HNC/HND's Non regulated , customized for lical needs within St.Patricks College
Emilia Alexe made this Rhyddid Gwybodaeth request to Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education
This authority is not subject to FOI law, so is not legally obliged to respond (manylion).
This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.
Dear Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education,
I am aware that you are not currently subject to Freedom of Informations Act 2000, however, due to your public responsabilities you have offered to release informations on request for accountabilities and transparencies.
My request relates with the HNC/ HND's law courses within St.Patricks College and awarded by Pearson.
The courses were registered as recognised undergraduate law courses academic Level 4 and 5 on National Framework( as appeared on UCAS and other governamental bodies records) , therefore, they were funded as such with an undergraduate financial support( as shown by HEFCE and SLC))
The courses were anually reviewed since the introduction of the HNC/ HND's in 2012, by QAA and Pearson as meeting the national threshold standards , in accordance with OAA Higher Education Framework.
A recognised undergraduate law course is well defined by law , therefore, it should meet the required minimum standard imposed by SRA and Quality Law Benchstatenent ; HNC/ HND's undergraduate law courses are alternative route to a law degree, known as short cycles qualification; they cannot be altered or delivered without aproval .
However, despite the factual evidences, these HNC/ HND's law courses turn out to be non regulated qualifications, customised for local needs , with a different size , framework and grading system, which do not fall under any national framework and which do not attract public funds because they are not meeting the eligibility criteria for the exepctations of a national higher education framework.
They were well described by Pearson and accepted as non regulated qualifications, customised SRF, nothing to do with a higher education qualification as required by your own code and by the legislation.
The issue has been subsequently reported to you , up to the Head of Governance but you have played a blind eye and failed to take further measures or report the matter to the governamental bodies; the decision had a very good justification considering that QAA wanted to cover its own mistake.
You have assesed these courses for years as meeting the threshold national standards when in practice they were non regulated qualifications customised for local needs; the fact that they were registered as undergraduate does not absolve you from the failure to indentify these courses as being non regulated, with no standards whatsoever.
You have been informed and once you have realised the scale of this scam, you have denied any wrong doing.
You are well aware that Pearson has changed statements, the School of Law was withdrawn immediately after the appoitment I have had with Sharon Hague and the courses discontinued from UCAS list.
As a matter of fact , in your last QAA review for ST.Patricks College , despite your answer given to my complaint, you have expressed your concern in regard to the quality and standards of these courses.
However, you still gave a go ahead for Pearson and St.Patricks and carry on playing a blind eye.
I have also informed, that the majority of higher education courses within St. Patricks, as the evidences shown ,are customised in the same manner for local needs, even if there were registered as undergraduate and assesed by QAA and Pearson as meeting the national standards.
Diplomas with 96 credits issued by Pearson for these courses which were meant to be undergraduate are fakes.
Considering the colateral damages caused by your actions upon students and the public money, I will really appreciate if you can supply informations on
- how QAA managed to assesed these courses for so many years but failed to indentified that the courses are not up to standard, even after the issued was reported to you
- legal background behind your final decision you have reached at , in relation to your investigation of these HNC/ HND's courses
- the informations you are holding about these specific law courses; are you having them registered as non regulated qualifications ( hence you are aware of) or as undergraduate qualifications.
- as a Quality Assurance Regulator for Higher Education , will you please supply me with the definition of an undergraduate law course academic Level 5 , as it seen by QAA
If the governamental bodies are not concern with the waste in public money, students are concern about this fraudulent missrepresentation.
There are writtten statements that are saying that QAA were aware about the facts since 2008, however, this it didn't stopped you to play your role.
Students have put themselves in debts under false promises and they were let down by the institutions which supposed to safeguard the quality and standards of these courses.
I am going to sue St. Patricks and Pearson for deception, as apparently, in order to get justice it is neccessary to prove the fraud first.
The evidential stage for a fraud allegation is met and I am going to go for it shortly.
Your informations will be used for legal purposes, therefore, QAA has a moral duty be opened and transparent in regard of this aspect
I am a former student of St. Patricks.
I am a victim of this deception along thounsands of students and your failure to act has affected me greatly.
This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
[QAA request email]
SMTP error from remote mail server after RCPT TO:<[QAA request email]>:
host email2.qaa.ac.uk [184.108.40.206]: 550 No such user ([QAA request email])
Sent request to Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education again, using a new contact address.
Thank you for your enquiry. I am consulting with senior colleagues for their advice and we will respond as soon as possible.
Administrator, Administration Support Team
Further to our correspondence below, colleagues have reviewed your enquiry and advise that the Subject Benchmark Statement for Law is available on our website (http://www.qaa.ac.uk/publications/inform...) and this may be of assistance to you.
Dear Kate Cole,
Thank you very much for your reply.
However, your answer is unsatisfactory and deviant from the initial request
However, following your refference to the Subject Benchmark Statement for Law, I have a simple question for you.
How QAA managed to apply this Law Benchstatemt for the HND's Law courses within St.Patricks( you have anually assesed them as meeting the national threshold standards) , in circumstances where the courses are non regulated qualifications.
In the light of the evidences I am requesting an internal review of the Freedom of Informations Act
When your are mentioning a piece of legislation you have also acknowledged your duty to comply with ; however, the evidences are showing contrary.
The Subject Benchmark Statement for Law is for assuring students about the quality and standards of the higher education law courses , undergraduate, academic Level 5.
Law is a very specific area, therefore, it requires a minimum threshold standard.
Hence, the HND's law qualifications claimed by Pearson are non regulated, all your arguments around the matter are non sensical and it cannot be applied.
Pearson has gradually changed statements.
First they claimed the HND's law courses are being non regulated customised for local needs with 96 credits; after a year of pressure from students, Mrs Hague changed her mind by saying that the courses are still non regulated but with 240 credits.
QAA does not bordered with the fact that these law courses were wrongly designated on the first place and they do not have a standard at all.
Non regulated qualifications do not sit under any national framework, are not attractic public accomplishment( credits cannot be transfered) and they cannot attract public funding; therefore, they have nothing to do with an undergraduate higher education courses.
1.Pearson does not have the expertise to altered a law course because they don't have law available for customisation for the reasons aforementioned
2. Claiming a non regulated qualification with 240 credits is nothing more than an attempt in mirroring a standard wualification
Either way there are on breach, because as everybody know , the non regulated courses were meaningfully registered as undergraduate in 2012
The HND's Law courses within St.Patricks ( despite the fact that they were registered as undergraduate courses), in practice they are non regulated qualifications and the issue has been subsequently reported by students for more than two years.
The tax payers were ripped off and the students defrauded on your watch and written statements are showing that QAA were aware about the courses being non regulated customised since 2008, but you did nothing.
I have recently asked Barbara Edwards( to reopen the investigation , as the matter is still standing.
Students are going to fill a law suit for fraud, therefore, a more transparent answer will be more helpful, in order to established QAA position in regard to this matter.
It is a matter of public disclosure, hence you have expressed ( under pressure of course) a concern about the quality of the HND law courses within St.Patricks in your last report( after the School of Law was withdrawn and the courses discontinued from UCAS list); howecer, you have failed to take measures even if the matter was reported up to the Head of Governance and Will Naylor.
You have gave the college a ' go ahead' despite the obvious evidences,;
Pearson has put in place a master plan and it is believed that the complexity of the higher education regulation will make impossible to prove a deliberate intention, as for example Welsh Government is trying to defence the higher education regulation after the alleged fraud in Cardiff;
Apparently, the main issue is very cleverly avoided.
The qualification awarded by Pearson are non regulated qualifications customised for local needs, therefore, they were intentiobally missrepresented in order to attract public funding.
I might not get a further response, but I can assure you that once the fraud is proven, I will persuade a public enquiries for further accountability.
Pearson is not in position to issue any diplomas , neither with 96 and neither with 240 credits, because these HND's Law courses delivered , funded and assesed as undergraduatet are still remaining ( in practice)non regulated qualification, incapable to transfer credits; therefore, the course itself is a fraud.
The Corinthuan Colleges fraud in US should have been a lesson for Pearson
I am looking forward to hear from you , hopfully with a mire appropriate answer.
Thank you for your email - I will pass this to senior colleagues for their consideration.
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.Donate Now