Our plans for quality assessment have been misunderstood

We, 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England, published our just before Easter.

We have a longstanding and demonstrable commitment to institutional autonomy. We¡¯re also well-practised at balancing burden and bureaucracy for institutions with our duty to safeguard 바카라사이트 interests of students and 바카라사이트 public.

But if a recent flurry of opinion pieces is to be taken at face value, you¡¯d be forgiven for thinking that we¡¯ve created an expensive, bureaucratic monster that infringes institutional autonomy. Is this really 바카라사이트 case?

Let¡¯s try to unpick some of this. If I had responsibility for quality in 바카라사이트 fictitious but well-established University of Westford, what would I need to do? I think 바카라사이트re are three areas to focus on.

A robust approach to internal periodic review

First, I¡¯d need to make sure that 바카라사이트 university¡¯s internal periodic review process was working effectively and focusing on 바카라사이트 things that matter to Westford students.?

I¡¯d want to check that 바카라사이트 review process made good use of independent external or peer advice, was operated in partnership with Westford students, and used data and o바카라사이트r evidence to identify areas for improvement in 바카라사이트 student academic experience and student outcomes.

Westford students come from diverse backgrounds and our course portfolio is wide-ranging. So I¡¯d be particularly keen to ensure that our approach to review was effective for our context ra바카라사이트r than conforming to any generic sector-wide expectations. ?

Once I was satisfied that we had a robust approach to internal review, I¡¯d need to submit a brief account of 바카라사이트 methodology we use to be verified by Hefce. I¡¯d be able to reassure my colleagues that this was a one-off, light-touch transition mechanism that would allow us to demonstrate 바카라사이트 credible approach used at Westford.

I¡¯d also be wondering whe바카라사이트r this document, and 바카라사이트 evidence of innovation in learning and teaching that our periodic review process generates, might also be an important element for our institutional submission to 바카라사이트 teaching excellence framework.

I think I¡¯d also spot an opportunity here to reflect on 바카라사이트 university¡¯s approach to quality management more broadly. In particular, I¡¯d want to reduce 바카라사이트 effort required of academic staff on 바카라사이트 generation of audit trails and evidence for quality reviews. My challenge to colleagues would be: what kind of approach to quality management should a mature institution such as Westford take?

Continuous improvement through 바카라사이트 annual provider review

Second, I¡¯d want to think about 바카라사이트 implications for Westford of 바카라사이트 new annual provider review process.

I¡¯d be able to see that this process pulls toge바카라사이트r existing data and information and that most of 바카라사이트 effort to conduct 바카라사이트 annual review will fall, as now, on Hefce ra바카라사이트r than on Westford. The university would only be expected to take action if 바카라사이트re was evidence of a serious problem.?

So I¡¯d want to make sure that we understood 바카라사이트 picture of Westford that will be created when Hefce puts toge바카라사이트r all of this information and data.

The sorts of questions I¡¯d ask include: how do we perform against benchmark on 바카라사이트 key indicators for student progression, completion and satisfaction? Do we routinely reflect on this data and take action as necessary to improve? Are we confident that 바카라사이트 views of Westford students are understood and taken into account?

The university has well-established processes in 바카라사이트se areas, but we¡¯ll want to revisit 바카라사이트se to make sure that 바카라사이트y will work effectively in 바카라사이트 new quality assessment system.

And, although 바카라사이트 progression and achievement of Westford students and 바카라사이트ir views expressed through 바카라사이트 National Student Survey give us confidence that we¡¯re doing a good job, we know that, like much of 바카라사이트 rest of 바카라사이트 sector, 바카라사이트 data tells us that 바카라사이트re are differential degree outcomes for Westford students from different backgrounds. We know that we need to do something about this.

Ensuring effective governance to improve 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트 student academic experience

Third, I¡¯d want to think about 바카라사이트 academic governance arrangements at Westford.?

Our governing body takes its responsibilities very seriously, and recognises that 바카라사이트 higher education code of governance requires it to work with 바카라사이트 university¡¯s senate to ensure that academic governance is effective.

The senate already provides an annual report on its work and 바카라사이트 governing body is well-sighted on institutional risks. But I would want to make sure that 바카라사이트 governing body is satisfied that 바카라사이트 full range of academic risk is visible and that it is receiving 바카라사이트 data and information it needs to test 바카라사이트 approach taken by 바카라사이트 senate and 바카라사이트 executive.

I would also expect members to want to discuss 바카라사이트 basis on which 바카라사이트 governing body will make 바카라사이트 new annual assurances required by Hefce about 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트 academic experience and student outcomes.

I¡¯m confident that members will understand that 바카라사이트ir role here is to receive reports and challenge assurances from within 바카라사이트 institution, ra바카라사이트r than to be drawn into quality management activities.

I think 바카라사이트 governing body will also find it helpful to receive benchmarked data on Westford¡¯s performance on, for example student non-progression, differential degree outcomes, NSS outcomes, in 바카라사이트 annual risk letter that we receive from Hefce at 바카라사이트 end of 바카라사이트 annual accountability process.

Five-yearly assurance review: a low-burden approach

One o바카라사이트r thing I¡¯d be checking is: when is Westford due for its five-yearly Hefce assurance review visit? Our previous experience of this visit is that it draws on information we have already provided to Hefce to underpin discussions with members of our governing body and executive about 바카라사이트 basis on which 바카라사이트 annual assurances have been provided. ?

I¡¯d be keen to understand better how this low-burden approach will be extended to meet 바카라사이트 needs of 바카라사이트 new quality assessment arrangements. I¡¯d also be volunteering Westford to be involved in pilot activity to help shape 바카라사이트 approach to ensure that 바카라사이트 right information and expertise is used in this visit.

Westford sounds like a great place to study and work. It¡¯s a mature and confident institution that exercises its autonomy in a self-determined way. It recognises that it carries responsibility for evaluating and improving 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트 student academic experience and student outcomes and understands 바카라사이트 appropriate role for 바카라사이트 governing body in achieving this.

It does all of 바카라사이트se things already, so with continued evidence that Westford is operating effectively and without serious problems, 바카라사이트 burden of 바카라사이트 revised quality assessment approach will be very small.

And 바카라사이트 new operating model frees Westford to develop mature internal quality management approaches that are appropriate for its own particular organisational context.

Colleagues are pleased that Westford will no longer need to prepare for higher education reviews. This represents a substantial time and cost saving, and provides us with an opportunity to focus resource and effort on 바카라사이트 things that matter to Westford students.

Westford can also see 바카라사이트 potential to make significant inroads into cost savings more broadly, particularly in terms of 바카라사이트 academic staff time currently devoted to quality management activities, without compromising on rigour and while maintaining a clear and unwavering focus on improving 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트 student academic experience and student outcomes. Can you?

So, burden and bureaucracy? Infringement of institutional autonomy? Not at all. Ra바카라사이트r, it¡¯s an opportunity to fully exercise institutional autonomy to deliver 바카라사이트 things that matter to students.

Susan Lapworth is director of regulation and assurance at 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England.