Not by the numbers

October 8, 1999

The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals' reluctance to accept a numerical approach to quality assurance ("Quality plan stalls as QAA faces dissent", THES, September 17) is to be applauded.

Issues of quality are not simplistic, and their reduction to a crude numerical scale will not allow for the sophisticated discussion that is needed for institutions to improve the quality of the education they provide. The danger is that by reducing quality assurance assessments to numerical scales, the whole process of review and evaluation will fall into disrepute.

In our institution, there has always been a strong commitment by all staff to the evaluation and monitoring of the courses we provide. Over the past few years, however, with the introduction of formulaic and checklist-driven assessment procedures used by external monitoring bodies such as the Higher Education Funding Council for England and Ofsted, our internal procedures have, not surprisingly, responded by following suit.

Reporting procedures no longer allow for verbal argument, but require "sound-bites" to be fitted into assessment-driven categories and boxes. There is an increasing feeling that such approaches do not provide the space for discussion of complex issues.

There is a real danger that frustration with the methods by which assessment decisions are made will lead to a cynical approach to the very process of monitoring and review that lies at the heart of effective quality assurance.

Mick Randall University College Chichester

Please login or register to read this article.

Register to continue

Get a month's unlimited access to THE content online. Just register and complete your career summary.

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Most commented

Recent controversy over the future directions of both Stanford and Melbourne university presses have raised questions about the role of in-house publishing arms in a world of commercialisation, impact agendas, alternative facts – and ever-diminishing monograph sales. Anna McKie reports

3 October

Sponsored

Featured jobs

Finance Analyst

Bpp University

HR Adviser

University Of The West Of Scotland

Catering Assistant

Edinburgh Napier University