This way QA?
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/09684889710165152 |
| Date | 01 June 1997 |
| Published date | 01 June 1997 |
| Pages | 97-100 |
| Author | Mantz Yorke |
| Subject Matter | Education |
Introduction
There is a general opinion that the system of
external quality assurance established by the
1992 Further and Higher Education (FHE)
Act for higher education in the United King-
dom is in need of reform. The twin-track of
quality audit run by the Higher Education
Quality Council (dealing with institutional
quality assurance systems) and quality assess-
ment run by the funding councils (dealing
with the delivery of programmes) has been
widely felt in the sector to be undesirably
cumbersome and expensive. Almost since the
present system was set up there have been
moves to streamline it, but the various bodies
involved found it difficult to reach an agree-
ment that would satisfy political and proce-
dural requirements. Given this impasse, it was
not surprising that the Secretary of State for
Education stepped in to give the negotiations
a fresh impetus through the appointment of
the Joint Planning Group for Quality Assur-
ance in Higher Education (JPG), whose
members were drawn from the main bodies
with an interest in the issue. The history of the
struggle to produce broadly acceptable pro-
posals suggests that the bringing into being of
the JPG’s Final Report (JPG, 1996) will not
have been a particularly easy operation.
How successful has the JPG been? This
article looks at the Final Report from two
perspectives: first, it inquires whether, in its
own terms, the new arrangements set out in
the Report are likely to deliver what they are
expected to achieve and, second, it raises the
question of whether an alternative approach
to external quality scrutiny might offer the
promise of achieving more.
The report in its own terms
The purposes of quality assurance in higher
education are set out in paragraph 6 as follows:
a. to facilitate continuous quality improvement
through the sharing of good practice and
innovation;
b. to enable the funding bodies and institutions
to discharge their statutory responsibilities;
c. to provide timely and accessible public
information on a consistent and, where
possible, comparable basis, on the quality
and standards of the educational provision
for which each institution is responsible;
d. to ensure that any unacceptable provision is
speedily addressed.
97
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 5 · Number 2 · 1997 · pp. 97–100
© MCB University Press · ISSN 0968-4883
This way QA?
Mantz Yorke
The author
Mantz Yorkeis Director of the Centre for Higher Educa-
tion Development, Liverpool John Moores University,
Liverpool, UK.
Abstract
Examines the extent to which the purposes of quality
assurance stated by the Joint Planning Group (JPG) in its
Final Report are likely to be fulfilled, and points to a
number of weaknesses in the JPG’s proposals. Argues that
a more forward-looking approach is needed, and suggests
that, if the JPG proposals are implemented, the new
arrangements will last a relatively short time before being
subjected to further review.
To continue reading
Request your trial