013 and January 2014 you travelled to the UK to meet with your supervisors. In the May 2013 meeting you advised your supervisor of your recent diagnosis for ADHD and dysgraphia. You discussed an extension and your supervisor advised you to contact the learning support office. During 2013/14 you were given differing advice about what length of extension would be available to you and how you needed to submit your request as an Ed D student. After sending a letter of complaint about the university and your supervisor in September 2014 you were advised that your request for an extension had been granted to January 2016. An additional six weeks would also be added for learning support taking the final deadline to March 2016. You were advised that this was the maximum legal registration date and therefore that a further extension would not be possible. You pursued a formal complaint with the University between September 2014 and March 2015. You were not satisfied with the University complaints process and submitted a complaint to the OIA. The OIA considered your complaint between May 2015 and May 2016 and found your complaint justified recognising procedural errors by the University in dealing with your complaint and an unreasonable time taken to deal with your extension request. The OIA recommended payment of £500 compensation, a further investigation by the University and that the university should learn lessons about managing conflicts of interest in complaint handling. You also submitted a complaint to the QAA. The QAA considered your complaint between December 2015 and March 2016. The QAA found that your complaint was not within the scope

of the QAA Concerns process because it related to issues of “academic judgement, grievances with individual staff, problems that the University has already rectified through the complaints procedure, and isolated occurrences of bad practice.” The QAA also found that the evidence provided did “not indicate serious systemic or procedural shortcomings, and points to isolated case“. In November 2015 your professional practice colleague and fellow doctoral student Mrs Ben Salmon also commenced a complaints process with the University. You subsequently sought to communicate with the university jointly as you considered that you shared a single academic grievance. However, up until the mediation meeting the University maintained separate complaints processes for you. Current status In September 2016 the University offered to provide a meeting facilitated by a mediator between a University representative and yourself, Mrs Ben Salmon and Dr Cristal-Lilov. The outcome of the meeting was a revised final offer from the University allowing both Mrs Ben Salmon and yourself to submit your research individually but prefaced by a joint presentation. You were also offered a new supervision team and a further year’s extension from the date of the new supervision team starting work. You were offered £12,000 which represented a fee refund in compensation. Mrs Ben Salmon was not offered any financial compensation. You have told us that while you are satisfied with the revised offer to be examined, you do not consider the offer of financial compensation adequate. You state in your correspondence that you (and Mrs Ben Salmon) wish to be compensated circa £1.28m for your time and distress. You have written to the University to request that they separate the examination and compensation offers to enable you to accept the examination offer. Issues submitted to HEFCE for consideration On 21 December 2016, you made a submission to HEFCE under the Unsatisfactory Quality Scheme because you remain dissatisfied about the lack of provision of academic service by the University as follows: 1. “The staff of the Ed.D programme did not provide the service they advertised concerning the learning opportunities and the supervision we received in practice did not fit the proposed purpose of the programme. 2. We were provided with misleading information about the goals of the research programme. 3. We received inadequate, misleading and unethical guidance from our supervisors. 4. There was inadequate support for distance learning. 5. The staff failed to follow assessment regulations, at a number of stages of the programme. Between 2012-14 our continuation on the programme depended upon presentation of our research according to their new guidelines, in contradiction to the regulations of the programme. For over two years, we have been denied adequate supervision and the staff rejected our research without knowing anything about its content. We therefore could not be examined on our

research and be provided with the appropriate opportunity to show we have achieved the intended learning outcomes for the award and qualification. 6. The staff failed to meet commitments made in prospectuses and other published material about the Ed.D programme 7. The management of academic standards when delivering learning opportunities was negligent.” Outcome of HEFCE’s consideration of issues raised under the Unsatisfactory Quality Scheme After reviewing the documentation provided, we have determined that the issues you have raised to HEFCE have previously been fully considered by the QAA through their Concerns process between December 2015 and May 2016. The Unsatisfactory Quality Scheme replaced the QAA Concerns process from August 2016 and as you note in your letter it is based on broadly the same criteria. For this reason, we will not repeat an investigation that has already been considered under the QAA Concerns process unless there is substantial new evidence which could not be submitted at the time of the investigation. We understand that you are not satisfied with the response that you received from the QAA, however HEFCE does not have a role in responding to complaints about the QAA. We have been unable to identify any aspect of your submission to the UQS that has not been previously considered by the QAA under the Concerns process. For this reason we are unable to investigate the issues raised in your submission any further and we consider this enquiry closed. Academic dispute While it has no bearing on the outcome of your submission to the UQS, you have noted in your letter that you have not been able to ascertain whether HEFCE is able to investigate matters of academic judgement and you have requested a response to your academic dispute. You have stated that your dispute is centred on the joint request of yourself and Mrs Ben Salmon to jointly present and submit for examination your collaborative research using the Apprenticeship framework model you have developed. In the interest of clarity, this academic dispute is not a matter that can be considered for investigation or commented on by HEFCE. Our role as a regulator is legally defined and we have no remit to intervene in matters of academic judgement. To provide context for our response, we have provided further information below on the role of HEFCE as a regulator. Additional information on role of HEFCE Universities in England are independent autonomous organisations which are responsible for setting and maintaining their own academic standards. HEFCE cannot intervene in matters of academic judgement such as the content of individual courses of study or programmes of research or the manner in which they are taught, supervised or assessed. HEFCE has an oversight role relating to the Higher Education sector and operates a risk based quality assessment process to ensure that providers are meeting baseline regulatory requirements, including the expectations of the quality code. The UK Quality Code is a set of

principles for the provision of higher education that has been developed and agreed by the UK higher education sector which include academic standards. ​http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring-standards-and-quality/the-quality-code These quality assessment do not look at individual courses, but are concerned with the management and processes to assure academic standards and quality assurance at an institutional level. You can find information about HEFCE’s approach to quality assessment at http://www.hefce.ac.uk/reg/QualityAssessment/ Role and scope of the Unsatisfactory Quality Scheme (UQS) The UQS forms part of HEFCE’s quality assessment process and is the mechanism by which individuals can let us know about systemic issues which affect academic standards or the student academic experience at a University. The definitions we use for these terms are: By academic standards we mean the level of learning a provider requires and how this compares with other providers. For example, how a degree compares with a degree from another provider. By student academic experience we mean the learning experience that is received by students at a provider and how students are supported to progress and succeed. By systemic issue we mean an issue inherent in the management of quality systems or governance of the provider, rather than one caused by or attributed to a specific, individual or isolated factor. Although we cannot investigate individual student issues to provide remedy or redress, individual circumstances may provide evidence to indicate broader failings in the management of academic standards and student academic experience. In assessing an individual submission the UQS assessment team will look for evidence that indicates broader failings that are systemic in nature. Where we find indications of such issues, we will investigate them. Yours sincerely XXXXX _____________________________________________________________________________ From: "[email protected]" To: "Anat ben salmon" Date: 7 Feb 2017 14:01 Subject: RE: Complaint against University of Derby - Anat Ben Salmon Copy: "[email protected]" Dear Mrs Ben Salmon We have now completed our review of the documentation that you submitted to the HEFCE Unsatisfactory Quality Scheme (UQS) on 21 December 2016. The purpose of this initial review is to assess if a submission is eligible for consideration under the UQS and if so whether the issues

raised fall within the scope of the UQS and warrant further investigation under this scheme. You have requested that your submission should be considered in conjunction with that of your colleague Mr Erez and we note that much of the information provided in your separate documentation relates to both yours and your colleague’s experience at the University. We have therefore reviewed the documentation from both submissions fully before making an assessment of either against the eligibility and scope of the UQS. As we advised by email, the extensive documentation provided within both submissions has required additional review time and delayed our response until this time. (Please note that our response is based on the information provided directly within the PDF documents provided and not on information or documents held on external sites hyperlinked from the document.) Following completion of the review we have determined that although the academic dispute relating to the joint examination of your collaborative research is shared across the two submissions, your individual experiences at the University and submission of complaints to the University, OIA and QAA are significantly different. It is therefore necessary for your cases to be dealt with individually and we have responded to you separately to give the conclusion and feedback that is relevant to each of you in your individual circumstances. Outcome of assessment of UQS submission from Mrs Ben Salmon In your correspondence you have made reference to a submission that you have recently made to the OIA. We are unable to consider matters relating to students under the UQS until the OIA process has been completed. For this reason we are unable to consider the issues raised in your submission further. Additional information about the UK higher education landscape While we cannot progress your enquiry further, given the nature of the issues raised in your submission, we thought that it would be helpful to provide some additional information about the UK higher education landscape. Universities in England are independent autonomous organisations which are responsible for setting and maintaining their own academic standards. HEFCE cannot intervene in matters of academic judgement such as the content of individual courses of study or programmes of research or the manner in which they are taught, supervised or assessed. HEFCE has an oversight role relating to the Higher Education sector and operates a risk based quality assessment process to ensure that providers are meeting baseline regulatory requirements, including the expectations of the quality code. The UK Quality Code is a set of principles for the provision of higher education that has been developed and agreed by the UK higher education sector which include academic standards. http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring-standards-and-quality/the-quality-code These quality assessments do not look at individual courses, but are concerned with the management and processes to assure academic standards and quality assurance at an institutional level. You can find information about HEFCE’s approach to quality assessment at http://www.hefce.ac.uk/reg/QualityAssessment/

Role and scope of the Unsatisfactory Quality Scheme (UQS) The UQS forms part of HEFCE’s quality assessment process and is the mechanism by which individuals can let us know about systemic issues which affect academic standards or the student academic experience at a University. The definitions we use for these terms are: By academic standards we mean the level of learning a provider requires and how this compares with other providers. For example, how a degree compares with a degree from another provider. By student academic experience we mean the learning experience that is received by students at a provider and how students are supported to progress and succeed. By systemic issue we mean an issue inherent in the management of quality systems or governance of the provider, rather than one caused by or attributed to a specific, individual or isolated factor. Although we cannot investigate individual student issues to provide remedy or redress, individual circumstances may provide evidence to indicate broader failings in the management of academic standards and student academic experience. In assessing an individual submission the UQS assessment team will look for evidence that indicates broader failings that are systemic in nature. Where we find indications of such issues, we will investigate them further. Yours sincerely XXXXX _____________________________________________________________________________ From​: Ofer Erez​ To:​ ​ [email protected]​ Date: ​07 Feb 2017 20:17 Subject: Re: Complaint against University of Derby - Ofer Erez XXXXX!!! We appealed to your organization, regarding severe academic and procedural misconduct that we experienced at Derby University. After reviewing the evidence which we provided for a month and a half, you concluded: The QAA have already investigated Ofer’s complaint, and despite the fact that they were blatantly negligent in their role, you refuse to examine his concern independently. You refuse to examine Anat’s complaint because it is under investigation at the OIA, despite the fact that the OIA deals only with procedural aspects of students complaints. You refuse to acknowledge the systematic nature of our complaint, despite the fact that you have received two complaints, from two students on the same program, enrolled at the same time. Both of us were victims of grave academic misconduct on the part of the staff of the same college of the University. Ofer did not appeal to you with a complaint about the service of the QAA, but requested that you review his complaint independently. You apparently rely upon the fact that the QAA have already allegedly taken an initial interest in his case, and therefore refuse to involve yourself in the grave

concern which he raised. Had you done so, you would have observed that since 2012 Ofer experienced negligent academic supervision, and procedural misconduct which is unacceptable in any institution of Higher Education in the world. You would have also observed that the QAA did not fulfil the role they claim to be responsible for, in the British academy. You state that “Universities in England are independent autonomous organisations which are responsible for setting and maintaining their own academic standards” . However, obviously, there a necessity for the existence of supervisory organizations such as yourselves and the QAA, which observe the academic functioning of the Universities. It is blatantly clear from your letters to us that you and the QAA are nothing more than fictitious establishments, who flee when asked to confront a real and grave complaint concerning academic standards in the Universities that you are supposed to supervise. You carefully defined your roles and the scope of the Unsatisfactory Quality Scheme (UQS) for us, as if we are unable to understand English. Since we understand you perfectly, we will explain once again why we appealed to you and why this is part of your remit. 1 By academic standards we mean the level of learning a provider requires and how this compares with other providers. For example, how a degree compares with a degree from another provider. We provided evidence of the guidelines for the EdD programme and the nature of D.Prof degrees in other Institutions of Higher education. We conducted research according to these guidelines, despite negligent supervision and direction on the part of the staff at Derby University. The main element of our appeal to you was the refusal of the staff to support our research and allow us to be examined on it. After a futile battle of correspondence lasting two and a half years, a solution to this dilemma was achieved in a 40 minute discussion with a University representative, in the presence of a mediator. 2 By student academic experience we mean the learning experience that is received by students at a provider and how students are supported to progress and succeed. We complained that we were not supported and were even impeded by the staff in regard to our research process. Despite the fact that we produced research with significant outcomes in our field of practice, our learning experience at Derby was not disappointing but destructive to our professional development. 3 By systemic issue we mean an issue inherent in the management of quality systems or governance of the provider, rather than one caused by or attributed to a specific, individual or isolated factor. We complained about repetitive incidents of academic and procedural misconduct on the part of a large number of staff members at the College of Education at Derby, and more senior staff, since Nov 2012. We also described negligence in the collective functioning of the University. We provided clear factual evidence of this. You received complaints from the two of us, and evidence concerning a third student enrolled on the same program . We provided details of our

original supervisor Prof. Kreindler and other students who attended the program who would be able to provide further information about the functioning of the staff since 2012. The elements of our complaint could therefore never be described as isolated or attributed to a specific individual member of staff. We presume that the above explanations as to why our complaint does fall within your remit are now clear to you. We will not agree to separate our complaints since they concern the misconduct of the staff of the same programme, at the same University over the same period of time. Furthermore, Anat’s dispute with the University reached its climax when she insisted on presenting her collaborative research which she had conducted with Ofer. We will not allow you to artificially separate our cases, because this allows you to invalidate the systemic nature of our complaint. We understand the fact that you do not examine complaints concerning academic judgement. This seems extraordinary considering your role which relates to academic standards. However, we would like to be informed of any organisation in the UK, who can comment on the academic and research ethics aspects of our complaint. We have requested this previously on numerous occasions and have yet to receive an answer from any organization. Ofer does not accept your claims that you cannot investigate his concern because the QAA have already done so, and that the content of his complaint does not fall within your remit. At the time the QAA were responsible for the issues raised in his complaint yet they neglected to fulfill their role. Now this is your responsibility and we expect you to do your job. If you do not, the significance of your decision is that you have no authority to supervise the academic standards of British Universities and the very existence of your organization is futile. We will do our best to ensure that this situation is made public and will appeal to any organisation involved in Academic standards world wide as to the functioning of British Universities and the insignificance of organisations that supervise them. Likewise, Anat will not accept you claims that you cannot investigate her case until the OIA complete their investigation. The role of your organization is different from that of the OIA, which is the reason for the existence of two separate organisations. She appealed to you concerning the academic standards of our case, which the OIA do not deal with. We note that you mention that your response is based on the information provided directly within the PDF documents provided and not on information or documents held on external sites hyperlinked from the document. The evidence we provided you with was contained within a single PDF and the hyperlinks in it were connected to documents within the same PDF, and not external sites. Furthermore, we find it astonishing that you, like the QAA, do not suggest that if we have further important evidence, we should send it in a manner which you can review. You simply are not interested in understanding the complete picture of our concern, and the tone of your letter is intended to rid yourself of us. Unfortunately for you, we will not vanish. The quality of the documents we have sent you, and the effort we have invested as we wallowed in this struggle over the past two and a half years, should have made it obvious to you that we will not give up

until someone deals with our complaint reasonably. Your response is an embarrassment and disgrace to the british academy . In your misconduct, you align yourself with the misconduct of the University. In fact your misbehavior is far more serious because your organisation is supposed to address and confront such academic misconduct, take action with the provider concerned and prevent its recurrence. In essence you are authorising their misconduct. In the future, our concern and your treatment of it will be taught in Universities, as an example of British Academic institutional disgrace. When we publish your letters on the internet and elsewhere, we will attach direct links to the evidence that we provided you with as further proof of our claims and your negligence. We demand direct answers to the all the issues raised in this letter, as soon as possible. Ofer Erez Anat Ben Salmon Dr. Anna Cristal-Lilov