Flexible friends

John Randall outlines the aims of the QAA's new framework

Introduction

I am grateful to The THES for publishing in full the new framework that the Quality Assurance Agency will now develop and implement. Our plans embody the integrated approach that the agency was established to introduce, and they take account of the relevant proposals of the Dearing report on higher education.

There was an excellent response to the consultation paper that we published earlier this year. As I made clear, this was a genuine consultation designed to play a major part in shaping our proposals.

Our willingness to listen has puzzled the headline writers, who have accused us both of watering down and beefing up our proposals. The reality is that we have striven to develop a model that can command the support of the sector while ensuring a high level of public confidence that quality and standards in higher education are being safeguarded and enhanced.

The way ahead

We have achieved a remarkable degree of consensus on the way forward. I welcome in particular the endorsement by the funding councils of the principles of the new model. That clears the way for us to proceed with the trialling that will address matters of detailed implementation.

On some matters we have heeded the voice of the sector. For example, the Dearing proposal that external examiners should report directly to the agency met with real concerns that the independent role of the external examiner as "critical friend" would be undermined, with a loss of frankness in reporting. We are not proceeding with that proposal. Instead, academic reviewers will draw upon the experience of external examiners, but in a way that will not compromise their independent role.

On other matters we have concluded that it is the views of the external stakeholders that must prevail. For example, views from within the sector were divided on proposals for programme specifications and subject benchmarks, with a number of significant reservations being expressed. Against this there was overwhelming support from employers and students for clear and verifiable information about the outcomes that programmes are intended to achieve. Accordingly, programme specifications and subject benchmarks remain as central features of the new model.

For all concerned, a critical test of any new model is whether it is capable of bringing about a reduction in the burden that external scrutiny can place upon institutions. A key feature of the model is a new flexibility in the timing of programme reviews so as to facilitate the alignment of external scrutiny and internal review or revalidation. By aligning the internal and external processes, the duplication of work that gives rise to much of the burden can be eliminated.

The model should be capable of helping the sector cope with the challenges of the future. Delivery of higher education programmes is becoming increasingly diverse and complex, not least through the rapid growth of collaborative arrangements at home and overseas. Complexity adds risk, and risk must be managed. Maintenance of the overall standards of awards is critical to the reputation of United Kingdom higher education. In the new model, review at the institutional level will be concerned particularly with the security of arrangements for safeguarding the standards of awards, not least those made in respect of provision that is delivered through complex collaborative arrangements.

We now enter a two year period of trialling and developing the new model. A genuine and open consultation has resulted in a framework that can command support of all parties. We will take an equally open-minded approach to the trialling, with a view to ensuring that as operational detail is developed and refined, the model will remain one that is robust, that commands the support of the sector, and meets fully the information needs of funders and stakeholders.

It is worth re-emphasising that what we are trialling is the new method, not the participating institutions. We need to test variants on the detail of the model to help us get right such things as the number of academic reviewers needed, and the most effective sources of evidence.

At this stage, the trials will focus on generating information about outcomes; in the second year of trialling we will test the combination of this with the generation of information about the quality of processes. While in this year we will be looking at outcomes alone, it is important to remember that this aspect will eventually be fully integrated into a review process conducted by a single team - it will not be a separate exercise imposing an additional burden on institutions.

Judgements about outcomes will be holistic. They are not about ticking boxes set against the elements of subject benchmarks. Institutions will determine, through their programme specifications, the main outcomes that they set out to achieve. Reviewers will want to see how subject benchmark information is taken into account in specifying programmes, and the ways in which curriculum design and assessment methods support the achievement of outcomes.

Trialling will be a challenging and stimulating process, for the agency as well as for the institutions taking part. As we use the results to develop and refine the model, we will do so in the consultative mode that has served us well in developing the broad consensus on which the trialling will now build.

John Randall is chief executive, the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.