Benchmarks and Benchmarking in the UK Lessons Learned
Benchmarks and Benchmarking in the UK Lessons Learned Catherine Connor Quality Enhancement Unit London Metropolitan University
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Context - Higher Education in the UK Context-London Metropolitan University Quality & Standards Benchmarks – Quality Assurance Agency Benchmarking in Higher Education in the UK London Metropolitan University – Quality Management & Benchmarking Lessons Learned
Benchmarks and Benchmarking • Benchmarks are reference points or measurements used for comparison, usually with the connotation that the benchmark is a 'good' standard against which comparison can be made • Benchmarking is a process of finding good practice and of learning from others • Benchmarking is also a means of measuring performance against comparator institutions
Higher Education in the UK Country Universities* Higher Education Institutions** England 89 131 Scotland 14 19 Wales 10 11 Northern Ireland 2 4 United Kingdom 115 165
Statistics – UK 2011/12 Students 2, 496, 645 Staff 378, 250 Undergraduate 1, 928, 140 Academic 181, 385 Postgraduate 568, 505 Non-academic 196, 860 Income (£k) 27, 798, 559 Expenditure (£k) 26, 684, 729
Universities/HEIs in the UK
London Metropolitan University - past
London Metropolitan University - today
Holloway Moorgate Aldgate
Degree Awarding Powers and University Title in the UK 165 recognised bodies with Degree Awarding Powers and 700+ others delivering HE courses
Quality Assurance Agency, UK
How does the UK QAA safeguard standards? • QAA is independent of government and universities • Each institution is responsible for the quality and standards of their awards • The UK Quality Code for Higher Education provides institutions with guidance on benchmark expectations on quality and standard • The QAA audits compliance and highlights good practice through Higher Education Review (HER) every 6 years
UK QUALITY CODE for Higher Education
The UK Quality Code The purpose of the Quality Code is: • to safeguard the academic standards of UK higher education • to assure the quality of the learning opportunities that UK higher education offers to students • to promote continuous and systematic improvement in UK higher education • to ensure that information about UK higher education is publicly available and accurate. The Code gives individual higher education providers a shared starting point for setting and maintaining the academic standards of their higher education programmes and awards
The Quality Code has 3 parts comprising of a number of chapters; Each chapter has an Expectation and a number of indicators. Part A: Setting and maintaining threshold academic standards Part B: Assuring and enhancing academic quality Part C: Public Information
Qualification and Subject Benchmarks Framework for Higher Education Qualifications • provide important points of reference for setting and assessing academic standards • promote a common understanding of the Expectations associated with typical qualifications by facilitating a consistent use of qualifications titles
Qualification and Subject Benchmarks Subject benchmark statements provide a means for the academic community to • describe the nature and characteristics of programmes in a specific subject or subject discipline. • represent general expectations about standards for the qualifications at each level - the attributes and capabilities that those possessing qualifications should have demonstrated.
National Level Data for Benchmarking • Key Information Sets – the items of information which students find most useful when making choices about which course to study • Unistats • League Tables • The Guardian • The Complete University Guide
Entry requirements • Each university has different entry qualifications and requirements - minimum grade or total number of tariff points • Some institutions take additional information into consideration, such as contextual data about school or postcode • UCAS Tariff points held by students previously enrolled on the course.
Employment Data • The Destination of Leavers from Higher Education (DLHE) survey • Recent graduates - working, studying, looking for work or even travelling • If employed, they supply job description and details of the company • Survey - in two parts: • an early survey covering all students who complete their course roughly six months after completing • and a later survey of a sample of these respondents three and a half years (40 months) later on.
Full-time degree leavers entering employment by employment circumstances and occupation 2010/11 Full-time Primeros degree leavers entering employment by employment circumstances and occupation 2010/11 Employed full -time in paid work Employed part-time in paid work Selfemployed/ freelance Voluntary work/other unpaid work Total in employment 9200 1015 980 140 11335 Professional occupations 34615 2970 975 1055 39610 Associate professional and technical occupations 36045 5900 4575 3060 49575 9470 3070 90 795 13425 820 355 245 60 1480 Personal service occupations 5925 3380 220 770 10295 Sales and customer service occupations 8285 12355 55 220 20915 430 255 45 20 755 4465 6010 130 115 10720 195 55 10 60 325 109445 35365 7330 6295 158440 Standard Occupational Classification Managers and senior officials Administrative and secretarial occupations Skilled trades occupations Process, plant and machine operatives Elementary occupations Not known Total Source: HESA Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education Institutions 2010/11 See Annex below for England, Wales, Scotland Northern Ireland figures
The National Student Survey (NSS) • annual survey of final year university students canvassing their opinion about what they liked and did not like about their student learning experience during their time in higher education. • statements are put to students who rate their university and course on a five-point scale from 'definitely disagree' to 'definitely agree'. The groups of statements cover topics such as: • The teaching on my course • Assessment and feedback • Academic support • Organisation and management • Learning resources • Personal development
http: //unistats. direct. gov. uk/
Benchmarking at University level Identification of comparators Helps positioning in market environment Exposes strengths and weaknesses Institutional performance Contextualises institutional performance Data sets, performance indicators and measures What sort of institution do you want to be Informs strategic planning Improvement
What we do at London Met • QAA Benchmarks • Benchmarking
Quality Assurance at London Met General Principles • National QA standards (reference points) informed by international standards • Quality culture promoted at national and institutional level shared values and commitment to quality assurance and enhancement structures to support this • Institutional responsibility linked to senior executive • All staff fully engaged in quality assurance and enhancement
Quality Manual Institutional quality assurance and enhancement procedures, guidance and templates including: • procedures for the approval, monitoring and periodic review of courses • procedures for student engagement and public information • guidance on enhancement
Course Review Staff Development Course Monitoring / Improvement Course design in line with agreed benchmarks, frameworks and regulations Course Validation Course Performance Data / External Examiner and Student Comment Quality Cycle at London Met
Course Approval & Course/Module Modification Process Action 1 Action 2 Process completion 3 Business Case Deans’ Forum outline approval with mitigating actions Faculty approval according to Deans’ Forum Approval for a new where required advice course (submitted to the Deans Forum) QEU reports back to Deans’ Forum that approval is complete based on Chair’s approval of conditions and Framework and Regulatory compliance. New course (and associated module) specifications are submitted to Academic Planning & Information (Academic Registry) Process Action 1 Process completion 5 Module / Course Modification Proposal Action 2 Action 3 Action 4 QEU risk assessment to address QEU mitigation and suggested requirements mitigation for high-risk modules only QEU determines completion of modification process Modification Revised Course and/or Module Specifications completion reported to forwarded to Academic Planning and Faculty Undergraduate Information (API) by QEU and Postgraduate Committee Action 1 Action 3 Action 4 Monitoring Process Module and Course Logs Leaders maintain academic quality log FAMS Action 2 Action taken in response to Module and Course concerns raised by student or Logs submitted to staff feedback and reported appropriate in log Performance Enhancement Meeting (PEM) Process completion 5 PEM outcomes could PEM outcomes reported to appropriate Faculty lead to module or Undergraduate & Postgraduate Committee course modification or consideration of extra resources Compliance statement and evaluation of performance (including summary of External Examiner comment) submitted by each Dean to Undergraduate and Postgraduate Committee determines compliance and any requirement for central intervention Process Action 1 Action 2 Action 4 Periodic Review QEU maintains course approval and sexennial review schedule (courses/course clusters) Course Leaders QEU convenes a panel with Panel meets with Course prepare a selfexternal representation Team and students and evaluation document determines outcomes and refreshed Course and/or action required and Module Specifications Review Action 3 Process completion 5 Outcomes reported to appropriate Faculty Undergraduate & Postgraduate Committee and University Undergraduate & Postgraduate Committee
External Examiners Appointment of independent subject expert Sampling of student work to confirm standards Attendance at Course Performance Enhancement Meetings Submission of written report to the University analysis of all External Examiner Reports at UGPG Committee
2011/12 UG Home/EU (FPE) students UG Overseas (FPE) students PG Home/EU (FPE) students PG Overseas (FPE) students Level 4 Progression Level 5 Progression Good Degree (1 st or 2. 1) PG Completion PG Distinction or Merit NSS 2012 - Overall Satisfaction Faculty 1 (Cass) 2228 159 549 93 77% 87% 59% 66% 69% 62% Faculty 2 (LGIR) 1320 208 323 117 80% 82% 52% 75% 63% 90% Faculty 3 (FLSC) 3953 520 529 482 79% 82% 51% 76% 66% 82% Faculty 4 (FSSH) 4068 678 1228 316 73% 84% 54% 62% 79% NSS 2012 - Response rate DLHE 2010/11 UG External Examiner reports due 73% 90% 26 62% 88% 12 70% 85% 25 67% 85% 61 UG External Examiner reports received 27 11 13 43 UG Course Logs due UG Course Logs received PG External Examiner reports due 35 27 17 6 57 51 20 34 31 46 PG External Examiner reports received 18 6 17 36 PG Course Logs due PG Course Logs received UG Module Logs due UG Module Logs received PG Module Logs due PG Module Logs received UG Course Committee minutes 14 14 288 251 63 47 10 4 44 42 537 516 244 222 25 45 23 837 434 310 120 68 PG Course Committee minutes 4 4 35 90
Lessons Learned - Benchmarks • Agreed national framework required • Essential for standards assurance • Independent scrutiny • Comprehensive understanding in universities • Use of external subject experts and employers • Encouragement of good practice • Openness and transparency • Quality Culture
Lessons Learned - Benchmarking • Supports student choice • Data and information – accurate and available – often co-ordinated by external agencies • Promotes accountability and helps safeguard public funds • Supports sector improvement • Drives enhancement across universities and within • Supports efficiency across universities and within
Any questions
- Slides: 41