The recent announcement of the chairman of the new Qualifications and Curriculum Authority seems to confirm that in this area at least we can expect continuity of policy rather than change. The new agency, formed from a merger between the former National Council for Vocational Qualifications and the Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority, has an ambitious task: to establish a transparent and credible national framework for all post-compulsory qualifications. Additionally, the framework should provide "parity of esteem'' between the vocational and academic routes to higher education and employment.
The QCA has proved controversial. Employers feared that the demise of the agency responsible for promoting NVQs signalled a lack of political commitment. Vice chancellors see the new agency as a further check on fast-diminishing academic autonomy precisely because of its commitment to the development of higher level NVQs. Early indications of the agency's modus operandi will provide scant comfort to either. The establishment of another set of quality hurdles is unlikely to be welcomed by those higher education institutions seeking to expand their vocational provision. Rather than encouraging universities to take NVQs seriously, this move could send them into rapid retreat.
More seriously, the establishment of the QCA marks the addition of yet another agency to the alphabet soup of bodies responsible for quality and standards in the educational sector. While the commitment of the new Labour government to raising educational standards is to be applauded, it is hard to see how the multiplication of quality quangos with overlapping functions helps achieve this aim.
In the further education sector, some cognisance appears to have been taken of the need to clarify the boundaries between the FEFC inspectorate, the training inspectorate of the TEC National Council and the new QCA. In higher education, quality and standards still remain the concern of a plethora of different agencies. For a university like the University of Central England, with a high proportion of vocational and professional education and extensive provision in the nursing, midwifery and paramedical fields, this means being accountable to dozens of different bodies.
The need for a review of how the system might be rationalised and improved is pressing. The costs associated with the expanding quality bureaucracy are difficult to justify at a time when public resources are declining. Nor is there any evidence that the multiplication of agencies has led either to an improvement in quality and standards or to greater confidence in these on the part of the various stakeholders.
While the monitoring auditing and inspecting regimes differ, the agencies share a basic aim: to ensure that the provision is of the required quality and standard in order to protect the interests of the relevant customer, notably the students and their eventual employers. Part of the problem probably stems from the commitment of the universities to the principle of self-regulation. While their responsibility for academic standards is axiomatic, why do they need their "own'' quality agency, alongside all the rest?
If one of the consequences of the forthcoming Dearing review is that higher education becomes more market-oriented, inter alia, as students are expected to make a greater financial contribution to the costs of their education than at present, then strong and effective regulation will be needed. This suggests that we should take the brave step of seriously examining the feasibility of scrapping the current hotch-potch of quality quangos and replacing them with a single "super-regulator'' for higher (and further?) education.
Diana Green is pro vice chancellor, University of Central England.