QAA replacement questions ‘add to uncertainties’ for English sector

After body’s decision to relinquish quality role, sector fears lack of options for replacement risks undermining autonomy

八月 31, 2022

Source: Getty

Difficulties finding a trusted and independent body to take on the role of assessing quality in English higher education are adding to uncertainty at a time when much about the government’s future approach to the sector remains unclear.

More than a month after the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) announced that it will relinquish its role as the designated quality body (DQB) in March 2023, discussions are still ongoing over a replacement, with neither the government nor the Office for Students (OfS) providing clarity on the process so far.

Concerns have been raised about how the OfS will be able to continue with its more interventionist approach to quality assurance without the support of the respected QAA, and experts have warned that providers are losing trust in the system.

Any alternative DQB – with the authority to grant providers degree-awarding powers and the university title – would be constrained by the terms set out in the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 that established the position, with private operators likely ruled out by the requirement for the DQB to operate on a not-for-profit basis.

Whoever is appointed must also command the confidence of the sector, while another European agency would likely run into similar issues as the QAA, which was forced to back out as aspects of the OfS’ approach did not comply with European standards.

Given the apparent lack of a suitable replacement body, it is thought that the OfS may seek to bring the work in-house, a move that would require approval from the secretary of state.

But sector figures stressed the need for the DQB to retain independence to protect the principle of co-regulation.

Diana Beech, chief executive of London Higher and a former adviser to Conservative universities ministers, said the situation was adding to the “uncertainty that universities and colleges will be feeling as they prepare to start the new academic year”.

She pointed out that England will soon get a new prime minister, Cabinet and OfS chief executive, leaving the future direction of higher education policy “unclear”.

“To regain trust in the system, an independent successor body must be appointed urgently – ideally one which commands the trust and respect of institutions, students and employers,” Dr Beech said.

“This will minimise the risk that the concept of quality gets distorted according to any future government’s whims and will keep everyone focused on providing a high-quality academic experience that empowers students and meets the practical needs of business and industry.”

Gordon McKenzie, the chief executive of GuildHE, said it was “very hard to imagine” who could fulfil the DQB role after the QAA, adding that he felt it was “deeply disappointing that we've ended up here”.

He said a key reason his organisation had supported the legislation that established the DQB was that ministers had committed to the principle of co-regulation and had recognised the importance of having a designated quality body that was “independent of government and had the confidence of HE providers”.

An immediate worry, according to Mr McKenzie, was what would happen to the institutions that were in the process of applying for degree-awarding powers.

“I would want assurance that whatever solution is found doesn’t result in delays or changes in process that place extra cost and burdens on institutions,” he said.

Universities UK said it was continuing to take part in discussions with the OfS about a future DQB but there was no further update at this time.

tom.williams@timeshighereducation.com

阅读更多相关文章

阅读更多相关文章:

Quality assurance

请先注册再继续

为何要注册？

注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
订阅我们的邮件

Reader's comments (5)

#1 Submitted by Maverick2 on 八月 31, 2022 - 8:20am

Good Riddance to the misnamed Quality Assurance Agency. Do not replace it, the QAA created the bureaucratic nightmare of excess bureaucracy in UK universities. Instead of being run by academics they are now run by uselss bureaucrats that have too much power, too high wages, too little knowledge and too many of them. We can slash the number of overpaid middle managers, useless bureaucrats and senior management teams that breed like rabbits. This will free up resources to pay the academics that do all the research and teaching to get on with their jobs and pay them properly. So long as excess bureacrats on excess pay infect the Universities because of the need to keep the QAA and OfS happy, there will be no resources to improve things for studends and the academic staff. Don't get me wrong, some of the admin are needed and the ones that are needed do a good job and are underpaid and would also benefit from cutting ut the useless, negative value added bureaucrats.

#2 Submitted by kjk on 八月 31, 2022 - 1:25pm

Focus on teaching and research and have quality professional services staff whose role is to support these core functions. This is the obvious way to institutional excellence. Get rid of anything badged 'strategic' and stop wasting money on 'Head's of' who manage very few, achieve very little, whilst costing a great deal. Project management culture has crippled innovation and more time is spent on administration than on implementing actual improvements. The route to quality is less governance and frameworks not more.

#3 Submitted by DavidGreenUW on 八月 31, 2022 - 2:28pm

An independent national quality body has played a vital role in the rise of higher education in the UK, particularly England, over the last two generations. The destruction of the national educational infrastructure within whose framework so many institutions flourished is proving to be a disaster. All this will turn to the advantage of those who wish to fight and win their 'culture war' which will result in fewer students going to University, significantly less independence from government, falling educational standards and a situation of 'endemic crisis.' There needs to be a serious discussion about what the national higher educational infrastructure should look like from 2025 onwards.

#4 Submitted by m.robertson8_291084 on 八月 31, 2022 - 6:48pm

If the QAA is going to back out of its role regarding universities, what is it going to do? Or will we actually see the back of at least one over-paid QUANGO? interesting, too, that it had gone due to OfS antics not fitting with the European norm. Even more evidence, if needed, that OfS is not merely irrelevant and incompetent but a clear and present danger to UK universities. The sooner this discredited body is got rid of the better. So how to replace these? Back in the 1960s, there was a QUANGO called the NEDC (National Economic Development Council) which was supposed to bring government, businesses and the workforce (via trades unions) together to work for a brighter future. Government, of course, messed it up, but the idea was sound.. needless to say, Thatcher hated it and finally Major wound it up. Whatever body takes over the direction of Higher Education needs to be formed of a mix of academics, university administrators, & government - maybe add a few students in for good measure. Oh and if you are wondering why an admittedly ancient computer scientist knows of this obscure body, her father was the civil servant running it 1964–1968!

#5 Submitted by DavidGreenUW on 八月 31, 2022 - 9:29pm

It is all too easy to be for "the back of at least one over-paid QUANGO". This is such foolish politics. Look at the demise of the Teaching and Development Agency for Schools (the former Teacher Training Agency). It abolition...effective 2012...has turned into a slow burn disaster for teacher training...and now...10 years later for England's children. Too few teachers, teacher training being 're-accredited', a decade long history of missed targets, messed up fresh starts and ever increasing ministerial power accompanying increasing failure. But many VCs and 'front line' staff foolishly went along with the easy mantra of "less bureaucracy...kill the Quango". Please just a little bit more analytical thinking with a serious study of the actual facts not some convenient political fiction.