New agency for quality enhancement in higher education: UKCLE response

The 2003 TQEC report proposed the establishment of an Academy for the Advancement of Learning and Teaching. The Higher Education Academy has now been established, incorporating both the Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN), of which UKCLE was the law subject centre, and the Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education.

UKCLE welcomes the focus on promoting and enhancing learning and teaching as set out in the white paper proposals and expanded upon in the TQEC Report. It supports the conception of quality enhancement set out in paragraphs 2.4 and 2.5 and agrees that the establishment of a single agency to amalgamate the functions of the LTSN, ILTHE and HESDA has the potential to provide better value for money and a more coherent service to key stakeholders.

UKCLE would like to highlight the following issues in particular:

• The LTSN subject centres offer great strengths in relation to networking, brokerage and dissemination. We believe that we have accumulated a wealth of experience around evaluating effective teaching and learning practices and processes. We are also reflective about our own practices and seek to be responsive to user needs and concerns. LTSN tries to practice what it preaches and this is an essential element of the professionalism identified in the core characteristics of the Academy.
• These core strengths of the LTSN fit well with the conception of quality enhancement as a developmental, responsive process. Within this we are keen to encompass strategies to develop a professional body of teachers in HE but would wish to work in concert with any accreditation process rather than being the key provider to avoid any perception of the subject centres as quality assurance agencies.
• While the importance of working at institutional level is clearly built into the proposals for the new Academy, there is no explicit acknowledgement of the importance of working within the discipline context in enhancing quality in teaching and learning. We would like to see this being addressed in developing the role and functions of the Academy – otherwise questions will rightly be raised about the necessity for subject centres in delivering the remit of the Academy.
• In common with other profession related disciplines, the study of law at university is influenced not only by academic considerations but also the needs of the professional bodies and other employers of law graduates. We are therefore interested in proposals for the Academy to work closely with other agencies and in particular regional development agencies. The nature of the relationships and, again, how they contribute to the enhancement of learning and teaching within the discipline context needs consideration.
• The line between enhancement and assurance needs careful delineation. The expectation of a single agency to serve a number of different groups (paragraph 4.8) and perform a number of functions (paragraph 5.4) is likely to create tensions in determining priorities, not least at the discipline level, and potentially compromise the role of subject centres as ‘honest brokers’.
• The emphasis on independence as a key characteristic of the Academy is welcome. The experience of the LTSN has been that its agenda has been shaped to meet the priorities of policy and while this has been managed fairly comfortably within our remit and without compromising our core mission or relationships with key stakeholders, there is a potential for tension – not least because of lack of resources to meet additional demands on an ad hoc basis.
• The observation, in relation to the level of success of ILTHE, that recognition and ownership by institutions and others in the sector is crucial (paragraph 9 of the executive summary) should be taken to heart in constituting the new Academy and we would particularly stress the need for recognition and ownership by the discipline communities.

Last Modified: 19 July 2010