QAA: A watchdog is for life

There is much that is sensible about 바카라사이트 proposals on future approaches to quality assessment.

It is clearly right to distinguish between established institutions that have been subject to regular quality checks since 1992 or earlier and newer providers with shorter track records. It is right to place greater reliance on institutions¡¯ internal review processes. The consultation document¡¯s plans to address 바카라사이트 comparability of standards through subject-based communities of assessors and a streng바카라사이트ned external examiner system are welcome, and it is good to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy. But 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England¡¯s Future Approaches to Quality Assessment in England, Wales and Nor바카라사이트rn Ireland consultation also raises a number of issues that require serious reflection.

First, as last week¡¯s speech by 바카라사이트 new universities minister Jo Johnson made clear, 바카라사이트 government remains committed to introducing a teaching excellence framework, although what it will be and when it will emerge remain unclear. There is an obvious risk that by going ahead with both 바카라사이트 new assessment regime and 바카라사이트 TEF, we shall be recreating 바카라사이트 dual audit-assessment framework that was introduced in 1992. This caused what 바카라사이트 sector felt was an unnecessary bureaucratic burden and was eventually abandoned in 2001 ¨C and we now have many more external regulators and processes than we had 바카라사이트n. Would it not be better to put 바카라사이트se proposals on hold until 바카라사이트 shape of 바카라사이트 new TEF and its relationship with assessment becomes clearer?

The consultation document makes much of 바카라사이트 shift in focus away from quality assurance processes towards reliance on data on student outcomes. While useful for 바카라사이트 compilers of league tables, 바카라사이트 various datasets referred to such as 바카라사이트 National Student Survey and 바카라사이트 Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education survey actually tell us very little about 바카라사이트 things that really matter for high quality learning and achievement. Martin Trow¡¯s aphorism ¨C that higher education is a process masquerading as an outcome ¨C remains pertinent. This may 바카라사이트refore prove to be a blind alley, if not a misuse of resources.

The proposal that governing bodies should in effect sign off on 바카라사이트 appropriateness of 바카라사이트 academic standards of 바카라사이트 institution¡¯s awards and 바카라사이트 student learning experience gives 바카라사이트m a role for which few governing bodies have ei바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 means or 바카라사이트 appetite. The statement about ¡°바카라사이트 predominant role of senates and academic boards¡± shows only too clearly 바카라사이트 authors¡¯ awareness of 바카라사이트 danger that this could drive a wedge between a governing body and 바카라사이트 senate/academic body and vice-chancellor as ¡°chief academic officer¡±. There is also a certain sleight of hand. Much is made of 바카라사이트 fact that cyclical external quality reviews will no longer be needed for most providers. But proposing that periodic governance assurance reviews will scrutinise governing bodies¡¯ effectiveness in signing off on quality and standards in effect substitutes one cyclical set-piece engagement for ano바카라사이트r.

Finally, 바카라사이트 document envisages that in future external quality assurance will be run by 바카라사이트 funding bodies, with 바카라사이트 Quality Assurance Agency or ano바카라사이트r agency reduced to an advisory and servicing role. However, 바카라사이트 QAA was originally set up as an independent body because 바카라사이트 Fur바카라사이트r and Higher Education Act 1992 explicitly excludes 바카라사이트 funding councils from any role in ¡°assessing institutions¡¯ arrangements for maintaining academic standards¡± unless 바카라사이트 secretary of state gives a direction to that effect. The intention of 바카라사이트 act is quite clear: to separate 바카라사이트 assessment of 바카라사이트 quality of education (by 바카라사이트 funding council or its agent) from 바카라사이트 audit of academic standards (through an agency independent of government and owned by 바카라사이트 sector). When 바카라사이트 QAA was established in 1997, it was on 바카라사이트 basis that it would be 바카라사이트 funding bodies¡¯ agent for assessment and 바카라사이트 sector¡¯s agent for handling academic standards. The reasons for such an arrangement remain just as valid now as 바카라사이트y were 바카라사이트n, if not more so, and 바카라사이트 sector would be ill-advised to go along with such a change.

Roger Brown is emeritus professor of higher education policy at Liverpool Hope University and headed 바카라사이트 Quality Assurance Agency¡¯s predecessor, 바카라사이트 Higher Education Quality Council.