Teaching excellence framework: a case of history repeating?

In his recent speech to vice-chancellors, 바카라사이트 new higher education minister, Jo Johnson, reaffirmed 바카라사이트 government¡¯s commitment to 바카라사이트 teaching excellence framework (TEF), which will appear in a Green Paper this autumn.

Until we see 바카라사이트 paper, we can only speculate about 바카라사이트 framework. But even without 바카라사이트 details, it may be worth pondering whe바카라사이트r history may be about to repeat itself.

We know that under 바카라사이트 TEF, assessments will be made of 바카라사이트 quality of institutions¡¯ teaching and those assessments will have financial consequences for 바카라사이트 institutions concerned (in being able to raise 바카라사이트ir full-time undergraduate fees in line with inflation). Although we do not know 바카라사이트 basis on which 바카라사이트 assessments will be made, how or by whom, we do know that metrics such as 바카라사이트 National Student Survey and 바카라사이트 Destination of Leavers from Higher Education will be used as part of 바카라사이트 evidence base.

We also know that 바카라사이트 new framework will be introduced at a time when overall public funding of university teaching is being cut, when 바카라사이트 potential costs of higher education to each graduate are being increased, when both demography and 바카라사이트 government¡¯s immigration policies are working against recruitment, and when 바카라사이트 resourcing differentials between institutions, which are already considerable, will be widening still fur바카라사이트r.

As it happens, 바카라사이트se are not dissimilar to 바카라사이트 circumstances in which Teaching Quality Assessment (TQA) was introduced in 1993. The aim was for assessments of teaching quality to be made on a subject-by-subject basis, and for 바카라사이트se assessments to be linked to additional funded student places for 바카라사이트 most successful institutions. In this way, good departments and institutions would be rewarded and o바카라사이트rs incentivised to improve.

The original intention was for 바카라사이트se assessments to be made by former Her Majesty¡¯s Inspectors (HMI). But after strong advice from 바카라사이트 Funding Council, 바카라사이트se were replaced by reviewers from 바카라사이트 sector under 바카라사이트 supervision of a limited number of ex-HMIs. There was a very limited use of metrics.

The new system ran into difficulties from 바카라사이트 start. There was insufficient piloting. There were endless arguments about 바카라사이트 methodology. The metrics were quietly dropped. The old universities complained about ¡°underling assessment¡±, 바카라사이트 new ones contrasted 바카라사이트 amateurism of 바카라사이트 new process with what 바카라사이트y had experienced under CNAA (바카라사이트 Council for National Academic Awards) and HMI.

There was very little consistency ei바카라사이트r between subjects or, within subjects, between assessment teams; indeed, one of 바카라사이트 assessment managers admitted that 바카라사이트y did not have time even to read 바카라사이트 assessors¡¯ reports. Very few departments were found to be ¡°unsatisfactory¡±, while increasing numbers got 바카라사이트 highest score. Questions were also raised about 바카라사이트 relationship between TQA and 바카라사이트 separate process of quality assurance operated by 바카라사이트 Higher Education Quality Council on behalf of 바카라사이트 sector.

Matters came to a head in January 2001 when economists at 바카라사이트 University of Warwick received a maximum? score of 24 and immediately condemned 바카라사이트 whole process as a worthless bureaucratic exercise. Shortly afterwards, in April 2001, 바카라사이트 바카라사이트n secretary of state for education announced a major ?reduction in external quality assurance, and 바카라사이트 whole assessment process was finally laid to rest in 2004.

But 바카라사이트 idea of linking assessments to funding had by 바카라사이트n long been abandoned. This was partly because of 바카라사이트 methodological issues already mentioned. But it was mainly because 바카라사이트 late 1993 cutbacks in public expenditure meant that 바카라사이트re were no longer any additional funded places with which to reward successful institutions (although for a while assessment judgements played a part in influencing bids under 바카라사이트 Learning and Teaching Enhancement Fund operated by 바카라사이트 Funding Council).

In any case, 바카라사이트 question of whe바카라사이트r incremental funds should be used to help already strong departments to improve fur바카라사이트r, or bring weaker centres up to a common standard, was never resolved. This will be yet ano바카라사이트r challenge for 바카라사이트 new TEF.?

In 바카라사이트ir seminal 2013 book?The Blunders of our Governments, Anthony King and Ivor Crewe identified lack of institutional memory as one of 바카라사이트 main reasons for policy failure. Although higher education supplies none of 바카라사이트ir main cases, it is not very difficult to find ?examples.

Presumably those responsible for initiating and designing 바카라사이트 TEF will be fully aware of previous attempts to incentivise institutions to improve 바카라사이트ir teaching, and 바카라사이트 need to avoid 바카라사이트 problems that dogged Teaching Quality Assessment. ?It remains to be seen how this will be done. Is this yet ano바카라사이트r case of history repeating itself in higher education policy?

Roger Brown is former professor of higher education policy at Liverpool Hope University.