higher education institutions
In a number of countries a national code of practice exists for the monitoring and review of universities and equivalent higher education institutions, in order to assess academic quality and standards. Universities, in most countries of the Region, are autonomous bodies, but as they normally receive the major proportion of their funding from the government, the government clearly has an interest in the quality of the education they provide. Universities are required to conduct independent verification of the quality and standards of their management structures, utilization of resources and educational programmes, and these are subject to national scrutiny at regular intervals, to ensure adherence to the national code of practice. Where a university provides education for the professions, it is required to provide evidence that it meets the standards of the relevant professional body. Quality monitoring may be done in conjunction with the relevant professional or regulatory body, or in two separate events.
Of highly topical relevance, with the increase in freedom of movement across countries and worldwide, it is in a university’s and a professional body’s interest to have in place transparent systems and documentation of quality monitoring and accreditation, which are open to scrutiny (see also Section 8).
The university, or equivalent higher education institution, must therefore have in place formal and effective procedures for the approval of new and re-approval of existing programmes, systems for regular monitoring of each programme’s effectiveness in producing graduates who have been successful in achieving the aims and intended outcomes of the programmes, and systems for review of the continuing relevance of these outcomes to the needs of the country for its graduates. In evaluating the effectiveness of the university, external experts must be permitted access to all records and also to interviews with staff and students. A framework similar to that outlined below will facilitate a comprehensive quality monitoring process, which will culminate in continuing accreditation of the university (or initial accreditation in the case of a new university) to offer its programmes. Alternatively, the process may culminate in the setting out of certain requirements for change, which will be required to be met in full, prior to granting renewal of accreditation, or initial accreditation.
7.3.1 Sample framework for quality monitoring of the university or equivalent institution
The framework for monitoring of the university or equivalent institution is likely to be very detailed, but the main areas to be scrutinized will include those noted below.
Monitoring of the university:
• procedures to ensure internal monitoring of the design, processes of approval and review of programmes;
• compatibility of programmes with institutional goals and mission;
• measurement of programmes against externally generated reference points, such as national ‘benchmark’ statements as to standards for particular degree awards, requirements of professional and regulatory bodies and of employers of graduates of each programme, and reports of external experts, including external examiners;
• strategic planning procedures that take account of the country’s needs for particular skills in its workforce, of efficient and effective use of resources, and of the relevance of the university’s mission;
• management structures, including appropriate delegation to university committees and systems to check accountability for performance;
• staff resourcing and deployment that adequately meet the academic and professional requirements of the programmes; and
• accommodation and equipment resourcing adequate to requirements.
Monitoring of individual programmes in the university:
• level and progression, i.e. the academic challenge in terms of the gradual increase in intellectual and skills attainment expected of the students at different stages of the programme, including the complexity, depth of study and student autonomy;
• the balance between academic and practice experience components;
• there should be an obvious overall logic to the programme, and the link to the intended outcomes should be clear and the outcomes feasible, i.e. capable of delivery;
• liaison with employers and providers of practice experience should be clearly delineated and understood by university staff and staff of the employing agencies, and results of discussions should be fed into programme development;
• students should know what is expected of them and have access to support systems that, where necessary, are independent of their teachers and are confidential; and
• systems should be in place to take account of data from national benchmarking, i.e. comparison of standards between similar programmes in similar universities or equivalent institutions, together with consideration and, where relevant, implementation of recommendations from external examiners and from approval panels.
It is important to create an environment in the university where quality monitoring is an event to be anticipated in a positive manner, an opportunity for mutual learning and for promoting a pride in the quality of the contribution the university is making to the development of the potential of the students to become valued citizens of their country, equipped with the skills to contribute to the economy and, for example in the case of nurses and midwives, to the health and general wellbeing of the people.