The recent meeting of EU education ministers on the Bologna Declarations urged that quality assurance assessment be enhancement oriented. QAA, UK was asked the same by the universities. Scottish QA agency has been doing the enhancement reviews for some time now and routinely publish these innovations.
Enhancement-based reviews look like a no brainer at first glance. Assess the changes - improvements and innovation. So how does this change the mission and method of the QA agencies? QA mission shifts from assessing how the institutions assures itself and others that it meets the minimum expectations or standards to how are they changing. The standards or expectations include also how the institution monitors itself and makes the necessary corrections and preventions it detects along the way. The assumption is that consistency of expected service delivery is the key to high quality education.
In the enhancement reviews, the focus is mainly on how the institutions understand the need for changes and organizes to enhance its services. Essentially the review focuses on change capabilities. The assumption is change enabled institutions provide better quality education by adjusting to changes. Its not stability or consistency focused review.
Which theory of QA works or works better? The record with change-based QA is that it has more descriptive rather than prescriptive validity. Successful HEIs appear to be more innovative but innovative HEIs are not all successful. Scottish universities which are subject to enhancement reviews, do not outperform the English universities. Both these models of QA have their dysfunctional effects. Consistency-based QA approach tends to make HEIs highly managed. Everything is carried out to an SOP. Change prevents atrophy. But change-focused HEIs are often more interested in changing according to the change metric used rather than the value of the changes to specific beneficiaries. Change targets are visible, tangible and operational. More fundamental areas are often insulated from change - governance, openness, accountability, transparency, voice of staff and students etc.
Despite the serious empirical questions, why is enhancement-based reviews getting strong support? Its a review that is in keeping with the times - rapid changes. If you are not changing or capable of changing, you cannot be a high quality operator. This is a powerful belief. Enhancement reviews also reduce the burden on the HEIs for evidence of of basic operations which institutions are always fussing about.
There is a counter point to the enhancement oriented reviews especially where there are serious questions about the performance of the institutions. Accountability-focused reviews are not about what and how institutions behave in their delivery of education services. It is more about the outcomes of their efforts - usable research, high completion rates, high employment rate, good salary premiums, mitigation of inequality, greater social cohesion etc. This accountability model of QA is promoted by regulatory bodies or government providing funding to institutions or to students. Its results oriented.
Which one is better or which one is recommended? It all depends on the level of QA maturity in a country. Is the education governance system of the country effective in ensuring responsible providers? Is the risk of providing poor quality high? Are the institutions still struggling to understand and meet the minimum expectations and standards? If the answer to these questions are - No, Yes and Yes, then enhancement will not do much for you. If the HEIs are still operationally challenged, insisting on innovation is misdirected QA. There will be a lot of noise but not signal, a lot change activity (planning, promoting, branding etc.) but not change.
Enhancement or consistency or accountability-focused reviews or assessments if done right and at the right stage of QA maturity, can be efficacious. There is still no one approach that beats all!
Comments