Three new QAA Subject Benchmark Statements open to student voice
Updated Aug 18, 2026
Three new QAA Subject Benchmark Statements will be developed with students invited into the advisory group process from the start. On 17 August 2026, the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education announced new statements for Disasters, Risks and Humanitarian Studies, Health and Social Care, and Healthcare Sciences. Expressions of interest close at midday on 25 September 2026. For institutions that collect and act on student feedback, the opportunity is to bring evidence from students into standards and course design before the new reference points are written, building on the questions raised by QAA's previous Subject Benchmark Statement revisions.
What has changed in the QAA Subject Benchmark Statements
QAA is creating statements for three new disciplines, rather than revising an existing benchmark in each area. It says Subject Benchmark Statements support academic standards in course design and review, and that it has reviewed 48 statements over the past four years. The new work will extend that framework into subject areas where universities have not previously had a dedicated QAA statement.
The advisory groups will not be limited to academics. QAA is inviting expressions of interest from employers, professional, statutory and regulatory bodies, and students as well as academic communities. This gives student participation a formal place in the development process, alongside disciplinary and professional expertise.
"Expressions of interest are invited from the academic community, employers, professional, statutory and regulatory bodies (PSRBs), and students."
QAA describes Subject Benchmark Statements as reference points for what graduates might reasonably be expected to know, do and understand. They guide programme design, delivery and review, but do not prescribe one curriculum or teaching model. The 17 August announcement starts a development process; it does not introduce a new institutional requirement or give a publication date for the completed statements. The immediate takeaway is therefore about participation and preparation, not compliance.
What this means for institutions
First, universities and students' unions with relevant provision should circulate the call quickly and support suitable students and staff who want to contribute before the 25 September deadline. Representation should be more than finding one available person. Institutions should consider whose experience is most relevant across different courses, delivery modes and student groups, then give nominees enough context and time to take part meaningfully. The practical benefit is a stronger contribution to the national process and a clearer internal conversation about what good provision should look like.
Second, course teams can use the announcement to review the evidence they already hold. Module evaluations, programme surveys, staff-student forums, placement feedback and focus groups may already show where students find curricula coherent, accessible and professionally relevant, or where expectations and assessment feel unclear. Evidence from student voice in curriculum design is especially useful here because it can test whether a course that appears sound on paper works as intended in practice. That gives institutions a grounded evidence base for advisory group contributions and later local review.
Third, quality teams should connect representative participation with wider feedback rather than treating them as substitutes. A student on an advisory group brings depth and direct experience, but cannot speak for every cohort or route through a subject. QAA's wider research on student representation and feedback systems makes the same governance point: representation, surveys and qualitative feedback are more credible when institutions define how the routes complement one another. For PVCs and quality leaders, the takeaway is to document which evidence informed the institutional position, whose views may be missing, and how later course decisions respond.
How student feedback analysis connects
Open-text analysis can add breadth to this process. In the three new subject areas, comments may surface recurring issues around placements, professional expectations, accessibility, assessment, interdisciplinary teaching or the relationship between theory and practice. Analysing those comments across modules and cohorts can show whether an issue raised by one representative is isolated or part of a wider pattern. It can also help teams identify differences between student groups before they turn a local experience into a general claim.
The method still needs care. Benchmark language should not simply become a fixed coding framework for student comments, because students may describe the same experience in different and unexpected terms. Teams need traceable categories, checks for missing voices and a clear route from evidence to decision. Where institutions need to compare recurring themes across survey sources without losing the link to original comments, Student Voice Analytics offers one reproducible approach. The useful outcome is not more analysis for its own sake, but a defensible account of how student evidence shaped programme review.
FAQ
Q: What should institutions do now?
A: Identify relevant programmes, circulate QAA's call to students and staff, and support credible expressions of interest before midday on 25 September 2026. At the same time, assemble recent programme, module, placement and representative feedback so contributors can distinguish individual experiences from recurring patterns. That gives nominees a stronger evidence base without expecting them to represent every student alone.
Q: What is the timeline and scope of the development?
A: QAA announced the work on 17 August 2026. Expressions of interest close at midday on Friday 25 September 2026. The three subjects are Disasters, Risks and Humanitarian Studies, Health and Social Care, and Healthcare Sciences. QAA has not stated when the completed statements will be published, and the announcement does not create a new regulatory deadline for providers.
Q: What is the broader implication for student voice?
A: Student voice is more useful when it shapes standards and curriculum decisions before they are settled, not only when students evaluate a finished course. Inviting students onto advisory groups creates that earlier route. Institutions can strengthen it by connecting representative input to wider qualitative and survey evidence, then showing how both influenced the final decision.
References
[Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education]: "Three new Subject Benchmark Statements to be developed - your chance to get involved" Published: 2026-08-17
[Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education]: "Subject Benchmark Statements" Published: not stated
Request a walkthrough
Book a free Student Voice Analytics demo
See all-comment coverage, sector benchmarks, and reporting designed for OfS quality and NSS requirements.
- All-comment coverage with HE-tuned taxonomy and sentiment.
- Versioned outputs with TEF-ready reporting.
- Benchmarks and BI-ready exports for boards and Senate.
UK-hosted · No public LLM APIs · Same-day turnaround