In February this year, I traded Australian sunshine and TEQSA for the UK, QAA and the role of Director of Quality Development.
It’s been a fascinating time since then, as the funding bodies’ Quality Assessment Review got underway. And now the best higher education policy wonks in the country are turning their thoughts to how a Teaching Excellence Framework might work.
I have, of course, spent time thinking deeply about all of this, and also travelling the country talking to colleagues in universities and colleges, sector bodies and to civil servants. QAA hasn’t said much publicly about the funding bodies’ proposals, but we have been busy behind the headlines. I’d now like to share a few thoughts and ask a few questions.
Higher education in the UK is world class. I knew that before I arrived and now I understand the many reasons why. A robust and rigorous quality assurance system is not the most obvious nor the most important of those reasons, but as part of the overall system, it is indispensable.
The funding bodies’ proposals concentrate on regulation, ensuring that minimum standards are met and not breached, and allowing space for innovation and the development of excellence (now supported – in England at least – by a new Teaching Excellence Framework).
At QAA, we back these proposals on minimum standards and the principles behind them, and we are fully engaged with the development of the TEF. However, we think the quality assessment proposals can be strengthened in a number of ways.
External, independent, peer review should be protected, safeguarding the reputation and brand of UK higher education. Reviews should have a major shift in focus though, particularly for established providers, and should be tailored, proportionate and responsive. How these reviews will sit alongside the TEF is obviously the question everyone is grappling with at the moment. Would enhancement-focused external review be a good way of supporting institutions aiming to do well in a TEF?
External review should be operated by a quality body that is independent of institutions, government and funding decisions. This is linked to the continuation of co-regulation, with providers having a stake in (and part ownership of) the regulatory arrangements. A UK-wide academic infrastructure should be maintained, as expressed in a reformed (as required) UK Quality Code for Higher Education.
We’ve been pleased to see the support expressed for the Quality Code during the first round of consultation, but have also listened to the criticisms. There is a wish for a more streamlined Quality Code, focusing on high level expectations and principles, beneath which providers can be free to follow their own missions and to innovate. The Quality Code has been developed as a common enterprise between QAA and the sector over many years. Is it really sensible to start again from scratch? Do we want to end up with different Codes for the different countries of the UK?
Students should be at the centre of the new system, and not just by gauging their views through the NSS or by looking at graduate destinations and other outcomes. External review offers students the opportunity for their voices to be heard. It allows them to work as peers forming views on others’ provision. Shouldn’t we be looking for more ways of engaging directly with students, not fewer?
As part of our response to the consultation, QAA has set out our own thinking and ideas for a future system that would be strengthened in these ways, but would also look very different. We have listened to some tough messages about the current form of Higher Education Review. It is clearly, in its implementation if not necessarily its design, too detailed, too mechanistic and too burdensome.
So, while we must hold on to some of those things we know are important in the system (including those above), we need to be bold enough to let go of some things which aren’t adding value, and to innovate. The system should be more proportionate and risk-based, taking into account track record, and should look more at outcomes, using quantitative data and qualitative sources. I hope we can learn from TEQSA’s experience with the use of metrics; maybe I’ll write more about that another time.
It’s a privilege to be working in UK higher education at such a crucial time. It’s also a pleasure to see and be part of the sector coming together to achieve something important. We have a rare opportunity to design a new system that aligns quality assurance and teaching excellence, and that works for providers, funding bodies, governments and, above all, students.
