Response to the QAA consultation paper on the quality assurance and standards framework for UK higher education
| Date | 01 September 1998 |
| Pages | 141-144 |
| Published date | 01 September 1998 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/09684889810224920 |
| Author | Christopher Greensted,Jonathan Slack |
| Subject Matter | Education |
Introduction
The Association of Business Schools (ABS)
represents over 100 business schools across
the UK and is already actively engaged in the
development of quality assurance arrange-
ments and benchmarking standards at nation-
al and European levels in the business and
management area. Collectively, ABS member
schools employ over 7,000 staff and con-
tribute to the education of around 250,000
people annually. This equates to 1 in 8 of the
total undergraduate population, 17.5 per cent
of the total postgraduate population and
18 per cent of the total overseas student
population.
The ABS broadly welcomes the QAA’s
consultation paper and the post Dearing/
Garrick opportunity it presents to achieve a
new and more appropriate synergy between
internal and external quality assurance
arrangements, public accountability and
market transparency.
We understand the logic and broadly
accept the essential inter-relationships
between the five core components of the QAA
proposal, namely a qualifications framework,
subject threshold standards, programme
specifications, external scrutiny and codes of
practice. However, we are concerned at the
lack of clarity and definition in many of these
aspects together with a need for proper pilot-
ing and an essential need to improve the
presentation of these matters, particularly to
external stakeholders.
Towards these ends and in the spirit of
constructive engagement, the ABS would
welcome formal QAA recognition as the
“lead” subject association for the formation of
the subject benchmarking group (SBG) in the
business and management subject area. The
rest of this report sets out our detailed con-
cerns but also practical suggestions for ways
forward in collaboration with the Agency,
professional and employer bodies.
The following response is constructed in
the format suggested in part 8 of the consulta-
tion paper.
Part 1. Developing the quality assurance
and standards framework for UK higher
education
1.1 ABS already has constructive relation-
ships with a number of professional and
employer representative bodies in our
141
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 6 · Number 3 · 1998 · pp. 141–144
© MCB University Press · ISSN 0968-4883
Response to the QAA
consultation paper on
the quality assurance
and standards
framework for UK
higher education
Christopher Greensted and
Jonathan Slack
The authors
Christopher Greensted is Chair of the Association of
Business Schools, Strathclyde University, Glasgow, UK.
Jonathan Slack is Chief Executive, Association of
Business Schools, London, UK.
Abstract
Following the fundamental review by the Committee of
Inquiry into Higher Education, under the Chairmanship of
Sir Ron, (now Lord) Dearing, in July 1997 (and Scottish
equivalent under Sir Ron Garrick); the Quality Assurance
Agency for higher education (QAA), is currently consulting
on the detailed elaboration of those Committees’ main
recommendations. The QAA proposals are designed to
provide public assurance on both the quality and stan-
dards in higher education and comprise an inter-related
set of components under the following headings: the
development of a complete and overarching framework of
qualifications for the UK; the development of a national
template for individual programme specifications; the
development of benchmarking information and threshold
standards across 41 subject areas; the development of
institutional codes of practice and institutional reviews;
and the strengthening of the existing external examiner
system to encompass a formal role of feedback on quality
and standards to the QAA. The paper was submitted by the
Association of Business schools to the QAA, in the format
specified by the QAA. It can therefore best be understood
in conjunction with the QAA’s consultation paper “An
agenda for quality”, which provides greater detail of the
main components, set out above.
To continue reading
Request your trial