Written evidence from the University of Salford (QHE 51)

The University of Salford submits the following response to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee’s inquiry on assessing quality in Higher Education.

1. What issues with quality assessment in Higher Education was the Higher Education Funding Council for England's (HEFCE) Quality Assurance review seeking to address?

• Addressing the issue that “one size” can no longer sensibly fit all HE providers for a quality assessment approach, in view of the widening diversity of providers of higher education.
• Providing a lighter touch (data driven, risk based) approach for those providers who are well established and have met baseline requirements for an acceptable student experience, with greater responsibility for quality placed upon governing bodies.
• Replacing the UK Quality Code, viewed as constraining, with a revised framework/criteria.
• Addressing the variation of degree classification algorithms offered at borderline pass/fail and 2:2/2:1.
• Strengthening the external examining system to provide greater assurances about academic output standards to students and other stakeholders.

2. Will the proposed changes to the quality assurance process in universities, as outlined by HEFCE in its consultation, improve quality in Higher Education?  

• The proposed changes seek to provide a baseline for minimum threshold standards for quality that will appropriately reflect the wide range of providers now offering higher education.   However, there is concern that changes may adversely impact the quality of Higher Education.  An independent national body is still required that fosters the reputation of UK Universities at an international level, is forward thinking and proactive in supporting and enhancing UK HE.  The independent body should provide an external cyclical review process in line with European Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) and a national quality code/framework for HEIs to use as a reference point. 

3. What should be the objectives of a Teaching Excellence Framework ('TEF')?

• To provide a flexible framework that reflects the diverse missions of all HE providers.
• To support students’ informed choice in applying for a university place, to assure external stakeholders in relation to teaching quality (and offer confidence in the new framework).
• To incentivise universities to prioritise teaching alongside research, providing a career and promotion/reward framework for teaching. 
• To provide a greater focus on learning, reflecting diverse pedagogical approaches, ranges of teaching and learning modes (blended, distance, part-time, etc.)
• To provide a greater focus on student achievement, including learning gain.

a. How should a TEF benefit students? Academics? Universities?

• Students benefit in being able to make an informed choice for their degree studies, assuring them of the quality of the learning experience and that they are getting value for money.
• Students also benefit by virtue of the fact that the TEF incentivises providers to enhance the quality of HE provision.
• Academics benefit from an enhanced focus upon teaching activities, aligned with the TEF, supported by appropriate resources and staff development.
• Universities benefit from an enhanced reputation.

b. What are the institutional behaviours a TEF should drive? How can a system be designed to avoid unintended consequences?

• Taken in a positive light, the TEF will allow Universities to undertake self- evaluation and put their metrics into context.
• The TEF could, less positively, also drive universities to pay more attention to the “hidden curriculum”, i.e. strategically working to pass the assessment task (the TEF) rather than working to continuously enhance the student learning experience.

c. How should the effectiveness of the TEF be judged?

• By an independent peer review body using agreed metrics which are reviewed over a substantial period of time to allow trends to be identified and addressed.
• Include use of impact case studies as per the REF.

4. How should the proposed TEF and new quality assurance regime fit together? 

• The TEF and new quality assurance regime should be integrated as far as possible, using shared metrics/information to avoid duplication.

5. What do you think will be the main challenges in implementing a TEF? 

• Defining and measuring “teaching excellence”.  Need to encompass risk and innovation (innovation does not necessarily equate with excellence).  
• Lack of sufficient data in some areas (teaching qualifications) means that the quality and usefulness of the data is currently unreliable.
• Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies have a variety of operating models and do not cover all HE subject areas so work would need to be undertaken to gain a more consistent approach across their processes and outputs to have full benefit of them.
• TEF needs to measure value added gained from a University education (as well as learning gain specifically).
• Could have an (unintended) negative impact on those providers who don’t achieve the teaching excellence award/badge.

6. How should the proposed connection between fee level and teaching quality be managed?

a. What should be the relationship between the TEF and fee level?

• The relationship between TEF and fee level could be set at subject level or institutional level; both approaches offer challenges. If the relationship is at subject level, the message communicated to prospective students and other stakeholders by HEIs could be complex as it would need to reflect a potential myriad of fee levels within the same institution. For the institution, managing the fee setting process could become an industry in itself, and much would depend on the definition and granularity of “subject level”. If the relationship is set at institutional level, one can foresee a situation whereby programmes that are deemed to have met the TEF excellence criteria are constrained in the fees they can ask because the institution as a whole has not met excellence criteria. 

b. What are the benefits or risks of this approach to setting fees?

• Exclusivity associated with Teaching Excellence awards.
• League table/status benefit arising from those institutions that gain teaching excellence award.
• Lack of recognition of widening participation/vocational training within TEF.
• Anti-market/anti-competitive.
• Absence of framework for providers who do not satisfy TEF criteria to return to good standing.
• If a sizeable number of HE providers are deemed not to have satisfied the TEF criteria, it could have an adverse impact on the global reputation of UK HE.

October 2015