Bid to reduce bureaucratic burden

Blueprint

The proposed new quality framework, currently subject to tense debate, is primarily designed to reduce the bureaucratic burden on institutions. There is a greater emphasis on universities' internal review mechanisms, with a "light touch" for those universities where there is a high degree of confidence in standards and controls, and a correspondingly tougher overseeing of problematic institutions.

Academic reviewers, employed by the QAA, will review teaching quality and institutions' overall capacity to assure the quality and standards of their awards. In a six-year cycle plotted in harmony with internal quality assurance systems, the reviewers will form their judgements mainly through "observation of the institution's own programme validation and review events".

National benchmark standards will be produced by subject groups for 42 areas by March 2000, against which teaching quality in departments will be judged. Universities

will also be expected to spell out exactly what they expect students to achieve.

Stumbling blocks

Numbers

There is continuing disagreement over the use of numbers to judge teaching quality. Under the current system, universities are given a mark from one (fail) to four (excellent) in each of six aspects of provision. Universities believe this is too crude.

Light touch

There is still a lack of clarity, and disagreement, over the criteria used to determine a differential approach to intensity of scrutiny. Many of Britain's most prestigious institutions have been heavily criticised by the QAA for failing to exercise a proper degree of institution-wide responsibility for quality control. Many resent the QAA imposing a preferred bureaucratic model and remain unconvinced that their burdens will be reduced. The funding councils have warned that a lighter touch must not be at the expense of proper rigour.

Rebellion

Disagreement over the QAA's methodology has lead some institutions to refuse to allow the QAA to audit their systems. Cambridge University is leading the way and Oxford has also indicated it may not co-operate with the QAA. But funding council cash is dependent on quality monitoring.

The legal position

Under the 1992 Further and Higher Education Act, the English and Welsh funding councils have a duty to "secure that provision is made for assessing the quality of education provided in institutions for whose activities they provide... financial support". The new framework cannot go ahead without funding council endorsement.

However, the QAA is "owned" by the CVCP, SHEFC and COSHEP as a company limited by guarantee.