Proposals for Quality Assurance in Higher Education

A summary of the HEFCE consultation paper, and NIACE’s response.

Published: October 2001

In July 2001, HEFCE, in conjunction with QAA, Universities UK and SCOP, issued proposals for consultation on new Quality Assurance arrangements for Higher Education. These four agencies have agreed to work together in the implementation of the proposed approach.

The proposals are for a revised method for quality assurance of teaching and learning in higher education.

The objectives are

1. To contribute, in conjunction with other mechanisms, to the promotion of high quality and standards in teaching and learning;
2. To provide students, employers and others with reliable and consistent information about quality and standards at each HEI;
3. To ensure that HE programmes are identified where quality and standards are unsatisfactory, as a basis for ensuring rapid action to improve HE;
4. To provide one means of securing accountability for the use of public funds received by HEIs.

These objectives will be delivered by institutions through their own quality assurance systems. The reliability and effectiveness if these processes will in turn be reviewed externally through a set of external review processes.

A Task Group, under the Chairship of Professor Ron Cooke, Vice Chancellor of the University of York, has been set up identify appropriate categories of ‘data, information and judgements’ which would be required from HEIs as apart of the external audit model.

The proposed new model would effectively remove from quality assurance the contentious external subject review processes which are central to the current system. In future, this level of detailed scrutiny will be applied ‘on a highly selective basis’. It is anticipated that this will be no more than 10% of total provision. The Russell Group of elite universities are lobbying for its total removal.

___________________________________

Response from NIACE

NIACE welcomes:

NIACE concerns

NIACE has a number of concerns arising from the fact that that this document is written by, and on behalf of, the provider organisations, and does not fully reflect the needs which learners, particularly non-traditional learners, might need from a truly responsive and customer-focussed quality assurance system. 

Our concerns relate to the extent to which these proposals can meet the urgent need of learners for comparative information to assist informed choice. This is particularly the case for many mature students, for whom the benefits of higher education have increasingly to be weighed against economic disbenefits. We would like to see a much greater focus both on how QA processes will better meet the needs of both individual learners and on how institutions will make the case to the communities in which they are located and the taxpayer in general.

Definitions of quality assurance and standards:

In this paper, 'quality assurance' and 'standards' appear to apply largely to academic matters, defined as teaching, learning, subjects, accreditation and awards. We believe that the ‘theme’ strand is of particular importance, as student well-being and success are, in addition to subject, faculty and department-based issues, equally influenced by a range of process and infrastructure arrangements. These include:

We would like to suggest that Objective 7a should therefore read as follows: "..to contribute......to the promotion of high quality and standards in teaching and learning as well as in the institutional conditions (cultural, procedural and environmental) that foster successful teaching and learning.

Responsive quality structures:

Care should be given to demonstrating that HEIs have consulted widely with individual and groups outside of the University to inform academic planning. Mechanisms to assure and to enhance quality should pre-empt, not react, to quality failure and should be effectively informed by wider research on the needs of diverse constituencies of learners. They should, for example, be responsive to needs identified through local organs such as Learning Partnerships.

This is particularly the case for courses which attract local students, often those with the biggest stake in higher education, and the most to lose if it fails them. Many may be studying on part-time or sub-degree vocational programmes, which may not be seen as contributing to national or international reputation of the University. Many mature learners, and increasing numbers of young learners, are restricted in their choices to local universities, with little chance of transfer if the experience proves unsatisfactory. Attention must therefore be paid to the development of processes and structures of quality assurance which can demonstrate quality in these areas.

Level of external scrutiny:

The ‘lightness of touch’ argument is not totally convincing for those outside the sector who perceive the ease with which large and powerful organisations can conceal information from the public. It is unclear why the figure of 10% has been selected as the likely level of intervention beyond regular external audit. This seems both low and arbitrary. Neither do there do not appear to be any processes suggested for ascertaining how effective this approach will be.

It may be useful to examine, on a regular but anonymous basis, the experience of cohorts of students across a number of institutions, in order to explore the kinds of issues which continue to be a cause of concern for particular groups of learners and feed these findings into the refinement of audit mechanisms.

Quality enhancement:

Some HE colleagues have recognised the impact of QAA Subject Reviews as a lever for comprehensive departmental training. Given the removal of these processes, and the fragility of new staff development mechanisms (LTSN networks vary in their impact and penetration, ILT membership is growing only slowly), this will be a major challenge to HEIs. Robust staff development mechanisms are likely to take some time to develop and consideration should be given to how these processes can be accelerated.

Information to learners:

The document does not touch upon the availability and accessibility of the information generated through these processes. The comparative emphasis on institutional review arrangements compared with the lack of details in relation to how meaningful information will be clearly and effectively communicated to stakeholders and potential learners.

HE in FE Colleges:

The document states that HE in FE Colleges will be reviewed differently. Although arrangements may be different, they must be equally rigorous and have the level of transparency which we suggest is critical to the arrangements proposed for the HE sector. Processes must enable potential students to make comparisons between provision available in colleges and on university sites. This is particularly important for mature learners who are dependent on local provision.

Related Links

Top of page