Out with the new and in with...?

We’ve had subject review (the old method), academic review (the new method). The Quality Assurance Agency’s latest consultation paper heralded discussion of what may be referred to as ‘the future method’. The days of the new method, not even due to be introduced until January 2002, are numbered. But what can we expect to replace it? (Editorial from the Autumn 2001 issue of Directions.)

The Quality Assurance Agency’s consultation paper on the new method of quality assurance (July 2001) was prompted by increasing pressure from those opposed to the new method of academic review, with the Russell Group of universities being particularly influential in their dissent. David Blunkett’s intervention in March 2001, proposing a substantial reduction in direct inspections, encouraged rather than contained the determination of many to fight a quality assurance regime seen as an infringement of academic freedom.

The face of the future

In the blueprint put forward for consultation key recommendations include:

• external review to be conducted on audit principles at the institution level
• subject level review to occur on a “highly selective basis”
• level of scrutiny to be in “inverse proportion to success”

Accordingly, institutions will determine their own internal methods for setting, enhancing and reviewing quality and standards. There will no longer be comprehensive review of each subject area.

However, institutional audit will involve some in depth investigation of particular subject areas (accounting for up to 10% of students in higher education institutions (HEIs). These ‘audit trail reviews’ at the subject level will be designed to test the reliability of the institution’s internal quality assurance processes.

Any subsequent activity at the subject level will only occur where:

• there are areas of concern or weakness identified at the institution audit stage
• the subject needs to meet accreditation requirements of professional and statutory bodies.

Overall it is estimated that subject level review will be cut by more than 50%.

In the meantime…

The consultation period on the proposals contained in the document comes to an end on 26 October. With the goal of launching the new improved method in time for the 2002-2003 academic year, the period from January to September 2002 has been set aside for further discussion and preparation.

So what it is the position for those law schools expecting to be reviewed in the meantime? According to the letter sent to Vice Chancellors by the Quality Assurance Agency on 25 July the following arrangements will apply:

• HEIs in Scotland: it is expected that the planned programme of subject review, using the new method, will proceed as scheduled in the academic year 2001-2002
• HEIs in Wales: HEFCW has yet to decide on the nature of the review programme in the academic year 2001-2002. Welsh institutions will be notified as soon as this has been agreed.
• HEIs in England and Northern Ireland: subject review under the ‘old’ method will go ahead as planned in the period to December 2001. There will be no subject reviews in the period from January 2002 to July 2002.
• FE colleges (England): subject review under the ‘old’ method will go ahead as planned in the period to December 2001. In the period January – July 2002 approximately 75 subject reviews using the new method, will be scheduled.

Future…perfect?

The consultation document is to be welcomed on several fronts; firstly we should all rejoice that significant elements of the higher education sector have combined to push for changes to a quality assurance regime that was widely discredited.

The direction and management of higher education concerns no one more than those working within it, and we should continue to argue for a system of quality assurance that enables individual institutions to reflect the range and diversity of provision according to criteria that encapsulate the essence of what we believe is ‘good’ education.

Secondly, the document has the potential to free up institutions to think creatively about developing and maintaining quality assurance mechanisms within their own context, and free from the ‘one size fits all’ approach that the process has tended to foster.

Thirdly, at the subject level law schools will by and large be relieved of the burden of preparing for subject/academic review – a process generally agreed to be stressful and time consuming.

What is needed now is a collective response to the consultation document that reflects the concerns and interests of all HEIs, and not just those of the powerful elite universities. The Russell Group may not need the endorsement of the Quality Assurance Agency to continue to attract students, but other less privileged institutions inhabit a world in which there is now a requirement to demonstrate the standard of services on offer to intending students.

It is considered by many that how these standards are set and defined should be for those in higher education to decide, not an outside body. We need to ask ourselves therefore what is distinctive and special about higher education? And how do we demonstrate the value of studying at this level? The quality of the learning experience is, of course, a crucial part of the answer to these questions. At the subject level therefore we must continue to devote time and resources to the learning and teaching process and seek to develop examples of good practice that can be shared within and between institutions.

Last Modified: 9 July 2010