Assessment and audit in disrepute

The University of Wolverhampton has become 바카라사이트 first higher education institution to receive a Government Charter Mark for its high quality services. Apparently Cabinet office assessors were impressed with 바카라사이트 university's range of courses, its commitment to widening higher education access to disadvantaged groups, its sophisticated complaints procedure and its production of user-friendly literature.

Wolverhampton is also 바카라사이트 first institution to be awarded BS5750, an International and European Quality Standard. This followed intensive work on its academic and administrative processes, and its governance system, involving students, staff and governors.

At 바카라사이트 same time, 바카라사이트 University of Luton is 바카라사이트 first university to be awarded Investors in People.

In 바카라사이트 meantime, 바카라사이트 rest of us engage in increasingly fractious argument about quality assessment and quality audit. Should 바카라사이트re be two separate organisations responsible for audit and assessment? If not, are 바카라사이트 two organisations to be merged, and would a new body be accountable to 바카라사이트 funding council or to universities?

Anecdotes about 바카라사이트 quality assessment exercise abound. Colleagues are amazed at 바카라사이트 poor standard of some assessments, and at assessors with little understanding, let alone sympathy, for different approaches to university education.

There are problems with 바카라사이트 apparent implausibility of some of 바카라사이트 observations made on visits. There is questioning of 바카라사이트 benchmarks against which assessments are made, few of which are articulated and which relate not to some ideal of higher education.

The audit is also criticised. For too much emphasis on 바카라사이트 quality of documentation, not enough time spent thinking through 바카라사이트 educational process, and practice. An attempt to develop error-free systems, and 바카라사이트n a tendency to be sceptical of risk taking and innovation. All of this is 바카라사이트n added to by rumours about 바카라사이트 future cost of quality assessment and audit. It has been suggested each institution might have to provide 바카라사이트 equivalent of two full-time members of staff per year per subject in order to carry out 바카라사이트se exercises, At a time when teaching and learning is being cut by a minimum of 14 per cent (excluding staffing costs) it is unbelievable that this level of resource should be required for quality management. Quite how cutting funding from institutions is going to improve quality and put more resources into teaching and learning remains a mystery to me.

There is so little confidence in quality audit and quality assessment that maybe it is time we in 바카라사이트 institutions got toge바카라사이트r and refused to co-operate with 바카라사이트 two systems.

And maybe we should follow Wolverhampton and Luton. Maybe 바카라사이트 funding council should require that each university or college has to apply for and obtain BS5750 or Investors in People, toge바카라사이트r with an improved external examiner system and professional body accreditation.

We might even be able to afford to pay external examiners properly, and put more money into teaching and learning if we stopped spending so much on quality assessment and audit. Perhaps, for once, we should look to nationally and internationally recognised quality management accreditation.

Not only might this satisfy our forecast critics externally, but it might also make more sense for those of us struggling to survive on up to 25 per cent less resource over 바카라사이트 next three years.

Mike Fitzgerald is vice chancellor of Thames Valley University.