Speech
Quality Assured
A new Australian quality assurance framework for university education
The Hon. Dr D A Kemp MP
Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs
Seminar on the New Quality Assurance Framework
Canberra
10 December 1999
The Hon. Dr D A Kemp MP
Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs
I am pleased to open this seminar and to take this opportunity to announce a major
national initiative for advancing Australia's higher education quality assurance
framework. I would like to thank two organisations, International Management in Higher
Education of the OECD and the Centre for Higher Education Management and Policy (CHEMP)
which have sponsored travel for our overseas visitors and I extend a very warm welcome to
our visitors.
On 18 October 1999 Cabinet endorsed the introduction of new quality assurance processes in
relation to all higher education institutions seeking financial support from the
Commonwealth Government. These processes will include the establishment of an Australian
university quality agency in 2001 in cooperation with the States and Territories and in
consultation with the higher education sector.
The Current Arrangements
The essence of the current quality assurance framework is the establishment of both public
and private universities through legislation and the accreditation of other higher
education courses by the relevant State and Territory authorities. A prime feature of this
system is the responsibility of universities to their councils for the quality of their
education provision.
While universities are responsible for their quality, they operate in a framework that
includes:
- governments declaring the status of institutions that can accredit their own awards by
listing on the registers of the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF);
- peer review mechanisms operating in relation to research funding;
- the role of professional bodies and associations in accrediting professional courses
such as medicine, law, accounting, engineering and architecture;
- the use of external examiners for higher degrees by research and some honours degrees;
- the sector-wide efficiency and effectiveness indicators published annually by the
Commonwealth in the Characteristics and Performance of Higher Education Institutions;
- for Commonwealth funded institutions, the annual publication of institutional quality
improvement plans and associated performance measures; and
- Commonwealth Government funding initiatives such as the Committee for University
Teaching and Staff Development (CUTSD) and its successor, the Australian Universities
Teaching Committee (AUTC) and the Higher Education Innovation Programme (HEIP), aimed at
encouraging innovation and good practice and the Australian Awards for University
Teaching, which were designed specifically to reward excellence in teaching.
In addition, those universities that are members of the Australian Vice-Chancellors'
Committee (AVCC) have assented to the AVCC's voluntary Codes of Practice, such as the Code
of Ethical Practice in the Provision of Education to International Students by Australian
Universities.
The Government is also supporting a range of initiatives that will strengthen the higher
education system by focussing on outcomes. These include annual surveys such as the Course
Experience Questionnaire, which captures feedback on student satisfaction, and the
Graduate Destination Survey, which traces the employment outcomes of graduates. We are
looking to further develop these tools through the Postgraduate Research Experience
Questionnaire and an expanded Course Experience Questionnaire. We have also commissioned
the Australian Council for Educational Research to develop a graduate skills assessment
test which will be a valuable tool for the sector. This project is on target and the first
trials are scheduled for April 2000. This bank of tests will help bring a sharper focus to
the generic learning outcomes and skills sets of graduates.
While the current structures have served us well, the world is changing and we need to
change with it. In recent years, higher education in Australia, like that in many other
countries, has undergone major change at an unprecedented rate. Given the rapid growth and
diversification in higher education participation and the increasing internationalisation
of the higher education market, the Government has a responsibility to assure the
Australian community and all prospective students, that the quality of Australian higher
education, wherever it is provided, is of a high standard and that it will be maintained
and enhanced. To do this it is essential to have in place a quality assurance framework
that includes provider and course accreditation, quality management of institutions,
performance reporting and external audit processes.
There are four major areas of change which provide a context for this focus on quality
assurance. These are:
- the massive growth in higher education both in Australia and internationally;
- the influence of information technology in the delivery of education;
- the internationalisation of education, including the emergence of new providers; and
- a greater focus on good management.
Growth
One of the major pressures for improving quality assurance processes has been our quite
outstanding success in supporting growth in higher education in the last couple of
decades. This has led to much more diversity in the system including a wider range of
students and courses, and variation in modes of both delivery and study. Much of this
growth has been funded by the Commonwealth, but it has also been assisted by the opening
up of opportunities for fee-paying international students, post-graduate students and,
more recently, some undergraduate students. The total operating revenue of Australian
universities in 1997 was $8.2 billion of which $4.5 billion was provided by Government,
$2.4 billion came from HECS and charges and $1.3 billion from other sources. Student
contributions are now almost 30 per cent of university revenue across the sector.
As students are now paying a greater proportion of the costs, and in some cases the full
fee for their course, they have every right to expect that they can be assured of the
quality of the education they are undertaking. This is increasingly important as our
universities attract greater numbers of full fee paying overseas students for whom the
cost of a university degree is a major investment.
Of course, Australian taxpayers are also entitled to know that their contributions to
higher education are worthwhile; public confidence is a necessary condition for sustained
public investment.
Information and Communication Technology
The potential for information and communications technology to revolutionise education is
obvious and Australia is at the forefront of these developments. Not surprisingly, there
are questions about how new forms of teaching and learning compare with the face-to-face
interaction that has been traditional in universities. There is now much more flexibility
in the system. For example, students studying through electronic delivery can put together
units from more than one provider to make up a course of study-this has sometimes been
referred to as the 'shopping trolley' approach to higher education. While acknowledging
the advantages of this increased flexibility, we want to be assured of the educational
quality of such courses.
Where students once browsed the stacks of the library, they are now more likely to be seen
sitting in front of a computer. Once upon a time you had to sit in a lecture theatre at
the scheduled time or, if you were unable to be there, you might have access to an audio
tape. Now students on several campuses, cities or even countries can participate in a
class through interactive video links.
Some are now questioning whether all universities necessarily need a 'campus'. Virtual
providers of education services are emerging both in Australia and overseas offering
courses at the schooling, vocational education and training and higher education levels,
and it is likely that they will want to be recognised in Australia.
How do we assess whether they meet our standards? Since accreditation is a function of
the states, we need a system that has been agreed nationally-state borders are irrelevant
to a virtual university.
Developments in information and communications technology also fundamentally change the
way we think about inputs and quality. A focus on staff/students ratios and the number of
volumes in a library is being replaced by a focus on the quality of educational
opportunities and outcomes rather than the magnitude of inputs.
Globalisation
There are several facets to the link between globalisation and quality assurance.
Education is now one of Australia's major export industries in an intensely competitive
market. While Australian universities compete with each other in this market, they also
compete with the rest of the world. Our major competitors have external quality assurance
mechanisms and countries in our largest markets look to Government verification of quality
standards. To maintain market position we need to be able to advertise that we have
quality assurance mechanisms in place, that they are being applied and that they are
having a positive effect on outcomes.
We need to be sure that graduates of Australian universities can work effectively anywhere
in Australia or overseas.
To support our education industry and to promote opportunities for our graduates we are
also looking to develop agreements with other countries in the area of mutual recognition
of qualifications in higher education. For example, Australia has agreements with Germany,
France, Malaysia and Italy which involve mutual recognition of educational qualifications.
A national system of quality assurance would greatly facilitate negotiation of such
agreements.
The Quality Movement
Universities are big businesses and have not escaped the pressures on all business to
provide quality products in an efficient manner, including establishing good management
practices and flexibility in the use of resources. This has led to a 'quality' movement
including appropriate quality assurance systems. One manifestation in Australian higher
education was the series of quality reviews conducted through the Committee for Quality
Assurance between 1993-1995. Whatever its weaknesses, this process was instrumental in
raising awareness that quality assurance needed to be taken seriously.
Universities are now putting considerable resources into improving their quality assurance
processes. Many Australian universities also participate in Australian or international
higher education networks and in benchmarking projects within such networks. These include
the Centre for Higher Education Management and Policy (CHEMP) and Universitas 21.
Weaknesses
While the current system has served us well, it has focused on inputs and has tended to
become preoccupied with process at the expense of analysing outcomes. Its weaknesses also
include the facts that:
- universities have complete discretion over the rigour of the process;
- there is no external review of the quality assurance processes or standards;
- there is no way to compare degrees between institutions or to compare Australian
standards with those of other countries; and
- there is a lack of coherence in policies and procedures for the accreditation of
institutions and courses.
The need to strengthen the current system is evident and initiatives have emerged from
the Commonwealth, the States and Territories and the sector itself. For example:
- the Ministerial Council for Employment, Training and Youth Affairs' (MCEETYA's)
reference to the Multilateral Joint Planning Committee (MJPC) resulting in the paper that
has been tabled today;
- the Harman and Meek and Anderson, Johnson and Milligan reports commissioned by the
Commonwealth;
- the quality assurance model developed by the AVCC; and
- proposals by the Learned Academies regarding verification of research quality.
Proposed Model
The Commonwealth has signalled that it is prepared to show leadership in this area, but
there has been a remarkable degree of consensus around the shape of a suitable quality
assurance framework for our higher education sector. For example, there is agreement that
any new framework should take into account our federal structure, our universities and our
history rather than slavishly adopting a British model (with its expense and
intrusiveness), a US model (which involves industry regulation within a very diverse
system) or a European model (with close links between universities and the state). Rather,
we need a system that:
- reflects very clearly the responsibility of governments to provide a robust quality
assurance and accreditation framework;
- builds on and strengthens the existing accreditation processes of the Commonwealth and
State and Territory Governments;
- recognises the autonomy of higher education institutions;
- places the responsibility for the quality of provision on individual universities; and
- signals to the community and the rest of the world that the quality of the higher
education system is assured through a rigorous, external audit of university quality
assurance processes.
I am heartened by the cooperation of the stakeholders-the Commonwealth, the States and
Territories and the universities-in developing the strengthened quality assurance
framework. The paper drafted by the Commonwealth and State officials through the MJPC,
sets out a framework which reflects a deep knowledge and understanding of accreditation
and quality assurance processes and the respective responsibilities of universities and
government. I particularly welcome the proposal to include all providers, not just those
receiving funds from the Commonwealth.
I would like to spend a few minutes now describing the model.
One of the things the new quality assurance framework will do is to distinguish between
the functions of accreditation and quality assurance and between the treatment of
self-accrediting and non-self-accrediting institutions. The main function of any
accreditation process will be:
- approval for new universities to operate, to use the words 'university' and 'degree' and
other awards; and
- approval and accreditation of courses of study leading to degrees and other awards by
other higher education providers.
States and Territories will continue to exercise their responsibilities in relation to
accreditation. The process can be coordinated nationally through annual reports to
MCEETYA.
The second component will be the quality assurance process for institutions that are
self-accrediting. This will involve a whole of institution approach incorporating teaching
and learning, research and management both onshore and offshore. The core will be an
external audit based on a detailed self-assessment, including comparisons of standards.
This audit will be conducted every five years. In addition, State/Territory accreditation
processes will be subject to periodic audit. These audits will be conducted on a rolling
basis.
Structure of the Agency
The proposed Australian University Quality Agency is the cornerstone of the new framework.
Its main role will be to verify the claims made by institutions. Its audits and reports
will be the evidence used to assure students, the community and the outside world that our
universities are as good as we know them to be. The key to the model is credibility and
that can only be guaranteed if it is quite clear that the agency is not beholden to any
particular interest group and cannot be compromised in its role. It is critical to ensure
that the quality assurance framework is, and is seen to be, rigorous and independent.
The agency should be at arms length from government. The agency experts must be allowed to
undertake their audits without fear or favour and the agency reports will be made public.
This will be guaranteed by the agency's constitution.
The structure proposed by the MJPC is a useful starting point, but the sector needs to be
directly involved in the agency. I strongly support an approach based on partnership,
representing a proper balance of the interests and perspectives of higher education
institutions, governments and the community.
I propose a joint membership structure in which one third of the Board is elected by the
sector, one third nominated by the Commonwealth and one third nominated by the States and
Territories. The Commonwealth and State/Territory nominees would cover the interests of
Government, business and the community.
The election of sector representatives raises some interesting issues. It would not be
appropriate for the representatives to be selected solely by the AVCC or the Group of
Eight or any other grouping. We need a system which ensures representation of the
interests of the whole sector-whether small or large or publicly or privately funded.
I am proposing that two electoral groupings be formed. The first would comprise those
institutions which are self-accrediting and the second would consist of other providers of
accredited higher education courses. The AQF registers, reflecting the accreditation
decision of the government members of MCEETYA, would be the appropriate reference.
Individuals would be appointed to the Board of the agency for three year terms and
elections would be held in consultation with the Australian Electoral Commission. The
self-accrediting institutions would elect two members and the other providers one member.
Financial considerations should not be a factor. The MJPC envisages the overhead costs
being funded 50 per cent by the Commonwealth and 50 per cent by the States and
Territories. This is a sensible approach. The costs of institutional audits would be
recovered from each of the institutions being audited.
The Agency itself will appoint expert panels as required, for instance, to undertake
detailed assessments from time to time of the research and research training activities
and achievements of universities. The membership of such panels would be drawn from
nominees of institutions, the ARC, the NH&MRC, the Learned Academies and government.
In this way the whole process will be open to broad stakeholder participation.
Role of the Agency
As you will have read in the MJPC paper, the role of the agency will cover:
- arranging periodic quality audits of, and providing reports on, self accrediting
institutions and State/Territory accreditation authorities;
- monitoring, reviewing, and providing reports on quality assurance arrangements in self
accrediting institutions, and on processes and procedures of State/Territory accreditation
authorities, and on the impact of those processes on quality of programs;
- in consultation with higher education institutions, State and Territory accreditation
authorities and Governments, monitoring, reviewing and negotiating amendments, as
required, to criteria for recognition as a university and for accreditation of non
university higher education awards. Modifications over time should take account of
evolving structures and delivery modes for universities and other higher education
institutions within Australia and overseas. These criteria would provide a basis for
State/Territory assessments and accreditation decisions, the quality audit procedures of
the Agency, and quality assurance processes of institutions; and
- monitoring and reporting on the comparative world standing of the Australian higher
education system and the quality assurance framework itself, drawing on data derived from
the audit processes.
The self-assessment data covering all of the activities undertaken by an institution
will be a major part of the process. The audit will focus on how effectively and
professionally institutions monitor their own performance and use the information gained
for institutional planning and improvement. Audits would be based on broad criteria, and
would be conducted against each institution's mission, thus encouraging diversity. More
specifically, review teams will be appointed by the Agency to focus on:
- the appropriateness of quality assurance and improvement plans in relation to
institutional contexts and missions;
- the rigour of the mechanisms employed to review courses and academic organisational
units, and monitor performance against institutional plans;
- research activities and outputs;
- effectiveness in the implementation of outcomes of Quality Assurance (QA) processes; and
- communication with stakeholders.
As I have said, the quality audit process will adopt a whole of institution approach to
teaching and learning, research and management both onshore and offshore. It is important
that the standards of an award by an Australian university operating overseas are the
equivalent of the standards for the same award offered in Australia, and it will be a
function of the Agency to provide independent assurances in that regard. Reports of the
Agency will be published and be available to governments, institutions and prospective
students.
The implications of this approach are far-reaching. I expect our universities will
continue to uphold their traditional commitment to standards; indeed they will have every
incentive to continue to improve. The new framework also establishes stronger safeguards
regarding the entry of new education providers.
However, if the Agency finds an institution deficient and, after consulting the
institution, publishes an adverse report, then the institution may become ineligibile for
Commonwealth funding for particular activities and, possibly, have its accreditation
status forfeited or suspended. Such action would, of course, be a matter for consideration
by the responsible governments and would not be taken lightly: the Commonwealth in respect
of funding and the relevant State or Territory in respect of accreditation.
With regard to eligibility for and conditions attaching to Commonwealth funding, the onus
would be on the responsible Commonwealth Minister, in the first instance, to require an
institution to prepare an appropriate improvement strategy and to provide evidence through
profiles documentation of action taken and results achieved in rectifying the deficiencies
identified by the Agency. If the problems remain unsatisfactorily addressed the Minister
could limit or prohibit Commonwealth funding to that institution.
I am pointing to these last resort consequences to make it clear that we are introducing a
serious approach to uphold the international credibility of Australian higher education.
Sub-standard operations are simply not acceptable and would not be permitted to continue.
Proposed time frame
The proposed model will be put to the next meeting of MCEETYA in early 2000 with
implementation in early 2001. The coming year will entail ongoing negotiation about the
administrative structures, funding, processes and expected outcomes. Today's seminar will
be another important link in the consultation process.
Summary and conclusion
Australia is part of a global community delivering higher education and the increased
emphasis on quality assurance is a global phenomenon. We must have a national quality
assurance framework that is internationally credible. We have examined the current
Australian systems and considered systems in other countries which might be relevant to
our circumstances. I believe that the proposed model will serve both our domestic and
international purposes-it will assist all our universities to improve their quality
assurance processes and will enhance our international reputation as a provider of high
quality higher education. We have worked with State and Territory Governments and have
consulted with the sector in our deliberations and the proposed model incorporates the
interests of these various stakeholders. We have also been conscious of the need to keep
the resources required at a manageable level.
This is a very exciting development for higher education in Australia. This conference has
occurred at an opportune time and I trust that the day will provide lively debate about
what we can learn from other systems and how best to develop our new quality assurance
framework. It is not often that individuals are offered the chance to influence such an
important development and I wish you all the best in your discussions.
Return to the Top of the Page
|
