All societies are undergoing rapid and deep changes. These changes have created and widened the gaps between classes, communities, races and regions. These inequities are setting off flares and fires which most pundits belief will get worst. The historical, social, economic and cultural nature of these wicked inequities and the ever growing importance of the social media in mobilising the disaffected, only means more rampant and possibly violent clashes in the future.
Education has been and continues to be the last hope in attacking this growing chasm. Education is seen as the great equaliser! Cheaper, better, more job focus, more accessible and flexible education is called to overcome the problem. Public education institutions are wielded as policy tools to assuage the rising anger. HEIs need to admit more, cap the costs, offer more assistance, be more flexible, focus on employment, offer more personalised learning, get into underserved areas, do more research, raise more revenue through non fee sources etc. Many public and private HEIs have made significant headway on this front but it seems never enough.
How should QAAs which have normative and coercive influence over HEIs play drive these changes? QAAs do not see themselves as social change agents. Their remit is a lot smaller. They assure the public that these institutions are stable, secure and improving in providing good quality education. The QAAs are not social conscience or social role evaluators. But many QAAs are realising that they cannot watch from the sidelines as the HE sector is castigated for not doing enough or doing it effectively. HEI practices tend to accentuate socio-economic differences rather than ameliorate them.
CHEA for instance has urged both QAAs and institutions to address the performance issues highlighted by the Obama administration. Similar efforts at enforcing accountability is happening everywhere. Most developing nations have prioritised the social ills like national unity, literacy, poverty eradication, cultural preservation, racial and regional integration and gender equality as their most pressing concerns. Should QAAs in these country infuse these priorities in the QA work? Should it examine more vigorously how the institutions address these concerns? For instance, should QAAs be more open, direct and forthright is asking institutions about gender equality among staff, managers and boards, among students, treatment of marginalised communities, sustainability, climate change, poverty elimination, cultural diversity, sexual harassment, racial bias etc.?
QAAs typically venture into this domain through assessment of community engagement criterion. The social agenda and policy is very much the prerogative of the HEIs. QAAs typically examine how community engagement policies are formulated, planned, executed, monitored, reviewed and progressed. The Scottish, Irish and English QAAs are now showcasing innovative, progressive and sustainable initiatives of the HEIs to create excitement of change. QAAs especially in the West have deep respect for the autonomy of the institutions to shape and set their policies based on their mission and stakeholders' interests. Should QAA be more aggressive in cuing the institutions on the type of changes? Could the accreditation or review criteria and indicators directly point to and assess these new priorities? Should they look at these changes as necessary rather than nice?
What are the downside risks to QAAs' remit, independence and legitimacy? Will QAAs become embroiled in highly contestable social and policy issues? Will it have imposed on the autonomy of the institutions? Will championing social change changed QAAs' character?
Comments