Enhancement‐led Higher Education?
| Date | 01 December 1994 |
| Pages | 6-12 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/09684889410071078 |
| Published date | 01 December 1994 |
| Author | Mantz Yorke |
| Subject Matter | Education |
Experience in the United Kingdom suggests that
there a number of unproductive tensions between
the Government (through the funding councils)
and institutions. The institutions are unhappy with
the way in which the Government is driving the
“quality agenda
”
through the statutory
requirements laid on the funding councils, and the
Government is not entirely convinced that the
self-regulation of higher education would be
sufficiently rigorous. Pressures on funding have
exacerbated the tensions.
But the tensions are not unique to the United
Kingdom, since governments around the globe
are taking increasing interest in the return on their
national investment in higher education, and on
the processes which give rise to their particular
system’s outcomes: in Europe, for example, this
growth in engagement is documented by van
Vught and Westerheijden (1993). Governmental
approaches in countries other than the United
Kingdom have taken different courses, however.
Two examples are of relevance to the present
article.
In 1993, the Australian Government made an
additional $Aus76 million available to higher
education for the purpose of rewarding quality of
provision that was better than adequate, although
the focus subsequently became translated into
support for quality assurance and excellence of
outcomes (see Massaro (1994) for a description of
the somewhat contorted chain of developments in
this initiative). The outcomes of this exercise,
announced in 1994, showed that, in general, the
greatest rewards went to the most prestigious
institutions. It would seem likely that the
outcomes will raise tension in a system that
subsumes diversity of a similar order to that of the
United Kingdom.
A comparison can be struck with the higher
education system of The Netherlands where,
according to Vroeijenstijn (1993), the
Government has retreated from a desire for a
heavy engagement in quality assessment (which
in this case is more akin to an audit on a subject
basis, rather than a process involving the direct
observation of teaching) to a position in which it
has left the process to the co-operating institutions
(VSNU), whilst retaining reserve powers to
intervene should it decide that it is necessary.
There is no link between quality assessment and
the allocation of funds. The driving force seems
to be the provision of information from which
intending students will be able to make informed
choices: the assessment reports do not sum up the
conclusions in a single grade, but present their
findings in a multidimensional way, much as the
Consumers’ Association publishes the outcomes
of tests on consumer goods and services in the
journal Which?.
Much of what has happened in The Netherlands
is due to the initiative of the higher education
institutions, which have been proactive in
dialogue with the Government. The result has
been a positive partnership on assessment between
government and higher education – though there
must be doubts that, in the longer term, the quality
assessment process in its present form will prove
sustainable, given the probable cost.
The partnership between government and
higher education in The Netherlands appears, to
the relatively distant observer, to embody some of
the tenets of a “total quality” approach, in that
responsibility for quality is unambiguously –
albeit watchfully – located within the institutions.
Quality Assurance at National Level in the
United Kingdom
The present arrangements for the external scrutiny
of quality in higher education derive from
QUALITY ASSURANCE
IN EDUCATION
6
Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 2 No. 3, 1994, pp. 6-12
© MCB University Press, 0968-4883
Enhancement-led Higher
Education?
Mantz Yorke
The author is writing in a personal capacity, and the
views expressed should not be taken as representative
of the institution to which he belongs. The thinking
embodied in this article has been influenced in
discussion with a number of colleagues in higher
education, who cannot be held responsible for the
views presented here.
To continue reading
Request your trial