3. MARCOS ALTERNATIVOS AL PROHIBICIONISMO EN PAÍSES NO PRODUCTORES.
3.2. Legalización responsable: el experimento charrúa.
In th is section, I exam ine th a t p a rt of th e policy trajecto ry a t w hich th e b e n ch m a rk initiative w as referred by th e NCIHE to th e QAA fo r developm ent.
In te rm s o f re sea rc h q u estio n 1: to w h at ex ten t w as th e re u n an im ity or diversity a t th e p o in t a t w hich th e policy in te n tio n s w ere h a n d e d to th e QAA for d ev elo p m en t - a significant in terp retativ e sh ift to o k place betw een tre a d one a n d tre a d tw o, ie a t th e p o in t th a t th e re co m m en d atio n s o f th e NCIHE w ere re fe rre d to th e Agency. Specifically, p ara g rap h s 10.63 a n d 10.64 o f the re p o rt m ake clear th a t th e C om m ittee’s focus o f a tte n tio n w as on th e stan d a rd o f
p r o g ra m m es
a n daw ards.
However, ex am in atio n o f th e sta te m e n t fromth e QAA issu ed follow ing th e NCIHE rep o rt, show s th e QAA com m ents relate to
‘su b ject
level’ a n d th e stan d a rd s of aw ards becom es secondary. ‘Subjects’is n o t m e n tio n e d in th e NCIHE recom m endations.
NCIHE
10.63 We conclude that UK
awards
at all levels, and especially the fir s t degree,m ust be nationally recognised and widely understood (NCIHE 97)
10.64 To this end, building on work already in train, institutions need to be more explicit and publicly accessible about the standards o f attainm ent required fo r
different
programmes and awards.
It would be both impractical andundesirable to try to achieve close matching o f standards across the whole o f higher education in all its diversity. What is practicable is to develop threshold or m inimum
standards which set an agreed level o f expectations o f
awards,
and we areconvinced that this should be done now. (NCIHE 97)
QAA
"....that standards should be more clearly articulated at
subject level
across thehigher education sector as a guide to....those involved in judging standards o f
attainm ent within
programmes and awards.
(NCIHE Recommendation 25,referred to in Higher Quality, The Bulletin o f the Quality Assurance Agency fo r Higher Education.
(Higher Quality March 1998 pp 10 para 2)) Author’s emphasis
In ad d itio n , it is clear from th e above extracts o f th e N CIH E re p o rt th a t w hat was so u g h t w as clarification o f th e sta n d a rd s o f aw ard s fo r a w ide range of audiences, how ever th e ex tract from th e QAA’s b u lle tin for H EIs im plies a m ore specific audience.
As well as th e re n o t being u n an im ity ab o u t policy in te n tio n betw een th e N CIH E a n d QAA I also p ro p o se th a t th e re w as n o t u n a n im ity ab o u t policy in te n tio n s a m o n g st th e Agency’s ow n staff. A nd it m ay well be th a t this accounts fo r th e som e o f th e slippages re ferred to above.
The tw o q u o ta tio n s below , b o th from sen io r QAA staff, th e first a statem e n t p u b lish ed in H ig h er Q uality B ulletin Vol 3 in M arch 98, a n d th e second a co m m en t p ro v id ed in interview by th e QAA assistan t d irecto r w ith im m ediate resp o n sib ility fo r th e initiative, exemplify th e point:
1. “The academic com munity is given the task o f articulating standards, facilitated
by the Agency which will establish 'expert teams' to undertake this work. The task o f these expert teams (to be known as subject benchmarking groups (SBGs)) is to provide benchmark information by subject in the fo r m o f a statem ent o f the standards o f student attainm ent expected a t the threshold level.
Higher Quality Bulletin Vol 3 in March 98
2. “OK - this is the personal account o f the guy that ended up project manager fo r
a benchmarking exercise, inadvertently and not by design. When we set up the three pilot groups, i f the truth be known, we had very little conception o f w hat we were asking the groups to do. OK. There was the HEQC experience to draw from . Alongside that, there was the whole set up o f the Dearing recommendations which gave the benchmarking a particular slant. We gave the three pilot groups a pretty open agenda.
A lthough th e se sta te m e n ts a p p ear to be contradictory, th e re is a sense th a t th ey are related , in th a t th e first (bulletin) statem e n t, alth o u g h authoritative in to n e, is p itc h e d a t a high level o f generality a n d does n o t seek to develop th e con cep t o f b e n ch m a rk in g as it m ig h t apply to academ ic stan d ard s. It is likely th a t th e ‘tra n sm issio n ’ m ode o f th e QAA’s b u lle tin s ta te m e n t a n d th e absence o f guid an ce or detail m asked considerable confusion w ithin th e Agency a b o u t w h a t h a d b een referred to it by th e D earing Com m ittee, and confusion ab o u t w h a t th e Agency w ere to req u ire th e ‘ex p ert te a m s’ to do.
To som e extent, th e source o f th e confusion w as th e re su lt o f conflation o f th e policy objective w ith th e m eans by w hich to achieve th o se objectives. To elaborate: th e key objectives o f th e reco m m en d atio n s in C hapter 10 o f th e R ep o rt o f th e N C IH E w as to m ake academ ic sta n d a rd s clear. H ow ever th e R ep o rt co n flated th a t objective w ith th e m ean s to achieve it ie by th e use of b en ch m ark s. P arag rap h s 10.55 an d 10.64 o f th e N CIH E re p o rt below , m akes th is clear.
There is similar concern about the standard required fo r the award o f higher education degrees. Given the large increase in the number o f students taking degrees over the last 20 years, and a marked rise in the proportion awarded First or Upper Second class honours, many think that it is not plausible to say that standards have not declined. There is also a widely held view that degree standards are not uniform and that they cannot be in a mass system. NCIHE Para 10.55 “...What is practicable is to develop threshold or minimum standards which set an agreed level o f expectations o f awards, and we are convinced that this should be done now. NCIHE Para 10.64
The actu al D earing reco m m en d atio n w hich follows th e above p arag rap h s to g e th e r w ith th e te x t o f th e corresp o n d ing QAA s ta te m e n t d em o n strates how th is co nflatio n occurred:
Dearing:
Rec 25 We recommend to the Quality Assurance Agency that its early w ork should include: to w ork with institutions to establish small, expert teams to provide benchmark information on standards, in particular threshold standards, operating w ithin the fra m ew o rk o f qualifications, and completing the task by 2000. (NCIHE Recommendation 25).QAA
“The Agency should w ork with institutions to establish small, expert teamsto provide benchmark information on standards.
(Christopher Kenyon, QAA Chairman’s speech to the CVCP Conference University
o f Strathclyde, 18 September 97, reported in Higher Quality Vol 1 No 2 N ov 97).
T he effect o f th is conflation o f th e objectives w ith th e m ean s to achieve th o se objectives, is th a t ‘s ta n d a rd s ’ a n d ‘b en ch m ark s’ com e to have equal im portance in th e m essages.
R esp o n d en ts com m en ts in Table 5.5: Policy intentions: u n a n im ity /d iv e r s ity :
cla rity o f the ta sk show th e re was confusion ab o u t w h at w as to be produced.
Ind eed , th e co n cern a b o u t stan d ard s was alm o st eclipsed by th e idea of b e n ch m a rk in g - a concept im p o rted from bu sin ess practice a n d u n fam iliar a n d a n d in c o n siste n t w ith estab lish ed HE practice. This conflation o f objectives a n d m ean s by w hich to achieve those objectives w as co m m en ted u p o n by QAA’s A ssistan t D irector w ith responsibility fo r tak in g forw ard th e b en ch m ark in g task:
“However, at the outset, there was something o f a misnomer built into the project. The Agency, taking its lead from the Dearing recommendations talked about academic benchmarking, and I think if there had been a slightly more circumspect way o f describing what the committee wanted rather than 'benchmarking', then much o f the early difficulties that the Agency experienced with the pilot groups could
have been avoided.” Respondent lg
I believe th is w as a m align confusion a t th e h e a rt o f th e initiative a n d was to a large p a rt resp o n sib le for dam age to it.
The p o in t a b o u t confusion provides a useful context to th e findings o f th e analysis o f th e interview s I conducted w ith 18 academ ics, each o f w hom was a m em b er o f o ne o f th e six b en ch m ark in g p an els selected for th is study. This is th e to p ic o f th e nex t section, 5.3.