Will kite-mark fly overseas?

Can institutions be persuaded to pay for a quality mark on their courses abroad? Tony Tysome reports

Vice-chancellors, quality watchdogs and the British Council are joining forces to consider creating a "kite-marking" system for courses offered overseas by British institutions.

Under discussion are proposals, described by one quality expert as "expensive and extensive", whereby institutions would pay to be assessed. Those without the stamp of approval, represented by a kite-mark, would be at a disadvantage in the market.

The move has been long awaited by government ministers, funding chiefs and quality assurance experts, who are keen to give "British Higher Education plc" a competitive edge in the multibillion-pound global market.

The proposals come amid rising concerns over reports of shoddy standards and poor quality monitoring on some overseas collaborations, which have had a damaging impact on the image and marketability of United Kingdom higher education abroad.

The concerns were first raised in 1994, when John Patten, then Education Secretary, visited Malaysia and Singapore, and was warned of slipping standards. His response was to order a review of standards at home and abroad, starting with the Higher Education Quality Council's graduate standards programme.

Roger Brown, former chief executive of the HEQC, argues that the problems are still serious and that "very few" institutions are good enough to be kite-marked (see Reality Checks, facing page).

The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, the Quality Assurance Agency and the British Council have all said that they are ready to look at the pros and cons of setting up a voluntary kite-marking scheme.

* Why the QAA wants kite-marking

At the moment, the QAA audits institutions' quality-assurance mechanisms - including those covering overseas courses. A recent circular on audit visits proposed comparing subject outcomes of students on courses overseas with those studying the same subject in Britain. The QAA also plans to review its code of practice on overseas collaborations.

In his higher education inquiry report, Lord Dearing wanted more than this, and he proposed a mandatory licensing system regulated by the QAA. Dearing wanted the QAA to draft strict quality criteria for franchising arrangements and to withdraw certified approval from courses falling short.

Reluctant to get into a battle over the academic autonomy of institutions, the QAA is instead considering a system under which universities and colleges could choose to pay to have their overseas courses checked and kite-marked. Peter Williams, the QAA's director of institutional review, said he hoped the feasibility of such a system would be explored in talks with vice-chancellors and the British Council over the next few months.

With up to 40 British universities and colleges involved in collaborative deals with partner institutions abroad, providing courses for hundreds of thousands of students, the sheer scale of a kite-marking operation would be the greatest challenge, Mr Williams said. For this reason, it would need to charge.

"It is not something we would be able to insist upon, and institutions would have to apply for the service and pay for it. But there would be clear benefits to the good institutions in taking part," he said. How much institutions would be expected to pay is unclear.

* Why the CVCP wants kite-marking

Kenneth Edwards, vice-chancellor of Leicester University and chairman of the CVCP's international sector group, believes market and peer pressure would be enough to persuade most institutions to join such a system despite the cost.

He said: "We have to protect our image abroad and be prepared to blow the whistle on anything not up to scratch. We have to have a kite-marking system in some form, and it seems to me that a system that is voluntary but in effect becomes almost a requirement is the way to go about it. I think it is not unreasonable to charge for that since the only alternative is that everyone pays whether they are active overseas or not."

Martin Harris, CVCP chairman and vice-chancellor of Manchester University told the committee's annual conference last month, he promised that the CVCP would "begin a campaign to engage in the international marketing of UK universities".

David Young, the CVCP's policy adviser on quality, said vice-chancellors were keen for there to be some "collective action" on marketing British higher education abroad.

He said: "We would want to broker arrangements so that institutions could take advantage of what is available. We would want to talk to the British Council about how you describe what you are doing, how you inform people overseas of your effectiveness."

* Why the British Council wants kite-marking

The British Council, which is deep into redefining its role and its funding arrangements, is more than happy to build up the momentum of the kite-marking proposals. It is already offering a service to institutions to help them establish and market distance-learning courses abroad. However, Hector Munro, the council's director of export promotion, stressed that a kite-marking system would be totally separate.

He said: "We would welcome the CVCP's working with its members to put in place arrangements that effectively ensured overseas offerings were meaningfully quality assured. But we would not see ourselves as playing the role of making quality judgements. We would want to use the kite-mark as part of a marketing strategy for British Higher Education plc."

Those in favour of kite-marking argue it provides British higher education with the opportunity to set its own standards and to provide a list of approved institutions before authorities overseas do the same.

Peter Williams said: "We would much rather any decisions on who is approved were made on the basis of our own judgements."