QAA reviews raise questions over sector expansion plans

Has this analysis been published? And does it refer only to institutions that have undergone Higher Education Review (Alternative Providers)/Higher Education Review (Plus)? Although frankly, I find it impossible to keep track of how and when review methods have changed for all the different types of alternative providers. One of the most revealing ways to explore quality issues outside of the mainstream university sector (including FECs and alternative providers) is to use the QAA knowledge base. This allows you to look at what recommendations have been made in reviews organised by each chapter of the Quality Code. In many cases where the overall judgements for the provider has been 'meets expectations', the recommendations and detailed commentary reveal practice that is a long way off the mark of what is expected by the Quality Code, including basic things like accurately documenting and consistently​ applying key policies such as course approval or assessment regulations.

It was available from the link in the article, but that now appears broken.

It astonishes me that, once again, we are discussing 'new providers,' (or so called 'challengers') in the UK's HE system; and discovering that there is circumspection over their quality. We seem unable/unwilling/fearful of kicking the elephant in the room to make it trumpet an alert against what is happening. For as long as I can recall, EVERY sortie into any kind of alliance with these institutions ends with a hasty retreat when their true purpose is uncovered ... building the bottom line!! As Luton International College has been identified in this post, out of interest I went on their website and read that they were ... "Founded in 2003, Luton International College has ever since been delivering quality education. In addition, the College offers undergraduate, post graduate and English courses." ... really?? Does this statement mean that the QAA review was longer than 14 years ago?? or could it be that the statement made by the college is, let's say, inaccurate?? They also claim that they have a "good track record in the provision of education" ... really?? how did the QAA miss that achievement given that they wrote the college had 'no learners at the time of the review' ...!! Further the college claims to have "a tradition of innovation, leadership, and accomplishment unrivalled in business and health and social care" ... unrivalled?? tradition?? Astonishingly it offers International Students "free academic English classes if they wish" ... it would be interesting to learn of how a non English speaker manages to study and progress if they 'do not wish'. For the sake of us all, why don't we stop this constant denial of what these institutions are about?? Could it be that the Government consider the short term pain of putting up with them is more than compensated by the long term achievement of total privatisation of the sector??