ED 387 024

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTIONREPORT NOPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

DOCUMENT RESUME

HE 028 605

Brownlow, Sue, Ed.Managing Quality Assurance at the FE/HE Interface.Mendip Papers. Papers Presented at the Annual JointConference of the Staff College and the Society forResearch into Higher Education (1994).Staff Coll., Bristol (England).ME-08095

57p.

The Staff College, Coombe Lodge, Blagdon, BristolBS18 6RG, England, United Kingdom (4.50 Britishpounds).Collected Works Conference Proceedings (021)

MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.*Accrediting Agencies; *College Administration;Educational Quality; Foreign Countries;*Institutional Evaluation; Postsecondary Education;Quality Control; Standards

IDENTIFIERS Business and Technology Education Council; FurtherEducation Funding Council (United Kingdom); HigherEducation Quality Council (United Kingdom); UnitedKingdom

ABSTRACTThis publication presents seven papers as well as

workshop summaries from a conference on managing quality assuranceframeworks of further education and higher education validatingbodies in the United Kingdom. Two opening papers reflect on managingquality assurance: "Key Issues" (Anne Stennett) and "Quality Fears atthe FE/HE Interface" (John Bird) . Three papers representcontributions from three quality regulating organizations--the HigherEducation Quality Council, the Further Education Funding Council, andthe Business and Technology Education Council--and describe theirrespective quality assurance frameworks. The papers are: "ManagingQualit; Assurance and Making it Work" (John Hilbourne); CurrentDevelopments in FE: Implications for Quality Assurance at the FE/HEInterface" (Terry Melia); and "Quality: Building it in and Checkingit Out (Who Shares Wins)" (Chris Chapman). The third section offerstwo papers addressing the practical aspects of managing the qualityassurance process: "Progression from FE to HE: Managing QualityAssurance Where the Baton is Exchanged" (Mike Abramson) and "QualityAssurance: Managing and Getting the Commitment" (Paul Gallagher andPeter Chambers) . A final section summarizes three workshops on theopics of identifying the issues, managing quality assurance, and

formulating recommendations for enhancing quality. (JB)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***********************************************************************

*

Cin Tba;4 I ane

0.4

0-4

.9m.

imma4a,.)

Further EducationDevelopment Agency

Managing qualityassurance at the FE/HEinterface

Edited by Sue Brownlow MP 080

U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOIbc or Educational Resesich and Impronemenl

CATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

Thm document has been reproduced earecanyed 'rom the person Or organizationonginating .1

0 Minor chenges haYe been made to improvereproduction Quality

Potnts of VII1w Of oproons staled m thmdocu-

E

mint do not necessarily represent otkiet0E111 positiOn Or POlicY

BtCOPY AVAILABLE au

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

The Staff College

TO THI: I DUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTEH (ERIC)"

a)Clo Managing quality assurance

at the FE/HE interfacegLi

Edited by Sue Brown low"C)

)

MP 080

The views expressed in this Mendip Paper are those of thecontributor(s). They should not be taken to represent the policy ofthe Further Education Development Agency.

About the editorDr Sue Brown low, Staff Tutor, FEDASue Brown low worked as a management consultant for six years before joining The Staff College in1992. Her consultancy clients included many further and higher education institutions and a range ofwork from new course feasibility studies to strategic planning and merger advice. Since joining The StaffCollege she has been responsible for developments in strategic management and the college's highereducation programme. Other publications include the Strategic planning handbook, a joint Staff College/Further Education Unit guide to strategic planning in further education and Mendip Papers on fundingflexibility and financing accommodation developments.

On 7 April 1995, the Further Education Development Agency (FEDA) formallysuperseded the Further Education Unit (FEU) and The Staff College. Between Apriland August 1995, publications will be produced under joint FEDA/FEU and FEDA/Staff College banners. From September 1995, FEDA will launch a new publicationsprogramme.

Series edited and designed at the Further Education Development Agency (FEDA) byPippa Toogood, Susan Leather and Alison Brewer, Publications Department, and producedby the Reprographics Department.

Published by FEDACoombe Lodge, Blagdon, Bristol BS18 6RGTelephone 01761 462503Fax 01761 463104 or 463140 (Publications Section)

FEDA 1995

All rights are reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrievalsystem, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, electrical, chemical,optical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyrightowner.

4

Managing quality assuranceat the FE/HE interface

t:L4

Edited by Sue Brown lowkIContents

IntroductionSue Brownlow and Anne Stennett 2

Reflections on managing quality assurance

Key issuesAnne StennettConference Organiser

Quality fears at the FEIHE interfaceJohn BirdUniversity of the West of England

4

7

Quality assurance frameworks

Managing quality assurance and making it work 9John HilbourneHigher Education Quality Counciland Visiting Professor, Leeds Metropolitan University

Current developments in FE: implications for quality assurance 17

at the FEIHE interfaceTerry MeliaFurther Education Funding Council

Quality: building it in and checking it out (who shares wins) 23Chris ChapmanBusiness & Technology Education Council

Managing quality assurance in practice

Progression from FE to HE: managing quality assurancewhere the baton is exchangedMike AbramsonUniversity of Central Lancashire

Quality assurance: managing and getting the commitmentPaul Gallagher and Peter ChambersBradford & Ilkley Community College

28

36

Workshop summary 45

Mendip Papers 1

IntroductionSue Brown low and Anne Stennett

The 1994 annual joint conference held by The StaffCollege and the Society for Research into HigherEducation (SRHE) took as its theme 'Managingquality assurance at the FE/HE interface'. Thisrather ler.gthy but, we hope, clear title was reachedonly after considerable debate among theconference team about the nature of quality andits assurance, management and control, and therealisation that the burgeoning quality industry infurther and higher education was in danger ofconfusing all of us with its plethora of labels,methodologies, concepts and acronyms.

The conference aimed to shed some practical lighton one of the most thorny problems of qualityassurance faced by many institutions. Qualityassurance frameworks can be onerous enough evenwhen a college or university is responding to justone set of external references. As further educationcolleges, with their broad curriculum, have knownfor some time, juggling the sometimes conflictingdemands of numerous different validating bodiesis not an easy task. Partnership arrangementsbetween further and higher education raise exactlythese difficulties, challenging both sides to reviewand reflect on their quality assurance mechanismsand to learn from practices which are sometimesvery different from their own tradition.

But we did not just want to take out a microscopeto 'inspect' another quality concept theconference needed to get to grips with qualityassurance. The title managing quality assuranceemphasised that the onus is on institutions and thevarious sector-wide bodies with an interest inquality to be proactive in developing andimplementing new quality assurance arrangementsappropriate for the emerging models of curriculumdelivery.

In her introduction, conference organiser ProfessorAnne Stennett offered a timely reminder thatquality assurance is simply a means to an end, notan end in itself, and that that end must be focusedon the experience of our main partners in thelearning process, the students themselves. Wcwould laugh at the idca that quality assurance in amotor car factory might not consider whether or

not the cars could be driven away, but the genuinedifficulties of measuring the quality of the studentexperience in education can sometimes lead usperilously close to a framework which manageseverything except that which really matters. LomaFitzsimons, past president of the national union ofstudents, reinforced this message in her after-dinner address at the conference by reminding usnot only of how good higher education can be atits best, but also of some of the real lapses in qualitywe sometimes inflict on our students as a result ofthe most basic collection of errors.

Some of the concerns of the conference committeeare reflected in the first two papers of thispublication, ,;,thich are reflections on the nature ofquality assurance and the key issues involved. Thefirst paper is drawn from the responses ofconference members to a request to identify whatwere for them the key issues which they wantedthe conference to address. The issues were wideranging, and are reproduced here as an importantpart of the development agenda for those workingand researching in the field. The second paper,from John Bird of the University of the West ofEngland, challenges us to reflect on whether wereally have a 'quality problem' in FE/HEpartnerships, or whether the issue is actually oneof power and control as we all seek reassurance ina fast-changing area of development.

The next papers represent contributions from threeof the quality 'regulators' the Higher EducationQuality Council, Further Education FundingCouncil and Business and Technology EducationCouncil. John Hilboume reflects on two recentsrudies of quality in FE/HE partnerships and thelessons for good practice which they identify. Theissues of validation and audit are inextricablylinked to quality assurance, and many of the themesraised in this thoughtful paper were debated atlength in workshop sessions and, perhaps morerevealingly, in the bar after the close of the formalbusiness of the day. Terry Melia's contributionlooks at the arrangements for quality assurance inthe FE and HE sectors and explores how thesemight be applied to collaborative arrangements.Chris Chapman's paper looks at the practice of

2 Mendip Papers

how BTEC is building its quality framework totake account of the needs of institutions and other'fellow travellers' auditors, lead bodies, etc.so that confidence can be established on all sides.

The fmal pair of papers come from the sharp endof practical experience of managing qualityassurance in institutions. Mike Abramson fromthe University of Central Lancashire discusses thedevelopment of his institution's extensivepartnerships with further education colleges andhighlights the ways in which these partnershipsare challenging the university's definitions ofquality and of the nature of higher education itself.In particular, he reminds us that different studentsmay themselves prioritise different aspects ofhigher education provision caring aboutaccessibility and tutorial support more than libraryfacilities, for example and that institutionaldefinitions of quality need to recognise thesedistinctions. Paul Gallagher and Peter Chambersfrom Bradford and Ilkley Community College talkabout the process of developing a quality culturein an institution which has combined HE and FEprovision for many years; their image of usingquality assurance to build the 'ladder ofopportunity' for students was a powerful one whichstruck a chord with many of the conferencedelegates.

Finally, what were for us some of the highlightsof the conference took place in a series of workshopsessions which brought together practitioners fromfurther education and higher education to sharetheir perspectives on the contributions and developthe key conference themes; this was the furtherand higher education interface at work. A summaryof the reports from these workshops forms the finalpaper in this series. Recommendations include theneed for much better co-ordination between thoseresponsible for the national policy agenda, the needfor the ladder of progression between further andhigher education to be constructed more clearlythrough an integrated credit-based system, and theneed for quality assurance frameworks to recognisethe diversity of further education institutionalmissions and not impose the higher educationpartner's model uncritically on the college.

The main concern to emerge from the closingdebate at the conference was a fear that, withoutsupportive funding arrangements, all the goodpractice that had been discussed could beundermined. Funding teaching and learning infurther and higher education will therefore formthe theme for the next joint conference inSeptember 1995.

Mendip Papers 3

Reflections on managing quality assurance

Key issues Anne Stennettt

Quality fears at the FE/HE interface John Bird

Key issuesAnne Stennett, Conference Co-ordinator

In advance of the conference, each delegate wasinvited to indicate what were the key issueswithin the conference theme. The variousresponses were then analysed. Together theysuggest the following eight key areas; and theseformed the basis of conference discussions.

Why quality assurance for the FE/HE interface, what constituteseffectiveness in QA in collaborativeactivities and how can it be mademore effective?

How quality assurance arrangements canbe utilised to improve the quality andstandards of what is delivered to thestudents.

The need to develop an effective butminimally bureaucratic quality assuranceFE/HE interface which maintains academicstandards but also satisfies the wider needsof the FE sector and the HE sector.

Understanding the nature of the FE/HEinterface and evaluating the qualityassurance mission; knowledge of andrespect for QA as it operates in the othersector, appreciating the different culturesin relation to quality in the chartereduniversities, in the 'new' universities andin FE colleges.

Defining responsibility as between nationalagencies with an interest in QA, and withinand across institutions (see also t !low).

Criteria for establishing a nationalbenchmark/national quality frameworks;how quality for FE/HE collaboration isdefmed and measured, and then enhanced.

The need to develop strategies formanaging, publicly but sensitively, thedevolution of responsibilities to a range ofinstitutions at (what may need to be)differential rates.

Remembering variety of fonns of provisionand the variety of approaches to QA. Is varietya threat to standards? How extensive is theperception of academic dilution resulting fromdelivery at a distance, and is there anyjustification for it?

Developing and managing qualityassurance procedures and systems

Ensuring appropriateness: for HEprogrammes in the FE college context,where HE forms only a part of the totalprovision.

Ensuring congruence within the FE collegeof quality assurance procedures for both FEand HE: avoiding divisiveness; providing acollege-wide QA approach.

Establishing ownership of QA by all parties;the possible developing dichotomy betweenquality assurance arrangements imposed'from on high' and the principle (e.g. TQM)that quality itself is best achieved and

4 Mendip Papers

improved if every individual involved takesfull responsibility for the quality of whathe/she delivers.

How should QA work in joint programmeprovision?

The balance between local fiexibility/responsiveness to opportunities and theassurance of quality.

Developing appropriate monitoring andevaluation instruments/measures.

Is there a model, or agreed principles formodels, of QA relevant to the FE/HEinterface?

Establishing best practice from each of thesectors and applying it collaboratively atthe outset of any partnership.

Staff development

Judging capability for FE/HE collaboration.

Basic/rationale used by universities/HEIsin judging FE college capability for HEwork.

Provision of joint professional development.

Balance of peer support and authenticindividual capability.

Robustness fur peer validation and peerevaluation.

Relating to the various nationalassessment and auditing agencies

What is/should be the role of variousnational agencies? How does the auditprocess work? Is the framework forassessment for HE and for FE essentiallythe same? What are the differences?

Arc the expectations of HEFC, FEFC,HEQC consistent with regard to qualityassurance?

Academic validators, professionalaccreditors and funding councils each hasa particular quality assurance frameworkhow to interact with these positively.

The problem of developing parallel qualitysystems for FE and for HE whilst HEFC,FEFC and HEQC are on different tracks;can their expectations be harmonised topermit the development of single corporateinstitutional practiee?

How to meet both HE and FE inspectioncriteria.

Government policy regarding the recognitionof various awards - e.g. the HND/degree mute.Who funds what? (See next section.)

Resource issues

Tin need for guidelines on costings ofcollaborative activities.

Ensuring cost effectiveness in collaboration.

The interface between FEFC/HEFC onmatters relating to QA and to funding,including capital funding and researchfunding (see above).

Maintaining FE/HE links within adiminishing resource base; managing in achanging financial climate.

Ensuring faimess and parity of treatmentfinancially between partner institutions.

The student experience

How relevant is the non-academic 'studentexperience'?

Achieving parity for students:standards;credit/credit transfer opportunities;admissions;progression;the total 'student experience'.

Taking account of the charters.

Mendip Papers

The FE/HE interface: thepromotion of FHE partnership

Getting the right proactive relationshipbetween FE and HE; maintaining thedistinctive missions of HE and of FE.

The basis/rationale for choice of partner(s).

Strategic planning of HE development, inthe collaborative mode, in the currentfunding climate.

Is collaboration worthwhile? What adviceto (as yet) non-participant institutions?What are the main management issues?

Establishing a research framework for FHEactivities and initiatives.

To what extent is there consensus that long-distance collaboration is undesirable?

Managing competition as betweeninstitutions within each sector and as

affecting cross-sector combinations; issuesof marketing.

Rationalising provision across FE/HE intoregional networks.

Networking

The need to identify, disseminay; andsupport good practice across both sectors.

The quality of intelligence and informationacross the FE/HE interface; assessinginformation about existing effective QAsystems.

Setting up support networks/networks forpartnership.

Transferability of FE/HE collaborativemodels, e.g. to the education/employmentinterface.

Quality fears at the FE/HE interfaceJohn Bird, University of the West of England

There is a film (I think directed by Wim Wenders)called The goalkeepers' fear of the penalty kick.I take both the title of this paper and the theme ofthis paper from that film. The title of this papercould be The quality councils' fears of theinterface; the theme is that (a) there is more fearof collaboration between FE and BE than is meritedby the realitites of such collaboration and (b) someof the fear relates to factors that have little to dowith reality and more to do with psychologicalworries over lack of control. I would like as asociologist much influenced by psychoanalysisto say most about the latter, but that would not fitmy remit so I shall restrict myself in the main todiscussing collaboration.

However, there is an important point about (b):some time in the 1970s a psychoanalyticallysympathetic sociologist, Eliot Jacques, wrote apaper entitled Social systems as a defence Againstpersecutory and depressive anxieties (1977). Thetheme of that paper would be the theme of thepaper I will not give here, but is a theme that is, inmy view, important to the quality debate. Thetheme is that we all have anxieties about thingsgetting out of control and, in part, all social systems

including systems of quality assurance andcontrol relate to, and serve to dampen down thosefears. In other words, particularly if there is somenew system in operation, there is a deep-seatedfear that it cannot work as well as what we havealready; therefore we set up elaborate systems torecord, file, analyse, place under surveillance, andsubject to self-confession and truth telling, thosenew systems. It is a part of the rich fantasy life ofinstitutions our own included that what goeson in other institutions is subject to suspicion andfear, especially where they are our competitors, sowhat is more natural than to set up institutions ofsurveillance to make sure that their quality is asgood as ours?

I will row return to what I am supposed to say. Inessence, I want to identify a number of relatedthemes:

that there is rightly diversity in F/HE

collaboration (franchising, joint courses,2+2 systems, etc.);

that diversity relates to fitness for purposeand makes a distinction between hierarchiesof quality and diversity of qualitiesimportant

that diversity should be maintained, inparticular because diversity is usuallyrelated to local community needs withinparticular collaborative ventures and todiversity of institutional missions;

that there is no necessary link betweendiversity and either a lack of quality ordifficulties in operationalising systems ofquality assurance;

that diversity makes a simple and singlemodel for quality impossible to achieve.

The themes all relate to a critique of what can bestbe called quality fears. These are best exemplifiedin the 1989 and 1991 HMI reports on what wasthen regularly temied franchising (DES 1989,1991). To take some quotations at random:

library resources are generally poor linFE);

[teachers in FE] are less well qualifiedacademically than those teaching similarcourses in polytechnics;

quality control procedures are poorlydeveloped and applied in many [FEcolleges].

The 1991 document reiterates these and adds twomore:

lack of a research culture in FE;

poor progression rates for part-timestudents.

This is then integrated into a general critique: thatHE provision in FE can often not reproduce the

Mendip Papers

ti

experience for students and for staff of studyingin HE. It could however do this under certaincircumstances adequate funding, the use of 1-1Equality assurance mechanisms in FE, therestrictions of franchising to first year courses (orsometimes whole HNDs). In other words, it cando it if it will be like HE.

This which some will see as a convenient parodyof what the HMI documents say raises a numberof issues for me about the F/HE interface andquality assurance:

what HE experience is being reproduced?What we might call the good side (goodlibraries, a research culture) or the less good(large class sizes, crowded facilities,distance from where m..,iure students live)?Those of us working in the field know thatboth FE and HE, in collaboration, havestrengths and weaknesses, and the balancemay not be to the favour of HE. We mustreflect on whether there is such a thing asthe essence of HE which FE must aim for.

the HMI critique, partly a creature of itstime, is based on a limited view ofcollaboration, i.e. franchising; it is lessconcerned with what, I hope, are becominggenuine partnerships in which recognitionof strengths and weaknesses is being openlyacc(

if there arc genuine partnerships and wemust be wary of the strongly rhetoricalsignificance of the word partnership thenthey have an ethos of trust and openness;with partners in FE and HE workingtogether, for example, in developing,validating and recognising programmes.

we can identify a process which moves usfrom a 'you must', through a 'you should',to a 'we all do' model. Many HEIs seem towish it to be thought that they are at a stagethree, whereas FEIs sometimes feel thatthings are closer to stage one!

we must give a central importance to thcstudent experience of collaborative ventures(Haselgrove 1994). Students in FE seemajor strengths in HE provision in FE (it islocal, classes arc small, tutors arc

approachable); and they worry about HEprovision in HE (large classes, crowdedlibraries). They are willing to trade FEstrengths off against some weaknesses (lackof student union facilities; lack of staffresearch experience) and this can lead themto want more than first year degreeprogrammes in FE. These provide majorchallenges to the HMI view.

this last observation may wony the FEFCbecause it is haunted by the spectre ofmission drift; that FE will become HE withHE provision crowding out traditional FEwork and with staff scrambling to do theHE teaching.

Conclusion

We could usefully contrast user and providermodels of collaboration, although no real situationwill completely fit the model:

User

Dialogue

Partnerships

Openness

Student-centred

Provider

Monologue

Franchises

Closure

Staff-centred

Hopefully. real collaboration will approach theprovider model.

References

Department of Education and Science (1989) 277/89. DES

Department of Education and Science (1991) 228/91/NS. DES

Haselgrove, S (ed) (1994) The studentexperience. SRHE/Open University Press

Jacques, Eliot (1977) Social systems as a defenceagainst persecutory and depressive anxieties. inM Klein (cd) New directions in psychoanalysis.Maresfield Reprints

8 Mendip Papers

Quality assurance frameworks

Managing quality assurance and making it work John Hilbourne

Current developments in FE:implications for quality assurance at the FE/HE interface Terry Melia

Quality: building it in and checking it out Chris Chapman

Managing quality assurance and making it workJohn Hilbourne, Higher Education Quality Council

IntroductionThis contribution looks at the management offurther and higher education links under two heads.Firstly, I shall be dealing with the recent changesin Higher Education Quality Council (HEQC)strategy and how these are being implemented andmanaged. Secondly, I shall look at some of theimplications of two recent studies of F/HEcollaborative working in England and Scotland.

The role of HEQC

The HEQC's role is to ensure the maintenanceand enhancement of higher education at all levelsin UK institutions. It does this by auditing HEinstitutions' quality assurance processes,undertaking a series of enhancement activitieswhich address system-wide issues, developingcredit accumulation and access, and advising thePrivy Council on applications for degree awardingpowers.

Recent ministerial statements have focused onstandards issues in quality assurance. The HEQChas of course been giving increasing emphasis tothese issues for some time as they have emergedas importu.nt to those inside and outside the systcmwho wondered about quality and the pace anddirection of change.

In April 1994 the Secretary of State emphasisedthe government's belief in the need forcomparability of standards throughout highereducation. He also said that the governmentrequired the HEQC to pay attention to the broadcomparability of standards in British highereducation.

The CVCP (Committee of Vice Chancellors andPrincipals) accepted that through the HEQCuniversities should take responsibility for definingthreshold standards and estaolishing thatinstitutions are maintaining these.

The HEQC will respond in two ways:

its boards will encourage institutions toprovide more information on the way inwhich standards are set and maintained.There will be a sharper focus on standardsin the Council's audits of on-campus andcollaborative provision; and

it will seek to provide a national resourcewhich enables institutions to demonstrateto a wider range of stakeholders howstandards are maintained, and how thresholdstandards are identified and enforced.

In this context standards are defined as 'explicitlevels of attainment which are used to describe

Mendip Papers 9

and measure requirements of individual studentsand groups of students'.

Collaborative provision on the present scale isrelatively new. Consistency and comparability inthe level of awards and standard of student learningin this area have not gone unquestioned. Over twoyears ago the HEQC began a series of separatevalidation of audits of HEIs with a significant rangeof off-campus work. These audits have beendeveloped and refined, and a consultative exerciseconducted with various stakeholders which hasresulted in further changes.

Collaborative audits are not audits of FEinstitutions: it is the HEIs' quality assurancearrangements which are being audited. The auditsaddress the central question of how it is that anHEI assures itself, its partners, its students andother stakeholders that its off-campus awards areof equivalent quality and standard to those offeredon-campus. Only as a part of this, representativesfrom FEIs may be invited to meet HEQC auditteams by the HEIs with which they are associated.

Lessons from research intocollaboration

The remainder of this contribution draws on twostudies of F/HE collaborative links in England andScotland. The first of these was conducted in theearly summer of 1993 and the second in the springof 1994. They were intended to inform the Councilon a range of current issues relating to F/HE links.The methodology has been described in detailelsewhere but briefly, it involved visits to a smallnumber of HE and FE institutions, and discussionwith government departments, the fundingcouncils, researchers and experts.

Commonalities

As much of what follows is devoted to issuescommon to both English and Scottish FHEcollaborations, it might be worth saying just a littleabout what the two systems have in common andhow they differ in their management of FE.

Under the 1992 Further nad Higher Education ActsHEls in England and Scotland were brought

together under national funding councils, theHEFCE for England and SHEFC for Scotland. Inboth countries FE colleges were incorporated andbecame captains of their own fate and in bothcountries funding is linked to some form of externalaccountability.

In each country and each sector institutions seekingfunding are required to develop a strategic planwhich in theory allows them to build on theirindividual strengths, develop their own missionand create a unique identity, albeit withinguidelines.

In both countries and in both sectors there is atremendous diversity, ranging from the large multi-faculty/department comprehensive establishment,to the monotechnic. There are also differences inmission. Some FE colleges see themselves asbecoming HE establishments. Others seethemselves as establishing a core of HE workwhich supports the local community and is notprovided elsewhere, and yet others are concernedwith increasing access to and participation in highereducation for those in their local communities whowould otherwise not have such opportunities.

There are similar differences in HEIs and theirmissions. Some HEIs (e.g. Lancashire, GlasgowCaledonian) have large programmes. Others tendto be reactive. Some have no intention of becomingextensively involved in HE/FE collaborativeworking.

Another common feature of the two countries isthe difference in culture between and within thetwo sectors.

Broadly the differences are:

in mission;in role of students;in conditions and terms of employment;in roles and structures, particularly wherethe same terminology is used; andactual or perceived clashes between therequirements of vocational qualifications(SCOTVEC, BTEC and NVQ) and degreelevel work.

Thcre are however also real differences in the twosystems:

Mendip Pa2ers14

Differences

Funding and quality assurance: Briefly, inEngland funding follows the student, and inScotland the institution. In England HE in FE islargely funded via the Higher Education FundingCouncil, or on a fees only basis. In the first instancefunding may either be tc the HEI which then passeson some of its intake to FE colleges, or more rarely,FEE courses will be funded in FE colleges in theirown right. Quality assurance for HE in FE is largelycarried out by the HEFCE and is notcomprehensive. Visits will only normally be paidto provision which claims excellence or may beconsidered at risk.

The saga of fees only students, the reduction infees, and the recent regulations governing theaward of mandatory grants are too familiar to needadumbration.

In Scotland, SHEFC funds HE in HEIs and theScottish Office funds all provision of whateverlevel in FEIs. No distinction in funding terms isdrawn between FE courses and HE courses in FEIs.The SHEFC is by and large responsible for qualityassurance in HEIs. The Scottish Office has retainedHMIs who inspect provision in FEIs.

The FE/HE divide and the nature of provision:The Scottish Vocational and Educational Council's(SCOTVEC) framework and Higher Nationalawards are crucial to HE/FE collaborative working.The most frequent form of collaborative workingbuilds on an Higher National programme in whichan FEI is validated to teach in its own right throughthe SCOTVEC system. Students can then in theoryclaim a general credit from that course and seek toobtain the appropriate exemptions and entry into adegree course. Frequently, however, HEIs willrequire that Higher National students undertakeadditional enhancement studies to fit them forspecific degrees eithcr in order to ensure theirexperience and learning matches the programmethey wish to join, or to give agreed exemptions.These enhancement courses are frequently linkedto guaranteed places.

Franchised Higher Nationals arc an exception inScotland. There has to be a specific resource, staffor other reasons for an FEI to prefer to have itsHigher National mediated by an HEI rather thanbeing directly validated to deliver it.

There are a couple of consequences of this thatwe, south of the border, should note:

there is an established and significant bodyof teachers within Scottish FEIs withexperience of initiating, teaching,validating, assessing work etc. at first andsecond level;

a university's involvement in the validationof HE in FE colleges is largely confined tothe validation of enhancement elements, orthe validation of top years for degree orhonours degree work.

Other forms of FHE collaboration do exist,including joint working, franchising and validation.It is unusual for only one type to exist in oneinstitution.

Another distinctive feature of Scottish FHEprovision is that the multiple franchising of coursesfrom more than one HEI is virtually non-existent.Even those colleges that do franchise from morethan one HEI tend to have a franchiser of firstresort.

It is possible that the framework provided bySCOTVE SQMS (Scottish Quality ManagementSystem) and the greater volume of autonomousHE in FE, together with a much simpler and lessstressed funding situation, has led to fewer tensionsand encouraged more openness and peer workingthan may be the case south of the border. However,in both countries collaborative links have emergedon a bottom-up and pragmatic basis and it wouldbe misleading to give the impression of a totalunified and problem free system in Scotland. Thereis the same diversity in practice which all havenoticed as each partnership has in some sensesought to reinvent the wheel.

Despite these differences there was a remarkableunanimity among those to whom we spoke aboutwhat constituted good management of the variousstages of an FE partnership. What followsemphasises the common ground and the goodpractice. Similarly it does not distinguish betweentypes of working. There are creative and evennecessary tensions between FE colleges and HEIs.A market ern phasis demands at least competitivetensions which, some would argue, are inimical to

Mendip Papers 11

good constructive and collaborative workingwithin and between sectors.

Initiation and development

There was a high degree of agreement as to whatnow constituted good practice in the developmentof schemes. FEIs and HEIs were commended notonly on their own practice and experience ofcollaborative working, but on the lessons they hadlearnt and desirable changes that had taken place.

There was general agreement that if partnershipswere working well at the planning anddevelopment stages, there should be fewpredictable surprises at validation, and in theimplementation, monitoring and evaluation of anarrangement. Quality assurance must thereforeconstitute an integral part of the planning andinitiation stage and not be an add on, anafterthought.

Any proposal for a collaborative programme mustbe embedded in the mission statements ordevelopment plans of the partners. Collaboratinginstitutions should be aware of the intended rolesof the proposal in the overall provision anddevelopment strategy of those with whom theywere working.

A clear understanding of the requirements of thestudents for whom the proposed programme isbeing developed is essential. This involves theidentification of the learning and support needs ofsuch students.

It is important for both institutions that, as theproposed programme is developed, it is embeddedin the academic, financial and managementstructures of all partners to avoid marginalisation.

.Wherever possible existing systems should beadapted to suit the needs of the collaborativeprogramme.

Resource and academic issues need to beconsidered conjointly so that the integrity of theproposal as a whole can be established.

Opportunities should be provided for ensuring thatall those with responsibility for planning,delivering, assessing and reviewing the programmeare systematically informed and updated on thestrategic and operational context in which theprogramme will operate.

The period when a proposal is being initiated anddeveloped is a formative one for everybodyinvolved. The creation of appropriate participativearrangements between academic, management,faculty and other teams at this stage underpinsquality. Wherever possible a balance of qualifiedstaff from all partners in the initiation ofprogrammes is preferable. The precise mix willvary with circumstances. The planning andinitiation development stage of a proposal shouldaddress operational as well as academic andstrategic issues. The involvement of externalexaminers and other external advisors in the earlystages of an agreement, either for the contributionthey can make or for their judgement or advice, isa strong feature of marl)/ schemes.

Informal arrangements need to be documented andunderpinned by a formal framework but not stifledby it.

Agreements and memoranda of association shouldrecognise that each institution shares responsibilityand accountability for the provision, and that eachis answerable to the other for their agreed rolewithin the collaborative programme. Articles ofassociation must specify arrangements for thetermination of agreements, safeguarding theinterests of students, copyright and intellectualProPerty.

Validation or approval?

Validation events are more than surnmativeassessments to record and accredit an agreementor programme. If well conducted they areformative events which add new dimension to theprogrammes they address. Their comments andthe adjustments that sometimes follow safeguardand enhance the quality and standards of theprogramme.

If the preparatory stages of collaborative schemeshave been appropriately carried through thereshould be few surprises at recognition or atvalidation. Recognition or validation is concernedwith the verification of these arrangements andensuring their transparency, and subjecting themto the critical scrutiny of those who had not beeninvolved in advising or participating in thedevelopment of thc programme.

The focus of validation events must be the studentexperience. Given the extra difficulties in

12 Mendip Papersi6

managing schemes involving more than oneinstitution, validation teams should not take theexecutive arrangements for granted. Therecognition and validation process should drawon the advice and comments of experts andrecognition and validation should explore the wayin which the scheme will be operationalised andmanaged within and between institutions.

There were various ways in which colleges havegone about ensuring that the proposals agreed intheir name are appropriate. Some have used formalpaper-based systems derived from the CNAA.Others have tended to use more informal systems,backed up by executive, committee and reportingstructures. In each instance, however, the centralquestions for both the FEI and the HEI was whetherthe validation event established that the programmecould be delivered at an appropriate level.

Validation teams should pay particular attentionto the publicity and information given to students.They should seek to probe the quality and efficacyof the information given to students prior toenrolment and the expectations that students areencouraged to develop, particularly where they arerequired to transfer from an FEI to an HEI tocomplete their courses.

Validation teams should seek to test the robustnessof the proposed quality assurance strategies, payingparticular attention to mechanisms for feedbackstrategies and mechanisms for ensuring that thecomments of external examiners and annualperiodic reviews are acted upon. The team shouldprobe the relationship between the staff andstudents at the FEI and the HEI. The recognitionand validation process is strengthened by theinclusion of persons with a general knowledge ofF/HE collaborative working. As far as possible,the institutions should avoid including staff whohave been responsible for initiating orimplementing the programme as validators ormembers of major review teams.

It was generally felt that validation teams neededto pay particular attention to support offered byHEIs to the FE colleges. Some HEls had spentconsiderable time in developing co-ordinators,students and academic advisors, and intrOducedmentors and in some instances reciprocalsecondments.

Some HEI staff felt that unless this was exploredthe full cost of collaborative working, both to theHEI in staff and in other terms, might not beunderstood. In particular, they felt it important totest whether sufficient time, resources andrecognition had been allowed for the administrativeand academic loads involved in collaborativeworking.

Implementation

Again, there was general agreement that providingthe earlier stages of programme initiation,validation and approval had been carried out withcare, a framework should have been created forthe responsible and flexible implementation of theprogramme itself. There should be a series of majorand minor points at which the implementation ofthe course could be tested against fhe intention forit.

FEIs and HEls held that those teaching on a schemeshould take part in its administration., curriculumdevelopment and assessment as fully as possible.To this end many HEIs have gone to great lengthsto ensure that FE staff be included in appropriatecommittees in relation to the course, and that theywere invited to take part in staff developmentevents and seminars.

Some colleagues noted that the workloads andheavier teaching loads characteristic of FE collegesfrequently precluded FE staff from participatingin these events.

While students on partnership programmes wereregistered as students of the university, in practicethere were several problems in making universityfacilities accessible to them. Students tended toidentify with their FE colleges, and were not ableto say what being an HEI registered student meantto them in detail.

Generally, all HEIs had one person, variouslytitled, with responsibility for supporting HEstudents in their franchised FE college. Theseindividuals approached their role somewhatdifferently even within the same partnership. Thereis some need to support these individuals in termsof an agreed and operational job description, andin recognising the load they carry.

Mendip Papers 13

Differences in culture and practice occasionallylead to unnecessary complications. Time spentinducting staff into the modus operandi of theinstitutions with which they are working,differences in teaching methods and learningresources and expectations would ensure smoothoperation. In those institutions which hadnegotiated associate college and/or consortiaagreements, support mechanisms to deal with theseproblems had been or were being developed.

There were several instances in which FEIs andHEIs had co-operated in the production of teachingand laboratory materials and in deciding the formand nature of assessment. This close peer workingwas thought to underpin quality and ensure auniformity of standard.

In Scotland in particular HEIs and FEIs valuedpeer working. Both recognised that it contributedto efficient and effective course management,curriculum development, teaching and the overallproper operation of the agreement. For theuniversity it ensured ready access to aspects of theway in which the partnership was developingwhich a more formal system would have precluded.Above all, they believed it established an opennessof working which meant that issues could be airedand shared, and frequently resolved or refinedbefore they appeared on a formal agenda.

It was generally agreed that the management ofcourses requires a cycle of meetings, frequently atthe FE college, in which teachers and other officialsmet to review the programme and monitor itsprogress.

An HEI's responsibility for ensuring standardsdoes not mean that FE colleagues cannot be calledon in helping it discharge its responsibilities.

Intcr-institutional arrangements can be timeconsuming particularly for those responsible forimplementation and budgeting. The universitiesof the West of England, Central Lancashire andStrathclyde are some of the examples of this.

Many students talked warmly of the opportunitythat taking a franchised course had given them.Some gave vivid accounts of the value that courseshad added to their quality of life, their zest forliving and their career objectives. Sometimes,however, they complained of remoteness, andparticularly the lack of comment on assessed work,

and the time it took to return work if it needed tobe moderated of marked by the HEI.

In general, a more facilitative stance adopted bymost HEIs in the way they conducted businesswith their partners has produced a cordialatmosphere which underpins increases in theeffectiveness of the formal arrangements forquality assurance. MIre distant hands-offapproaches were generally seen as less effective.Above all, implementation needs to be managed.This requires:

that FE and HE colleges developappropriate mechanisms for ensuring thatagreements are delivered, staff are properlyinducted and briefed, and implementationis monitored;

that collaborative programmes areintegrated into the mainstream academicstructures of all partners and notm argi nal i sed ; and

that a consistency of approach is preservedwithin and between institutions.

Quality a, ance

HEIs and FEIs are both developing their qualityassurance mechanisms in part to meet the demandsof the changed funding and national qualityrequirements consequent upon 1992 Further andHigher Education Act. Those HEIs that hadreceived HEQC audits had learnt from theexperience and the comments of auditors who arethemselves senior and distinguished academics,academic managers and administrators.

Within this framework FE colleges are currentlyreviewing and consolidating quality assuranceprocedures which involve periodic course reviews,academic management structures and practiceswhich underpin these with college-widecommittees responsible for the process and follow-up of quality assurance activities: There is, ofcourse, a diversity of approach. Many Scottish FEcolleges have accepted the Scottish QualityManagement System (which has been pioneeredby Scottish Enterprise) together with total qualitymanagement, Investors in People, or BS5750approaches, all of which arc said to be compatiblewith SQMS. Several HEIs have helped FE collegesin developing their quality systems. It has not,

14 Mendip Papers lb

however, been a one-way trade. Audit reports pointto the importance of HEIs learning from FEcolleges. Once again there is no preferred model.

In all the partnerships we examined there is a cycleof executive meetings in which all contributorsare expected to take part. In the best practice, theseare formative as well as summative for theyfrequently generate solutions to the problemsplaced before them, or which they detect Typicallya partnership will submit an annual report whichcomments on the admission and progressionfeatures, the standards achieved as confirmed byexternal examiners, and other issues which havebeen raised by staff and students throughout theyear. An opportunity will be taken to look at theeffective operation of the agreement as a whole.The annual review is usu,11y supported byscheduled events during the year in which theprogress of the programme is reviewed. FEIs andHEIs will conduct major reviews of programmeson a five year basis. However, in the early stagesof collaborative working, such reviews may berequired earlier by one or other of the parties.

Quality systems require adequate access toappropriate data for course tutors, and in someinstances it was felt that more work needed to beundertaken in making such data more widelyaccessible.

Audit reports and our own studies show thatproblems can arise if clear decisions have not beentaken about, for example, what happens to, andwho should see, review reports and annual reviews.It is important that results of these reviews areavailable to all those concerned with theprogramme in both institutions. Mechanisms fordiscussion, acting upon and ensuring thatappropriate procedures and actions have been takenare essential.

Where an associate college, consortium or similaragreement exists, some of the issues surroundingquality assurance can be dealt with regularly onan institution or group-wide basis. Here it isimportant to ensure that there is a separationbetween those issues appropriate to the generalinstitutional agreement and those which arespecific to the particular programme. It is alsoimportant to ensure that the processes of both mesh.

Multiple franchising was felt to pose particularproblems. There are many reasons why FEIs

franchise from more than one institution. A greaterresponsibility is placed on all concerned, andparticularly the FE college, to ensure that:

franchising as a whole is underpinned byan appropriate management and qualitysystem;

programmes franchised from different HElsare validated, implemented, assessed andmonitored according to the requirements ofthe particular agreement;

students are aware of their position inrelation to 'their' HEI.

In the best practice it was felt that the results ofthe quality assurance process must be fed back tothose to whom it was applied. Action points shouldbe identified, and proper mechanisms used toensure follow-up on issues identified as requiringattention, with reports to all those concerned oraffected by them. The programme team needed toown the quality assurance process and see it as anintegral component of delivery of the scheme. Thisrequired that management fed back to the courseteam how it had tackled quality problems whichstemmed from institutional arrangements overwhich the course team had little control.

Probably the most important guarantee of qualityin Scottish collaborative working is the extensiveexperience that FEls already have of HND work.Mechanisms and understandings are thus presentwhich are not matched to the same extent south ofthe border where HE in FE has not played such aprominent part.

One of the principle guarantors of quality was seenas being the external scratiny or double markingof assessed work. FE staff talked of the usefulnessof discussing their marks and assessment practicewith their HE colleagues. This was felt to be away in which they quickly gained confidence intheir competence and a deeper understanding ofthe requirements of HE work.

In some partnerships internal university staff actedas moderators, particularly for the early years ofvalidated degrees or the enhanced modules ofHND/HNC programmes. Some FE and HEinstitutions felt that there was some advantage inappointing at least one examiner external to thepartnership, preferably an individual with

Mendip Papers [ 15

experience of both the subject to be examined andof collaborative working.

Finally, HEIs felt that is was important to addressissues of quality assurance in reviewing internalprocedures. There were occasions ..en theadditional complexity of arrangements which arenecessarily associated with cross-institutionalworking suggests ways in which the internalsystem of an HEI needs amendment, codificationor simplification.

The research has identified general points whichcolleagues made when discussing collaborativeworking. They are the product of their ownexperience, the constructive lessons they havelearnt from what has been a pioneering exercise.They reflect intentions as well as actualities, sincethe critical review embedded in all establishedcourses inevitably throws up issues which need tobe addressed as well as those matters requiringcelebration. However, much in what we saw shouldbe celebrated. There is a solid base of diverseexperience on which to draw.

If I were to pick out five general themes whichrequire further attention they would be these:

more attention needs to be paid at all stagesto the routine definition, management andmonitoring of executive roles;

staff development to ensure that all thosewho participate in collaborative schemesare aware of relevant differences in culture;

more work needs to be undertaken,particularly south of the border, on definingprecisely what criteria are necessary toensure quality at various levels. Do youreally need to be a Nobel Prize winner toteach at foundation level? Can just any FEteacher be competent at second year levelmerely because there is a hole in theirtimetable?

active management, monitoring of processand the sharing of information, thusreducing the cost and the inconvenience ofbig-bang reviews and making them moreeffective;

the voluntary and statutory bodiesconcerned with upholding professionalstandards of practice and the knowledge thatsupports it are focusing on building in andensuring the effectiveness of QA as part ofthe normal process of delivery as opposedto an annual or quinquennial imposition.This is felt both to increase a sense ofownership and help front line teachers infront line management.

16 Mendip Papers

Current developments in FE: implications for qualityassurance at the FE/HE interfaceTerry Melia CBE, Chief Inspector, Further Education Funding Council

Introduction

This contribution explores quality assurancearrangements in the further and higher educationsectors in England and the scope for applying thesedifferent arrangements at the FE/HE interfacewhere franchised higher education work in furthereducation institutions, further education offeredby higher education institutions and part-timehigher education provision in the further educationsector blur the institutional and sector boundaries.

Quality assessment and audit inhigher education

Quality assurance has a long history in highereducation, particularly in those institutions suchas the polytechnics which grew up under thetutelage of local education authorities. Early formsof quality assurance centred around the courseapproval system in which Her Majesty's Inspectois(HMI) were involved in a quasi-administrativefunction. Although mainly concerned with thereviewing of new course provision decisions bythe regional staff. inspectors on course approvalhad a quality and standards dimension as wellthrough the input of specialist HMI to thesedecisions.

Later the Council for National Academic Awards(CNAA) was established and through itsinstitutional visits, its validation of individualcourses, its manifold daily contact with highereducation teachers and its reliance on peer reviewwas enabled to establish quickly its own reputationas the guardian of standards in public sector HE.

Following the establishment of the Polytechnicsand Colleges Funding Council (PCFC) and thethrust to link funding and quality, HMI re-established its role as a major player in the highereducation quality assurance arrangements throughits contribution to the funding/quality dcbatc andits involvement in funding decisions based on

HMI's views of the quality of provision. The latterviews were based on a comprehensive programmeof inspection and reporting on higher educationinstitutions.

The methods underpinning HMI inspection ofhigher education were outlined in a paper, Inpursuit of quality: an HMI view, which waspresented and debated at an invitation conferenceheld by HMI at Heythrop Park, Oxfordshire in1989 and attended by all the principal playersincluding university vice chancellors, polytechnicdirectors, college principals, funding councilofficials and senior HMI.

Following the demise of HMI and the CNAA in1992 new quality assurance arrangements wereestablished in higher education in England. Thesewere based on quality audits carried out by a newlyconstituted body, the Higher Education QualityCouncil, owned by the higher education sectorinstitutions. Additionally, the Higher EducationFunding Council for England (HEFCE) carriedout its own quality assessment of provision fundedby it. Because higher education institutions,particularly the older universities, feared that anyform of audit or assessment which they did notrun and control could threaten their autonomy andacademic freedom they were suspicious ofexternally imposed quality assurancearrangements. This is in spite of the fact that theyare the recipients of vast sums of public moneywhich they persistently claim is insufficient toenable them to fulfil their missions. Certainly theirreluctance to open their doors to inspection hasled them to being saddled with a two-pronged auditand assessment regime which to both insiders andoutsiders appears bureaucratic and burdensome.

Quality assurance in furthereducation

Quality assurance in further education is relativelynew, although the sector has always been subject

Mendip Papers

4;

to inspection by HMI. The primary responsibilityfor the quality of each further education college'swork rests with the college itself. This point wasmade clear in the White Paper Education andtraining for the 21st century (DES et al. 1991)which also identified two other components ofquality assurance in further education:

the role of examining and validating bodiesin guaranteeing the standards ofqualifications; and

the role of external assessors in makingindependent judgements of quality.

The Further Education Funding Council's role inquality assessment arises from a requirement inthe Further and Higher Education Act (1992) thatthe Council shall:

ensure that provision is made for assessingthe quality of education provided byinstitutions within the further educationsector, and

establish a committee to be known as theQuality Assessment Committee to advisethe Council on quality issues.

The Council decided to fulfil its responsibility withrespect to quality assessment using twoapproaches:

the collection and comparison ofperformance indicators for the colleges inthe sector; and

the inspection of colleges and of other workfunded by the Council, by its owninspectorate.

The Council has worked with the sector to developa small number of performance indicators relatingto key areas of college activity including growthin enrolments, student retention rates, students'achievements and cost efficiency. The Council'sinspection arrangements are described in the nextsection.

As part of the governments's charter initiative,which is aimed at raising standards and improvingquality throughout thc public services, theDepartment for Education issued the Charter forfurther education in 1993. The charter informs

users of what they have a right to expect fromcolleges such as handling enquiries, admissions,guidance and support; equal opportunities;teaching quality; publication of examination resultsand other information about the colleges; andcomplaints procedures. Colleges were required toproduce their own charters by September 1994.

Inspection

The further education inspectorate comprises achief inspector, 12 senior inspectors and 60 full-time inspectors. In addition, some 600 part-timeinspectors have been recruited, trained andregistered, and part-time inspectors contribute 27full-time equivalent posts to the inspectorate'sstaffing establishment. The intention is that over1,000 part-time inspectors should be trained andregistered by the end of 1995. Full-time inspectorsare home-based and are assigned to both regionaland curriculum teams led by a senior inspector.There are nine regional teams and 10 curriculumarea teams corresponding to the Council's nineregions and 10 programme areas.

The inspectorate's work is steered by a qualityassessment committee with the following termsof reference:

to advise the Council on the qual y ofeducation provided:

in institutions within the sector,

ii in institutions for whose activities theCouncil provides, or is consideringproviding, financial support (in whichrespect, it will be necessary to have regardto advice from LEAs, the Office of HMChief Inspector of Schools and the HigherEducation Funding Council for England);

to recommend to the Council and keepqunualdeitry;review the method for assessing

to receive assessment reports on the qualityof education and advise on any necessaryaction;

to report annually to the Council, includingan evaluation of the overall quality ofeducation in the sector;

18 Mendip Papers

to advise on other matters as requested fromtime to time by the Council.

The Quality Assessment Committee has amembership of 12 with representatives fromcolleges, industry, commerce and students.

The inspectorate's main work document is theframework for inspection Assessing achievement(PEFC 1993). It was devised by a group of collegerepresentatives and others with an interest in thesector and was chaired by the chief inspector. Ithas proved to be sufficiently flexible to deal withthe diversity of institutions in the sector and theworking methods it describes have been acceptedwidely by colleges. The main features of theinspectorate's current working methods aredescribed below.

Inspection principles

The following broad principles guide all inspectionactivity:

inspections are planned in consultation withthe college and reflect its pattern ofprovision;

the college's own aims, objectives, targetsand criteria for success set the context forinspections;

the inspection process includes directobservation of the delivery of thecurriculum monitoring the college'sperformance against the commitments inthe national charter for further educationand the college's own charter, andevaluating the college's strategy formonitoring and enhancing the quality of itsown provision.

Types of inspection

The inspection cycle for each college covers fouryears. Within the four-year cycle there are threetypes of inspection;

by thc college inspector for routinemonitoring of the college's activities andresponses to earlier inspections;

by specialist inspectors, working singly orin small teams and concentrating onparticular areas of the curriculum or specificcross-college issues;

by inspection teams which clarify,supplement and update the informationgathered through the four-year cycle.

The first two types of inspection do not lead topublished reports: a written note of the mainconclusions is sent to the college. The third typeof inspection leads to a published report.

One-third of specialist inspections have beencarried out by part-time registered inspectors ofwhom the majority are practitioners within theeducation sector. About 20 per cent of part-timecontracts are awarded to inspectors who haverelevant subject expertise but do not normally workwithin education. These lay inspectors bring animportant knowledge of industry and commerceand of the needs of employers to inspection teams.

All inspection teams include a nominee from thestaff of the college being inspected. They areoffered preparatory training for their role andbecome full members of college inspection teams.Nominees may accompany inspectors duringobservation of lessons or interviews with collegestaff. They also attend inspectors' meetings andcontribute to discussions arising from inspection.The inclusion of college representatives ininspection teams supports the inspectorate's wishto operate openly. It has been well received bycollege managers as a means of enhancing theefficiency of inspections.

Inspection grades

Inspectors assess the strengths and weaknesses ofeach aspect of provision they inspect andsummarise their judgements on the balancebetween strengths and weaknesses using a five-point scale:

grade 1: provision which has many strengthsand very few weaknesses;

grade 2: provision in which the str-ngthsclearly outweigh the weaknesses;

Mendip Papers 19

grade 3: provision with a balance ofstrengths and weaknesses;

grade 4: provision in which the weaknessesclearly outweigh the strengths;

grade 5: provision which has manyweaknesses and very few strengths.

Inspection grades represent the collectivejudgements of all those involved. Initialassessments arrived at by individual inspectors aresubject to moderation throughout the inspectionprocess.

Quadrennial college inspections

Quadrennial college inspections draw on evidencecollected through the four-year cycle and, inparticular, on recent specialist assessments ofprogramme areas. The process culminates in a visitby a team made up of full-time and registered part-time inspectors, including at least one with recentexperience outside the world of education. Thecollege contributes to the process by:

providing a self-assessment report whichsets out its own views of its major strengthsand weaknesses;

nominating a senior member of staff to jointhe inspection team and take part in allaspects of the inspection apart from grading;

evaluating the inspection process.

Reporting and follow-up

Inspectors provide feedback on their initialassessments to teachers, course leaders and collegemanagers while the inspection is in progress. Inthe period following the team inspection, a verbalreport of the main inspection findings is providedfor representatives of the college's seniormanagement and governors who may use thi,,opportunity to correct any errors of fact. This marksthe end of the formal inspection. As soon as it isavailable, and normally eight working weeks afterfeedback to governors, a printer's proof of thereport is sent in confidence to the principal and tothe chairman of governors. The final version is

normally published within a further two weeks,when the college receives 100 copies and the reportis distributed to the sector and to the media.

College inspection reports set out the inspectionteam's judgements of the strengths and weaknessesof the following aspects of the college under thefollowing broad headings:

responsiveness and range of provision;

governance and management;

students' recruitment, guidance andsupport;

teaching and the promotion of learning;

students' achievements;

quality assurance;

resources (including staffing, equipment andlearning resources, and accommodation).

Assessing achievement (FEFC 1993) providesdetails of the issues covered under each of theseheadings, and guidelines on good practice.

All reports include a one-page summary of themain conclusions arising from the inspection andthe grades awarded. Grades are recorded for cross-college aspects of provision, and for each of themajor programme areas inspected. In most cases,a grade is assigned to each of the Council'sprogramme areas in which the college has asubstantial amount of work. In exceptional cases,where it is justified by student numbers, two orthree groups of subjects within a programme areamay be graded.

Within four months of publication of the report,colleges are required to provide a written responseto the Council outlining plans for addressingweaknesses identified in the report. Colleges arealso asked to incorporate their proposals in theirstrategic plans. Inspectors monitor the responsesto inspection reports and the action colleges takein the light of inspection findings. Programme areaswhich were graded 4 or 5 during the period beforethe 1994 funding round will be re-inspected intime for the 1995 round. Brief reports of all theseinspections have been published in a singledocument.

20 Mendip Papers

Evaluation of inspections

The inspectorate has adopted procedures toevaluate the inspection process and enhance itsown performance. These include:

a national programme of training for part-time registered inspectors and collegenominees who join inspection teams;

the moderation of grades by the chiefinspector, college inspection teams andregional and specialist teams of inspectors;

the central analysis of inspection evidence;

the provision of opportunities for inspectorsto work outside their home region with otherteams;

the establishment of a central unit for editingreports to ensure a uniform of style;

a working methods review group.

The inspectorate has been concerned from theoutset to achieve consistent practice. An early focusof attention has been the relative performance offull-time and part-time registered inspectors.

Inspection developments

The inspectorate's main working documentAssessing achievement (1-EFC 1993) is kept underconstant review, with changes to the frameworkfor inspection as the need arises. The followingdevelopments occurred in 1993/4:

the single inspection grade for 'resources'has now been replaced by three grades, oneeach for staffing, equipment andaccommodation;

the format for the summary page ofpublished reports has been revised to helpcolleges meet their obligations under theCharter for further education (DFE 1993)to provide a summary of inspection reportsfor progressive students;

a commitment has been made to includeperformance indicators in published reports

when a standard set of indicators is agreedby the Council in consultation with thesector,

a printer's proof copy of each inspectionreport is sent in confidence to the principaland chair of governors of the collegeconcerned. This normally occurs eightworking weeks after the presentation ofinspection findings to college governors.The final printed version is normallydistributed after a further two weeks;

it has been affirmed that inspection gradesrepresent the collective judgements of allthose involved in inspection. Initialassessments arrived at by individuals aresubject to moderation throughout theinspection process;

in most inspections a grade will be assignedto each of the Council's programme areasin which the college has a substantialamount of work. Only in exceptional cases,where it is justified by student numbers,will grades be assigned to two or threesubjects within a programme area;

a commitment has been made that anycurriculum areas graded 4 or 5 during theperiod before the 1994 funding round willbe re-inspected in time for the 1995 round.

Colleges also need to improve the opportunitiesfor students to engage in extra curricular activitiesand do more to foster adult participation in furthereducation. The sector is inadequatelyaccommodated and has been for so long thatexpectations have been lowered. This poses achallenge to both colleges and the Council todevelop capital-raising schemes to fund the majorand minor building programmes that the sector sodesperately needs if it is to play a full-time part inenabling this country not only to meet the nationaleducation and training targets but to develop thetalents and abilities of its citizens to the full.

The main challenges to the new further educationinspectorate are:

to ensure uniformity of inspection practicesacross the country in order to gain and retainthe confidence of the sector which itinspects and of the public at large;

Mendip Papers

j

to help colleges establish their own rigorousinternal quality control and ultimatelysector-wide quality assurancearrangements;

to enhance the quality of provision and raisethe standard of student achievements isreflected in both student retention rates andexamination successes.

Inspection at the FE/HE interface

Inspection at the FE/HE interface involves thefollowing provision:

prescribed HE offered by FE colleges;non-prescribcd HE offered by FE colleges;schedule 2 provision made by HEinstitutions;franchised HE.

The Council's inspectorate has an interest in workwhich it funds but which is carried out ininstitutions outside the sector. The HigherEducation Funding Council for England (HEFCE)and the local education authorities both fund somework in sector colleges: HEFCE assessors andinspectors from the Office for Standards inEducation (OFSTED) have an interest in thequality of this work. The Council has made acommitment to the Secretary of State to consultand work with these bodies to maintain the qualityof further education in all sectors and to ensureconsistency of inspection standards.

Prescribed HE in the FE institutions is assessedby HEFCE quality assessors using their three-pointgrading scale. Attempts are made to carry out theseassessments at the time the FEFC inspectorate isundertaking the institutional quadrennialinspection. When this is not possible the HEFCEkeeps both the chief inspector and the collegeinspector informed of its arrangements andfindings.

Franchised HE in FE institutions is assessed byHEFCE quality assessors through the highereducation institution accrediting and franchisingthe work. Again, the HEFCE will keep the chiefinspector of the FEFC and the college inspectorinf.ormed of the arrangements and findings.

Non-prescribed HE in FE institutions is assessedby the FE inspectorate using its five-point gradingscale. The HEFCE is invited to nominate a HEquality assessor, trained in the use of Assessingachievement (FEFC 1993) to join the FEFCinspection team where there is a substantial volumeof non-prescribed HE work.

FE in HE institutions is assessed by the FEFCinspectorate using its five-point grading scale.Attempts are made to carry out inspections tocoincide with HE quality assessment visits. Whenthis is not possible the HEFCE is kept informedof the FEFC inspectorate's arrangements andfindings. The FEFC inspectorate will also drawon HEQC reports on a HE institution to inform itsjudgements on management and academic auditsystems.

Each council has agreed to provide inspectors/assessors with training in the use of each other'sassessment frameworks.

The future

Inspection in FE has been well received by collegesand others concerned with the sector. Theinspectorate will now need to work hard to retainthe confidence of not only sector colleges, but alsogovernment and the public at large and to assureboth further and higher education institutions thatthe arrangements for inspecting at the FE/HEinterface are valid and workable.

References

Department for Education (1993) Charter forfurther education. DFE

Department of Education and Science et al. (1991)Education and training for the 21st century.Volume I Cm 1536, Vol ume 11 Cm 1536. HMSO

Further Education Funding Council (1993)Assessing achievement. Circular 93/28. FEFC

Hcr Majcsty's Inspectorate (1989) In pursuit ofquality: an HMI vicw./n Quality in highereducation: a report on the HMI invitationconference at Heythrop Park, Oxfordshire, heldon 16-18 June 1989. HMI

22 Mendip Papers

Quality: Building it in and checking it out (who shares wins)Chris Chapman, Business & Technology Education Council

Focus

This perspective on the FE/HE interface is verymuch coloured by a background in furthereducation and close involvement with currentdevelopments in that sector.

The original rather grand and apparentlyauthoritative title, Assurance and control theknack of managing the difference, begged somany questions that we could well have spent thehour determining what is meant by assurance andby control, never mind the knack of managing thedifference. Furthermore, John Hilbourne hassuggested that 'a lot of nonsense is talked aboutquality assurance!'. As an alternative, it might beinteresting and no doubt informative, to discussthe apparent 'obsession with making judgements'or to explore ways of 'landscaping the educationalgarden'. But again, such titles don't get to the heartof the matter.

The phrase, 'Quality building it in and checkingit out', is borrowed from BTEC's quality assuranceand control handbook. It captures in plain Englishthe essence of what I want to say. Quality is thereby design and it needs to be monitored against thedesign specifications.

'Who shares wins' is borrowed from an FEU paperon partnerships which in turn probably alludes toPeter Savage's book Who cares wins a bookabout 'how to unlock the hidden potential of peopleat work ... and turn ordinary companies intowinners'. The clear implication, as Mike Abramsonhas confirmed, is that a collaborative partnershipin quality assurance brings success.

My twin themes are transparently simple:

quality by design;let's work together.

Change

We assume, at our peril, that others keep still whilewe move forward. The education and training

environment has changed and is changing in somany ways, most, if not all of which, have animpact on our perception and our judgement ofquality. We are moving rapidly to centrallydetermined standards and curricula fromdifferentiated product to commodity with,apparently, less opportunity to respond to localneed. At the same time, the focus has moved fromgroups to individuals, and from courses leading toqualifications to qualifications achieved via (oneof) a number of different routes one or more ofwhich might cross the FE/HE boundary.

Quality is about change; it is about movingforward. It is not about stability. We need tochallenge, not to defend. Indeed, allowing thingsto evolve is frequently thought to be, and can begood, yet by its very nature, evolution also leadsto catastrophe or extinction. Revolution can be afaster route to both!

The FE/HE interface

Collaboration at the FE/HE interface can relate toshared delivery of degree and non-degreeprovision; it can be about progression to and withinhigher education; or it might be about collaborationnationally or locally in the development of, forexample, Higher National Diploma programmesor General National Vocational Qualifications(GNVQs). The latter is an area of developmentwith major implications for both sectors perhapsfar more so than is immediately apparent.

Having established the national framework forvocational qualifications and introduced GNVQsat foundation, intermediate and advanced levels,the National Council for Vocational Qualifications(NCVQ) now has a remit from the Secretary ofState for Education to assess the feasibility ofintroducing higher level GNVQs this must impacton current provision at the FE/HE interface. Aconsultative document is currently being preparedthrough a limited consultation process. Ifintroduced, higher level GNVQs might be designedto:

Mendip Papers 23

underpin NVQs;

replace much of non-degree provision inhigher education (whither associate degreesand HNDs?);

provide greater flexibility in deliverypatterns;

facilitate alignments and credit transferbetween NVQs, GNVQs and degreeprogrammes (a real education 'ecu');

facilitate progression from AdvancedGNVQs.

The consultation will throw the spotlight onstructure, on standards, on awarding arrangements,on assessment, on the areas to be developed, andon the relationships with other higher levelqualifications. It is also likely to address issues offunding, delivery and entry thresholds. Inresponding to the consultative document, we willneed to consider whether there should be GNVQsat higher levels at all. Whether, if they wereintroduced, the standards should be equivalent, forexample, to two years of a degree programme.Should level 5 be equivalent to a course-basedMSc? To what extent, and in what way, could orshould the size and scope of units for higher levelGNVQs be aligned with any emerging commonmodel for modular degrees, to facilitate credittransfer? Could they sensibly provide a real bridgebetween the CAT system and competence-basedNVQ units? Should there be an element ofexternality in the assessment regime and snouldwork experience form an essential part of theprogramme? What about meeting local needs?

There will be much to challenge current practiceand provision at the FE/HE interface.

Recognising quality

One of the interesting and refreshing changes inthe education environment is the level of publicdebate (both on education and on quality), someof which is well informed, some less so. The noiselevel in this area is high and perceptions of qualitycan be contradictory. During 1994 many youngpeople passed their GCE A level examinationsand the immediate popular reaction was that

standards must be falling. A rather smallerproportion of the initial group of GINIVQ studentswere awarded an Advanced GNVQ thevocational A level yet the conclusion was thesame standards and quality must be poor. Allthis begs a question as to which way the variousindicators point. What do they tell us? How shouldwe use them?

There are, of course, many different perspectiveson quality. If we define it as 'fit for purpose' wemust ask the question 'what purpose?'. To meetneeds of industry? To fit students for work andlife? To meet targets? For payment? To makeawards?

The Further Education Funding Council Circular93/28 (FEFC 1993) talks about developing adistinctive approach to quality and its assessmentin FE, which recognises that provision must notonly be fit for its purpose but should aim for highstandards and excellence, should satisfy andinvolve the customer, should encourage continualimprovement and should enable the governmentto be assured that the large sums of money devotedto this sector of education, are being well spent.Most of us would happily subscribe to the sameformula. Each would conclude with a statementrelated to their own purpose. But who are ourfellow travellers? Is there harmony or cacophony?(See Figure 1.)

Looked at from the perspective of the FE/HEinterface there are many, apparently disparate,organisations and requirements. There is an urgentneed to soften the rigid boxes and to look at thewhole system analysing parts or makingjudgements in isolation without reference to othersinvolved, can lead to false impressions. We shouldwork together. At present, we don't.

Fortunately, there is some movement in thisdirection and toward common criteria againstwhich judgements can be made. NCVQ, thevocational awarding bodies and others have beenworking on a quality (design) framework forGNVQs. It is being finalised for publication in theOctober 1994 and although not yet fully committedto the framework, both FEFC and OFSTED havealso been involved. Is it possible, therefore, that inthe not too distant future, all those with aresponsibility for quality in GNVQs will work froma common set of quality criteria? Will they sing in

24 Mendip Papers 2 ,

Figure 1: Harmony or cacophony?

FE charterFEFCFEUInstitution

TECsProfessional bodiesDiscipline groupsNCVQ

OFSTEDLead bodieesAwarding bodiesInvestors in PeopleBS

harmony from the same song sheet about planningand development, about implementation andmonitoring, about assuring standards and qualityreview?

The Business and Technology Education Councilcurrently works to a 'quality model' which mightwell have application more widely. It emphasiseswhere responsibility lies, it emphasises partnershipat all levels, including those involved in makingexternal judgements. Essentially, BTEC's qualityassurance processes are designed to ensure thatthe quality and credibility of qualifications thatBTEC awards are maintained through a systemwhich places responsibility for quality with thedeliverer that is, where it happens. Theexpectation is that:

a process is established whereby BTEC anddeliverers (working together) can ensure acost effective quality assurance process;

deliverers are empowered to and are ableto take responsibility for quality assuranceand control;

the overall quality assurance process meetsthe requirements of stakeholders (e.g.NCVQ, lead bodies, government);

the processes take account of what other'auditors' in the field (HEQC, FEFC,OFSTED) are doing and are appropriate tothe developmental stage of the customers;

the overall quality assurance processensures national standards andcomparability of vocational awards.

Ultimately, it is about having confidence.Confidence that we have built our house wellthat it is well designed and well constructed. Thoseof us who are involved with awardingqualifications need to be confident that thosereceiving an award have met all the requirementsfor that award. Others need to be confident thattheir particular requirements have been met, forexample, to make payments or to set achievementagainst national targets. All these various agenciesare, of course, mutually dependent upon oneanother.

Partnerships

There are many benefits to be gained from workingin partnership and many of these are already beingrealised at the FE/HE interface. Successfulpartnerships engender a sense of ownership in

Mendip Papers 25

design within which 'validation' is, effectively,an audit of prior preparation in delivery and inensuring quality.

John Hilbourne's contribution has given an HEQCperspective on collaborative activities. What hehad to say, not surprisingly, bears a strongresemblance to the guidelines published by theFEU (Approaches to partnerships 1994). TheFEU rightly points to issues that need addressingin all partnership arrangements and provides achecklist of questions against four broad indicators,namely:

partnerships, even speculative or informalones, should have a clear rationale andidentifiable aims;

in any partnership, there is likely to be acombination of institutional self interest andmutual benefit. Before reaching a decisionto collaborate or when reviewing apartnership, the costs and benefits of theproposed arrangement need to be weighedup. The decision need not be a simple yesor no but might be to set up a pilot phase tocollaborate on a more limited basis to timelimit the arrangement or to reconsider thepossibility at a later date;

partnerships make specific managementdemands because such arrangements arecomplex and the chain of accountabilitylonger. Different institutions and agenciesmay have different approaches tomanagement and different degrees of rigour,

partnerships should be subject to equallyrigorous standards of monitoring and qualityassurance as other areas of the organisationswork.

Built-in quality

Edward de Bono, in his book Parallel thinking(1994), argues that judgement is about the pastand about stability, whereas design (deciding whatyou want and building it in) is needed for change.A clear message about 'quality by design'.

In 1993 Scottish Enterprise initiated and fundedthe development of a Scottish Quality ManagementSystem (SQMS) to develop a harmonised qualitymanagement framework for vocational educationand training in Scotland. It draws on and bringstogether quality criteria operated by key agencies

the English equivalents would be NCVQ,awarding bodies (including BTEC), TECs, theEmployment Department and the DFE. It alsorelates to the quality assurance interests andrequirements of BS5750 (BS EN 9000) and HPone yearns for such apparent harmony!

The knack, therefore, if there is one, of managingthe difference between assurance and controlprobably lies in three things:

being explicit about what kind of vision,what kind of expectation we have;

establishing harmony (in the orchestralsense) this includes stakeholders workingtogether but, spe':ifically, requirescoherence in the feedback system so thatwe landscape rather than just weed theeducational garden;

removing our obsession with makingjudgements as an apparent end in itselfuse judgement to determine whether adesired outcome is useful/valid not as away of getting the outcome.

The successful knowledge workers of the 21stcentury the so-called 'gold-collar workers' willbe the product of an education and training systemwhich has a vision, which knows where it is goingand in which all parties collaborate willingly andeffectively to achieve agreed learning goals andoutcomes.

Prime responsibility for quality lies with thedeliverers in this case, at the interface. Togetherwe must:

maximise 'building it in'; andharmonise 'checking it out'.

26 Mendip Papers3 0

References

Bono, Edward de (1994) Parallel thinking.

BTEC Staff Development Unit (1994) Assessing quality (OFSTED, FEFC, HEFCEJHEQC).BTEC

Department for Education (1993) The charter for higher education. DFE

Department for Education (1993) The charter for further education. DFE

Further Education Funding Council (1993) Assessing achievement. Circular 93/28. FEFC

Further Education Unit (1994) Approaches to partnerships who shares wins. FEU

National Council for Vocational Qualifications (1993) Awarding bodies common accord. NCVQ

SCOTVEC, Highland & Islands Enterprise, Scottish Enterprise (1993) Scottish qualitymanagement system (SQMs).

Mendip Papers

Q

Managing quality assurance in practice

Progession from FE to HE: managing quality assurance where the baton is exchangedMike Abramson

Quality assurance: managing and getting the commitmentPaul Gallagher and Peter Chambers

Progression from FE to HE: managing quality assurancewhere the baton is exchangedMike Abramson, Head of Combined Honours and Partnership, University of CentralLancashire, Preston.

Introduction: the context ofprogression

In recent years FHE partnerships have expandedin both size and diversity, and, until recently, wereconsidered to be the biggest growth industry inthe post-compulsory sector. Although estimatesvary, it is likely that over 30,000 students in theUK are undertaking courses developed by HEIsbut delivered in the FE sector; the number ofoverseas students participating in partnershipschemes is even more difficult to calculate, butthis area has also witnessed significant expansion.Rationales for such initiatives are both many andvaried, ranging from income generation to amission-led desire to widen access to highereducation for traditionally under-representedgroups. FHE partnership are also both dynamicand evolving. Although the dominant form remainsthat of 'academic franchising', other, more matureforms of collaboration have emerged including thejoint development and delivery of HE programmes,which harness the expertise of two or moreinstitutions into an exciting synergy of associationto create unique programmes of study. New formsof institutional relationship are also emerging,including 'associate college' status, based uponexclusive dealing.

Some partnerships schemes, such as thoseinvolving the delivery of access courses, HNC/Ds

and other sub-degree programmes, enable studentsto complete their entire programme within theirlocal FE college, and this is clearly what moststudents, especially part-time mature students,want. However, most FHE partnerships are stillbased upon the franchising of the lower/lowestlevels of degree programmes, and whilstprogression to higher levels of study within thefranchiser HEI is normally guaranteed suchguarantees are frequently undermined bygeographical, personal and financial obstacles.Moreover, even when FE-based students doprogress to the HEI, they are often traumatised bythe sheer size and culture of the new organisationand by a self-perception that they are outsiders orsecond best.

Clearly, as the number of partnership studentsgrow, so too does this problem of passing on thebaton. Indeed, if a key rationale for FHEpartnership is a belief that access to HE will beincreased and widened by bringing the productcloser to the customer, addressing the issue ofacadcmic progression becomes a central strategicand operational objective. How far, to date, haspassing the baton meant passing the buck?

This contribution, therefore, seeks to explore theproblems of progression and to forward possiblesolutions. It draws upon the findings of severalnational surveys and reports, but focuses on theoperational and strategic experience of the Local

28 Mendip Papers

Integrated Colleges Scheme (LINCS). Thisextensive network of over 20 colleges inpartnership with the University of CentralLancashire was the first franchise scheme of itskind in the UK, and its evolution can be seen as amirror of subsequent partnership developmentselsewhere. LINCS began in 1984, when 11students were recruited to Nelson and ColnCollege to study two subjects from level one ofthe university's combined honours degree on apart-time e-vening basis. This mission-ledprogramme still forms the mainstay of partnershipenterprise, and' now recruits almost 1,000 part-time students per year at 10 colleges in Lancashireand Cumbria. However, FHE franchises have alsowidened to embrace other academic areas,including HNC/Ds, year 0 and access provision,and the first stage of several other degrees. Other,more mature partnerships have also emerged,including collaborative courses, particularly withspecialist colleges of agriculture and nursing. Intwo cases, the university plays a straight validationrole for the higher education portfolio of twocolleges in the region.

Some FE partners are geographically close to theuniversity (the nearest within two miles) and fortheir students geographical progression is not amajor issue, although it should be stressed thatdistance is not the only obstacle to progression.Other partner colleges in Cumbria, however, areboth educationally and geographically isolated,with some being over 100 miles distant from thenearest HEI. Like other networks in Scotland, EastAnglia and the South West, such isolation is amajor barrier to educational opportunity and a keychallenge for strategic planners. Clearly,franchising parts of HE programmes to isolatedareas is a partial solution, but such initiatives alsoare part of the problem, since they whet appetitesand increase expectations that cannot presently befully met.

Towards an effective framework forprogression

To address the issues raised above requires aprogression framework made up of the followingkey elements:

A high level of strategic planning

Since 11:EIs normally bid to HEFCE on behalf ofcollege partners such planning is clearly anecessary precursor to the funding process. It alsoforms part of the negotiations whereby students'needs and college ambitions are set against theoverall strategic mission and regional provisionof the partnership network as a whole.

It is also needed to ensure the parity of qualitydemanded by HEQC, and, by management ofcourses and subject targets, to guarantee academicprogression to higher levels at the university. Thisenables HEI departments to accommodateprojected college throughputs.

Longer-terrn strategic planning, formulated intothree or five year partnership development plans,must also consider ways of extending collegeprovision to higher academic levels, to reduce oreven eliminate the need for geographicalprogression.

The three stage planning model adopted by theUniversity of Central Lancashire is set out inFigure 1, and moves from the 'twinkle in the eyes'of grassroots enthusiasts through to annual andperiodic review which, in turn, influences theresponse to subsequent college proposals.However, given that the highly competitive post-corporate world of FE generates much heat andfriction, even the most sophisticated of planningmechanisms requires constant lubrication!

An academic informationmanagement system (AIMS)

For any large partnership network an effective anduser-friendly computerised student record system,accessible to FE partners as well as the host HEI,is an operational necessity. Primarily, it must beable to generate data on where students arestudying, what they are studying and record theirperformance for assessment boards. It should alsoform the basis for cohort profiling (especially forinitiatives dedicated to widening access),comparative performance analysis and for longer-term longitudinal studies of the performance andqualitative experience of those partnership studentswho progress through the university.

(33 Mendip Papers 29

Figure 1: Arrangements for the implementation of associate and licensed college arrangements

Process

Stage 1

College ideas

College draft proposals

Responsibilities

General discussions between college staff and universitystaff co-ordinated by a person nominated by theuniversity rector and a person nominated by the collegeprincipal. The discussions will be carefully co-ordinatedto ensure draft proposals are realistic and, in principle,achievable.

Stage 2

Discussions between collegeprincipal and rector and advisors

as appropriate

0. College strategic plan

VUniversity strategic plan and

hence to university ADP

In collegeThe college principal is responsible, via the collegearticles of government, and it is for each college todetermine how it will deal with this stage.

In the universityThe rector is responsible via the university articles ofgovernment. The rector already has a small advisorygroup on partnerships and this will continue to operatIn considering a particular course/programme proposal,this group receives advice from the dean who will beresponsible for the delivery of the proposed course/programme.

Stage 3University validation process

Admissions and enrolments

Curriculum delivery andassessment of students

VOutcomes and review

The development and review of policies and proceduresrelating to stage 3 are the remit of the academicpartnership committee, a sub-committee of the academicboard. The committee is chaired by the dean of inter-faculty studies and membership includes deans, collegevice principals, the university secretary, staff from inter-faculty studies and co-options.

Partly in acknowledgement of the size and diversityof its parmership network, the University of CentralLancashire is currently in the process of developinga new AIM system which will be phased-in overthe next two years.

The integration of progression into thetotal curricular structure

The so-called seamless robe of post-compulsoryprovision is best woven by the creation of holisticcurricular frameworks usually based upon CAT(credit accumulation and transfer) and modularschemes which offer well-defined exit pointawards starting at access level and ending at taught

masters programmes, and which form the basis ofautomatic academic advancement. Progression,therefore, becomes an inherent entitlement ratherthan a process of application or negotiationinvolving qualitative judgement or backward steps.Fortunately, such entitlement is already integratedinto most degree programmes, via the Cert. andDip. HE awards; but curricular integration remainsmore problematic for HND/C (and in the futurepossibly for G/NVQ) programmes which stillsuffer from the reluctance of professional bodiesto fully embrace CATS and where pedagogicapproaches and competency-based learningoutcomes are at variance with those ofundergraduate degrees.

30 Mendip Papers

34

An effective administrative andacademic infrastructure and intoface

To avoid the marginalisation of partnership activityrequires access to institutional sources of power,policy and the resource, and this, in turn, needsthe creation of clear lines of reporting both withineach partner institution and at the partnershipinterface. Clearly, different structural models willapply to different forms of partnership, althoughthe model which has evolved over 10 years withinLINCS (see Figure 2) may have somegeneralisable value. The academic interface is theproduct of a series of course liaison panels and(for combined honours) subject liaison panels foreach partnership course. In principle, these panelsensure the equality assurance described by JohnBird earlier, and are responsible for off-campusoperational delivery, assessment, and course-basedquality assurance. Through departmental andfaculty review they ultimately report to theacademic standards committee (a sub-committeeof the university academic board) and to the collegeacademic board. Another university sub-committee, the academic partnership committee,addresses the partnership interface at the level ofstrategic management. Although chaired by theuniversity, and containing all academic deans, the

membership of this committee is dominated bysenior college staff, including HE co-ordinatorsand vice-principals (academic).

Such structures often form the arena for lively andsometimes heated debate, but in the spirit ofpartnership the opportunity to exchange views andair differences should be seen as essential to thelonger-term health of inter-institutionalrelationships.

A regime which acknowledges,supports, and rewards effective liaison

If not the propellant fuel of FHE partnership,effective liaison at all levels is the essentiallubricant. In a more perfect world, the time givenover to such liaison encompassing the wholeacademic cycle, from pre-course counsellingthrough to progression exercises, staffdevelopment, and annual review would be fullysupported and the opportunity costs to individualstaff acknowledged. Unfortunately, this is notalways the case. In the current climate, staff areoften rewarded for their research and publicationprofile, but rarely for a level of liaison which leadsto high quality ratings.

Figure 2: LINCS administrative infrastructure

HEI

Academic board

t(Academic board sub-committees)

Academ'c standards Academic parmership

FEI

Academic board

committee committee

Departmental and Course liaison committeefaculty operation. Subject liaison panel

Annual and periodic (Combined Honours)review

Department andfaculty operationand internal QA

processes

36Mendip Papers 31

Continuous induction process forstudents

Progression should be perceived as beginning onday one of the academic career of all partnershipstudents. From the outset they need much higherlevels of information than on-campus students toexplain their status, rights and responsibilities, tomap their progression routes and honestlyaddresses progression problems and limitations.This information, usually in the form of a dedicatedstudent handbook, should be complemented byHE staff attendance at college enrolment andinduction events and reinforced mid-year byparticipation in progression events at whichstudents select their study programme for the nextacademic session. Within the best partnershipschemes, academic staff regularly visit collegesand contribute to the classroom experience.Students are also regarded as full and equalmembers of the host university and are positivelyencouraged to use all its facilities, including thelibrary, computer centre, students' union andstudent services.

At the point of actual progression into the HEI,partnership students need dedicated inductionevents which explain the realities of studying at anew institution; very different in size, culture andcomplexity to their previous study centre.

Appropriate criteria to judge thequality of FHE provision

There are still a small number of partnershipschemes which do not guarantee academicprogression becausc of HE concerns over thequality of the provision delivered in FE. Studentsare therefore required to overcome additionalhurdles, both administrative and academic, whichare not imposed on their on-campus counterparts.

Whilst academic quality and academic parity areessential components of all FHE partnerships, thissituation is clearly unfair and unjust. Its resolutionrequires an acceptance that HE in FE is not thesame as HE in HE, and that different quality criteriamay need to be applied. Of these, fitness forpurpose is the most important, since for somestudents, especially part-time adult returners, theFE environment can provide a better total learningexperience. Classes tend to be smaller, staff moreexperienced, peer group support is higher and

pastoral care more dedicated. Given this, the realchallenge is for HE to maintain the same totalquality when students progress. Longitudinalcohort analyses, so far rarely prioritised by HEIs,need to be undertaken to monitor how thischallenge is being faced, and the results fed backinto the overall quality process.

Applying fitness for purpose to other kinds ofstudents, such as full-time school leavers, mayresult in different quality judgements. Suchstudents may want an institutional infrastructure,including a students' union, residentialaccommodation and extra-curricular facilities,which are not part of the current FE culture. Atworst, they can feel marginalised within anacademic overspill estate. At best, though, theymay benefit from smaller classes, higher levels ofspecialist equipment, and teachers who regard themas premier students.

Other criteria to judge the quality of FHEpartnership will differ according to the academicproduct delivered, the mode of delivery and thenature of the partnership. In all cases,, however,the quality of the partnership as a whole should bejudged, as well as its component parts. HEIs shouldalso acknowledge the growing maturity of theirpartners (i.e. accept a dynamic partnership) andmove from the imposition of quality checklists toan acceptance of the college's own qualityassurance system. In this way, difference will beseen as a strength not a weakness.

Short haul and long haulprogression issues

On face value, so long as academic progression isguaranteed by strategic planning, geographicalprogression for students studying at a campus closeto the host HEI does not pose a significant problem.Even so, there are challenges to be met. Forexample, even short distances, for those without acar or convenient public transport in the evenings,can be difficult. For many minority ethnic womeneven the shortest distance can be perceived as acultural marathon. Also, many students simplywant to stay at their familiar local college, andfind the prospect of moving to a much larger andmore impersonal study centre daunting. Moreover,sustaining the initial study mode, especially part-time evening (the dominant mode within LINCS),

32 Mendip Papers 3()

into higher levels at the university can poseproblems of class viability.

Short haul challenges can be addressed in severalways. Higher level provision may be provided atthe colleges, but this has obvious resourceimplications and may result in an upward academicdrift which is not in the best long-term fundinginterests of FE colleges. Some, however, may wishto develop narrow, specific pathways in areas ofstrength. For students who do progress to the HETit is important, as suggested earlier, to providesurvival training via a dedicated induction process,good 'after sales' care and performancemonitoring. It is worthy of note that many formerLINCS students, particularly women, devise theirown survival strategies which include peer groupsupport and a 'buddy system' in which they optfor the same courses, study at the same pace andgraduate together. The problem of class viabilitywithin the evening-only route can be solved bythe introduction of a 12 hour curricular day inwhich some classes for all students are scheduledonly in the evening and not duplicated on the daytime timetable. In this way pressure is taken offclassrooms, full-timers can rationalise theirtimetables and even very small numbers of studentsprogressing from the colleges can beaccommodated. However, efforts to introduce thissolution within the University of CentralLancashire have so far proved unsuccessful.

This contribution deliberately avoids the mostproblematic area of long haul progression, createdby the development of overseas partnerships, andcurrently beset by quality concerns and fashionable'sleaze' allegations. Clearly, students progressingfrom (say) Malaysia will require an extremely highlevel of dedicated induction, cultural orientation,and on-going support.

Long haul progression is also a growing issuewithin the United Kingdom where partnershipshave been forged between geographically distantinstitutions. Whilst the rationale for some of theserelationships is questionable, most are based onthe desire to address educational deprivation inisolated regions. Either way, the problem ofprogression still needs to be solved.

Traditional, low tech' solutions include thenegotiation of guaranteed credit transfer

agreements with the Open University, and this hasalready been achieved for students within theLINCS network. However, many students initiatedinto higher education via regular class contact andpeer group support find distance learningunpalatable, and consequently do not progress atall. A more satisfactory solution, therefore, in thelonger-term, must be to assist isolated colleges inthe delivery of complete award bearingprogrammes of study, since this obviates the needfor any travel to the host HEI. This may be achievedin a low tech manner by maximising collegeexpertise through staff development (includingpostgraduate study) and through the prioritisationof strategic resources. A more exciting 'high tech'alternative, however, is the creation of the virtualcollege, which exploits inter-active video and othercomponents of the burgeoning informationsuperhighway to export higher level provision livewithin the local college. The virtual college alreadyexists in parts of Australia and the United States,and a small number of UK universities, such asPlymouth and Sunderland, are making similartechnological in-roads

In partnership with Furness College (Barrow) theUniversity of Central Lancashire is currentlyengaged in a two year pilot project, entitled 'Theenhancement of remote-site teaching and learning',to explore further the value and potential of thesenew technologies to partnership enterprise. Fundedby a British Telecom university developmentaward of £100,000 over two years (1994-96), andbased upon BT's Integrated Services DigitalNetwork (ISDN) the project will focus on boththe administrative aspects of long haul progression(e.g. telematic enrolment and progression events)and academic delivery, with the BA Tr aching andTraining, the Cert. Ed. and Year 0 Engineeringprogrammes providing the first trials.

It should be stressed, however, that multi-mediatechnology is no quick or easy panacea to theproblem. It requires significant investment inequipment and in staff training and development.More significantly, returning once again to fitnessfor purpose, it will be important to ensure that thenew technology remains only a complement topersonal classroom experience, and does not takeits place. Since when has virtual reality been asgood as the real thing?

Mendip Papers 33

Conclusion: towards a futureagenda for partnership

Whilst the new technologies will clearly influencethe future of FHE partnerships there are many otherissues which must contribute to the future agenda.Of these, the following are of most immediaterelevance:

The development of a national creditframework

The notion of post-compulsory 'curricular merger'based upon a standard academic ecu (educationalcredit unit) has been advocated in several reportsand is worthy of very serious consideration. It hasthe potential to create a smooth moving pavementuntroubled by the expensive calibration proceduresof many of the current CAT schemes. In the post-corporate world, however, such a framework canonly emerge by consensus, not external imposition.

The development of an associatedegree

Given the inability (or disinclination?) to investsub-degree awards like the Dip. HE with eitheracademic or vocational credibility, it is appropriatefor a future agenda to include new awards, likethe associate degree, which challenge thecomplacency of a 30 per cent participation rateand which seek to harness the potential of the 70per cent still excluded from the HE experience.This new award, based upon a 2+2 or 2+1 model,could be delivered entirely within the FE/community college sector, and whilst forming thefoundation for guaranteed progression into thetraditional honours degree, it would be completeand coherent in itself. It could provide a broad-based, non-specialist curriculum, inculcating theskills of independent learning and articulating withthe new competency model inherent within G/NVQ.

An insistence on precise learning outcomes forthe associate degree, however, would require solidsupport from employers and professional bodies,and both a higher level of pedagogic precisionand intellectual sclf-restraint from academicsdelivering higher education across the board.

Associate college status and theexclusivity debate

In the buyer's market generated by HE expansionover recent years FE colleges have been tempted(or even lured) to enter agreements with severalHEIs and to play c le franchiser off against theother. Whatever developmental advantages thismultiple dealing may have given FEIs, they havealso been elf-set by multiple QA systems, multiplefunding regimes, multiple administrativestructures, and some progression instability forstudents. It is likely, therefore, in the ensuing eraof HE consolidation, that firmer, closer, more costeffective relationships will emerge based uponexclusive dealing and more long-term strategicplanning. Recently, for example, the Universityof Central Lancashire initiated a two-tiezed formof association with its college partners: licensedcollege status, which is non-exclusive, but whichlimits HE delivery to access and level one of HEprogrammes; and associate college status whichtrades exclusivity for (potentially) the delivery ofall academic levels. This move was not without itstears, but so far seven colleges have decided thatassociate status is in their best institutional interest.

Widening participation to under-represented groups

Whilst an overt rationale for FHE partnerships hasoften been the desire to widen participation, themore honest and more potcnt reason, at a time ofexpansion in HE, was to merely increaseparticipation. In this, franchising has been verysuccessful, and such success does not necessitatean apology. Zero growth in full-time HE numbers,however, provides partnerships with theopportunity to concentrate on widening access,particularly in the part-time study mode. Of course,partnership per se does not necessarily widenparticipation. Recent research on LINCS cohortshas revealed successes in this respect (a growingnumber of women returners) but also notablefailures (in attracting minority ethnic students intodegree provision). But by offering a familiaracademic halfway house, closer to home and withmore bespoke support, partnership provision doeshave greater potential to reach groups thatuniversities cannot reach.

34 Mendip Papers 3

The need for sustained research

It is pleasing to note the emergence, of late, of anew partnership literature, largely comprising ofsurveys of the nature and extent of HIE initiatives.What is now needed, however, is more focusedempirical research on specific schemes and fundedby national bodies. Such research may isolate bothgood and bad practice by exploring fundingarrangements, international partnerships, or thequality of the FHE interface, but particularemphasis needs to be given to initial cohort analysisand to longitudinal analysis of those partnershipstudents who progress into the HEI.

FHE franchising as a beginning andnot an end in itself

T'he development and expansion of this form ofpartnership has demonstrated the potential to erode

artificial binary lines and to move towards acoherent learning continuum within the UnitedKingdom. This achievement can now be enhancedby more mature and equal forms of partnership,including collaborative course development anddelivery and the straightforward validation of newHE programmes within FE, and extended toinclude all other providers of learning and training,including schools, and both the public and theprivate sectors. In this way, the universities canemancipate themselves from the constraints ofphysical plant and, as academic brokers, accreditlearning wherever it takes place.

Should any of this future agenda be implemented,then the central analogy of this contribution, thatof passing the baton, becomes less meaningful oreven irrelevant since there would be differentrunners on a different track running a differentrace. Indeed, the function of the baton itself wouldbecome less athletic and more orchestral.

Mendip Papers 1.31]

3

Managing and getting the commitmentPaul Gallagher and Pater Chambers, illustrations by Julie FletcherBradford and Ilkley Community College

Introduction

Identifying quality

Quality requires commitment but unless the natureof quality is clearly defined, getting commitmentis a very difficult and amorphous process. Allmembers of any organisation have got to knowwhat particular combination of standards,expectations and products relate to thatorganis. tion. Just as 'you can no more teach whatyou don't know than you can go back to whereyou ain't been', you can no more get commitmentto a quality you can't identify with than you canreach the standards and achievements that are thehallmarks of that quality.

Putting quality into an institutionalcontext

We cannot identify what we mean by qualitywithout describing the organisation whose qualitystandards we manage and to which we seek togain the commitment of our staff.

Bradford and Ilkley Community College is aunique contributor to higher education in theFurther Education Funding Council (1-hFC) sector.Large mixed economy colleges have distinctivecharacteristics, which include strong partnershipswith higher education institutions, usually basedon a substantial record of providing HEprogrammes. Our college has these characteristicsbut, in addition, the scale of its full-timeundergraduate programmes, just short of 3,000students, its extensive part-time programmes forabout 1000 students, and its long partnership withCNAA (Council for National Academic Awards)justify the claim to be unique. Added to the 5,500I-Ths in adult and further education, we have acomplement some 40,000 enrolments. Thus whatwe describe is based on a different experience fromthat with which many other FE colleges will befamiliar. Wc make much of the progression of ourown adult and further education students on to our

own higher education courses and to those ofneighbouring HEIs; we make a substantialprovision of access courses; and we recruitnationally to our higher education programme. Ouronly franchise is for FE teacher training withHuddersfield University. We franchise somehigher education provision to nearby FE colleges.Our partnership with the University of Bradford,following the demise of CNAA, is a strong one,with a joint policy and planning group made up ofequal representatives of the senior staff of thecollege and university and jointly chaired by thevice chancellor and the college principal. Acollegiate board of studies supervises the collegeprogrammes that lead to university awards and itreports to the senate and the college academicboard. The college has full representation on theuniversity's course and teaching standardscommittee. The university has approved thecollege's validation and review procedures for itsfree standing courses and we run some jointuniversity/college courses. It is a partnership basedon trust and mutual benefit.

Our 'mixed economy' position is not an unm:xedblessing. We have to comply with the requirementsof both funding councils and that certainly extendsthe administrative load as well as creating certainstrains on communication. We have to respond toHEFCE's quality assessment criteria as well asFEFC's inspection criteria. So far we have justifiedour self assessments of 'excellent' in applied socialwork and 'satisfactory' in business studies to thesatisfaction of HEFCE and we wait with interestthe visit of Terry Melia's FE inspectors inNovember 1995.

Strategies and operations

Thus our getting commitment to quality reflectsthat background. It is no accident that this

36 Mendip PapersLI 0

contribution is a joint act. It is possible to inferthat only lack of trust prevents an individualpresentation. From the principal's strategicposition, it is dangerous to let the operationalmanager speak too freely about what actually takesplace less the strategies appear to fait; whilst forthe director of academic programmes to allow thechief strategist to describe operations in public isto risk the citation of new and difficult 'strategicoperations'. Such an inference has credibility, butit is not going to be acknowledged here. What hasto be acknowledged is that the two dimensions,strategic and operational, are inextricablyconnected in the process of managing thecommitment.

Parallel pursuits

The establishment of the.college in 1982 was amerger which brought a whole set of qualityconcepts from its constituent colleges. By 1984,consequent upon a successful CNAA institutionalreview, we had committed ourselves publicly tomaking everyone quality conscious. The strategicconsiderations were about what kind of qualitywas required. The operational considerations wereabout what we needed to do to bring it about.Reading the books was easy. Peters andWaterman's In search of excellence (1982)offered a useful model, but its examples were alltoo American. Goldsmith and Clutterbuck's Thewinning streak (1985) was better. Britishexamples, albeit industrial, suggested that thequality characteristics of successful organisationscould be described and conceptualised in waysthat paralleled the educational enterprise.Businesses had to satisfy their customers bymaking quality products that were sufficiently

successful to attractcontinued investmentand finance from thecity. If their services fellshort on any of these

three factors:consumersatisfaction,

quality products andresource investment,

they didn't survive. It'sequally instructive to applythese features to the widerange of organisations thatfail as well as those that

succeed. The FE college has a similar task. It hasto satisfy its customers, the students and theirsponsors, by providing quality products, thecourses and services it offers, in order to attractfunding from its city, the fundi:lo councils. Thecollege principal, like the company managingdirector, has to juggle these different considerationsas the college defines what it wishes io achieveand how it sets about achieving it.

A successful product

The college's mixed economy reflects its origins.Bradford 'Tech', the school of art, colleges ofeducation and adult education centres had cometogether to create a comprehensivecollege of further and highereducation. It was the nearest thingto the people's university yetestablished. The 'ladder ofopportunity' was animage that quicklycaptured theimagination ofthe collegemembers.Initiallyit wasa verybadlyconstructed ladder.The rungs varied according to the competingpriorities of different awarding bodies, the supportsthat offered progression were at different levelsand the routes up the ladder were not guaranteed.Our quality consciousness required us to addresseach and every aspect of our 'ladder'.What we setout to achievewas a properlyconstructedladder. First itneeded goodinstitutionalsupport. It requiredus to defme moreclearly f$i

what 'N2E O 1@anigtargp cTO 00..t h ecollege's objectives were, what each member'srole was in achieving those objectives and howwe could empower each member to deliver them.In that way, the ladder's rungs were well defined

Mendip Papers 37

and reinforced and a consistent quality of buildwas established. By insisting on the same attentionbeing paid to quality, and detail on each rung,irrespective of its position on the ladder, our ladderof opportunity became both the definition ofquality and the way we measured its achievement.We brought the same quality assurance proceduresto bear on each rung of the ladder, determiningthat there should be no difference at each interface,whether it be FE/HE, GCSE/FE, ND/HD or AE/FE. Different traditions existed and differentcultures were dominant. What we are still workingon is blending those cultures into a new culturewhich ensures that our ladder of opportunity is aquality model.

Changing the model

Where the ladder leads is all important and herestrategists and operational managers are allowedto part company. The constant pursuit of quality

suggests that the top is neverreached. Quality is not static, but

dynamic.Quality wouldseem to be atreadmill ratherthan a ladder.Dependingwhere you arein the cycle itmight bedescribed as a

merry go round. Whatmatters when you have to manage

commitment is that that culturecommits all members agreeing to what the productis and how it will be achieved. At this stage, themetaphor needs to change. The ladder becomesthe process whereby the product is delivered. If

we think about the motorindustry, we can readily

recognise that cars forthe rich will conform

to different specifications to those for the massmarket. The same inter-relating features ofcustomers, product and investors detennine whatproduct will succeed. The education serviceappeals to a similar range of markets and so it toohas to identify its product. So our college had todecide where the ladder should take us. Bradfordand Ilkley college needed a model that wasappropriate to its comprehensive nature, one thatreflected the culture of quality to which it wascommitted.

A culture of quality

For in the end, it is the culture of the organisationthat determines and maintains the quality of itsproduct. We intend therefore to outline the historyand the story of how we mobilised the commitmentof our existing staff members (all of them: teachingand non-teaching alike) to the particular qualityproduct we draw from the college mission to whichwe are committed.

The story has three parts:

The process of defining the nature ofquality. What?The process of managIng quality. How?The process of analysing its origins andgetting and sustaining that commitment.Where does it come from?

b=tiENED

38 Mendip Papers

4 1"

The nature of quality

Definitions

The college quickly established a goal of qualityconsciousness, but members were unclear of itsprecise nature and how it could be developed. Thecommitment to progression, to building a ladderof opportunity shaped it, but defmitions were sodiverse that we needed to arrive at usabledefinitions. This represented the strategicdimension. The two main elements were:

fitness for purpose; andperformance to an agreed specification.

Questions about what purpose and whosespecifications led to us adding the achievement ofexcellence.

At the FEIHE intoface

Given the nature of the college, we were able toderive 'fitness of purpose' from the college'ssubstantial role in the further education sector. Wedetermined the performance specifications throughnegotiation between the demands of the FE sectorand those of the HE sector and in terms of meetingthe aspirations of our HE students, we set standardsof achievement that were comparable with thelevels of knowledge, skill and understandingprevalent in the HE sector.

Managing the commitment

At one level getting commitment to our modelwas easy. Using the motor manufacturing model,we needed to decide the type. Providing we couldget all those involved in its production to agree onthe actual model not a hybrid and, even moreimportantly not someone else's model, not anOxbridge version (Morris Oxford orAustin Cambridge?), nor a technicalcollege work horse (Leyland van orTam worth Robin?), nor even the seductionof a new Renault then the culture of FEwould do it for us. The sector is enterprisingenough. For all the public criticism, FE collegeshave demonstrated the relevance of theirprogrammes to the needs of local industry andthe community and they have grown in businessby responding to the multiple markets they have

to satisfy and have done so with integrity. We'vebeen cleared of fraud in the NVQ market, eventhough our customers lack awareness. In fact, wehave topped up what we've been paid in order toprovide the quality training.

It is getting the agreement about the nature of themodel and managing it that is difficult. The presentclimate no longer allows us the luxury of doingseparate deals. Accountability is much moreevident. Transparency has become a virtue.Forecasting and strategic planning may be thestarting point for funding, but outcomes determinewhether you get the actual £5 notes. The FE culturehas had to transcend its Arthur Daley image andrise to the more sophisticated market practices ofthe city. Separate deals have to be subordinated tocorporate identity, to getting agreement about ouractual production model: theBICC saloon.

Quality assurance processes

Self assessment

The management of quality requires therefore amajor exercise in agreeing what the model is.Arriving at the college mission is just that process.We spent months in the process because it wasconcerned with assessing ourselves and themeanings and values we placed on our programmes

as well as theprogrammesthemselves.

We tried toinvolve

everyonein the

et.Gfp nFip Oal (',E;D 7-44'*).-)

(

Vcc)

'P5',Ir 21i:c

(...517ts@VE\965_,V

Cq®uargcgicka-,7gr. c77-6 (.5KgTd

66')111111fi6as

Mendip Papers

4339

process. External imperatives probably started theprocess. It is important to have a culture thataccommodates external Lifluences. We had thewisdom to choose the CNAA as our validatingbody for HE. CNAA's concept of partnershiprequired us to develop our own systems to meettheir specifications of quality. Institutional reviewand the exercise of seeking accreditation taught usthe important principles of peer group review andvalidation to negotiate, not comply. Internalconsistency was more important than competentarticulation of principles and programmes. Indeed,people often rescued poor paper proposals.Running the car showed its worth; not the guff inthe brochure.

Systems

By applying CNAA type quality assuranceprinciples across the college, we establishedsystems that required all our course teams toarticulate the ways in which their programmesfitted in with the college mission, whether at theapproval stage or in the course of annual review;to accept that all lecturers involved had to be readyto defend what they did as part of a teamresponsible for the whole programme; and todemonstrate how they incorporated the judgmentsof external agents, as well as of their students andclients, into their decision-making.

It is interesting to reflect on the process. Since HEstaff had no choice, they quickly adopted andvalued the internal processes that were used todevelop internal consistency between coursedocumentation and actual practice and to actresponsively in a context of external evaluation.FE staff, under different external pressures, wereslower to engage, but soon realised how the collegeculture rewarded effective participation. It should,however, be noted that the latter took teachingquality for granted. Management affirmed thesystem, monitored its implementation and saw toit that resource reflected success.

Quality of teaching/ learning

The CNAA model did not go far enough. Theclose link with systems produced good systemsfor quality assurance. A sense of ownershipaccompanied close involvement in the processesof course design, descriptions of courseprogrammes and the presentation of evidence todemonstrate 'good health'. Such surrogate

evidence of the actual quality of teaching andlearning was fine if the student experience was agood one, or the salesman was persuasive, but itoffered us no advice on how to change the modelor improve the experience. Getting commitmentrequires the quality assurance procedures to focuson the actual experience in the classroom andworkshop. Quality has to be demonstrated on thetest drive as well as in the brochure's performancefigures. Now we go into classrooms just as REFCEassessors and FEFC inspectors have done. It is toosoon to claim that this more precise focus onteaching/learning is fully implemented, butproposals for a 'buddy system' and greaterreadiness to allow observers into classroomssuggests that many staff appreciate commitmentto quality at this level than they do morebureaucratic systems. When you are confident inyour product, a test drive is an opportunity, not achallenge.

aDD,MiT7 061 ligg16115001tPC30e-gM

)Vb

Culture

All of this has to become part of the culture of thecollege and of the habit patterns of collegemembers if commitment is to be sustained, once ithas been initiated.

Gcvbgeog

-

n17ak.1,,1

40 Mendip Papers

Communication

The CNAA experience had confirmed the valueof documentation in getting knowledge of themodel to all members, although a shot of Heinekenwould help to reach some parts of the college. Itprovides a framework for dialogue, a frame ofreference for staff and a measure for review andevaluation of the performance of our product. Itdemonstrates why you need 'an owner'shandbook'. Eventually, ours took the form of aquality assurance manual. Its value lies indescribing the product in terms of the twodefinitions with which we started:

fitness for purpose; andperformance to agreed specification.

It included policies, procedures andcommunications. It told us how to run the car,what we could expect of it and what we had to doif it went wrong. Equally importantly, it describedthe processes by which the third criterion wouldbe recognised. Excellence is not a static quality.We and the market are always looking for more.Value is a threshold; value added is a ladder. Theowner's manual has to be supplemented. That'swhere the gatage staff come in. Although thequality assurance manual assists communicationand describes the systems, it is the way that collegemembers implement the systems that ensures theachievement of excellence as a dynamic,progressive process.

Familiarity

Management (and reception) have little difficultyin familiarising themselves with the processes andthe requirements to conform to standards. That'stheir job. Other staff, however, have other demandsto satisfy. They have to deliver the product as wellas satisfy agreed quality criteria. Their conditionsof service sometimes prescribe their opportunitiesto do more than perform their specific sector role.They only have to produce part of the product.You don't have to be Karl Marx to understand thealienation of the production line if you apply thatconcept to the teaching/learning continuum. Youdon't have to be Charles Handy to see whymanagement must assist all staff members to seewhat their function is in delivering the productand in ensuring its quality. That is why we spent

so muCh time on agreeing the college mission, indiscussing with our staff their understanding of itand the degree to which they felt equipped todeliver it. Detailed analysis required us to shareunderstandings of our equality of opportunitypolicy, of our relationships to the Bradfordcommunity and of our eschewal of programmesthat were not vocational or were beyond ourcapabilities. Humanities and horticulture were forothers! Rolls Royces were for oil magnates.Effective management required us to incorporatethese consideration into the induction programmesfor new staff as well as into senior managementtraining so that all staff could inculcate qualityassurance into their habit systems. Staff trainingmust ensure that staff know the owner's manualbetter than the owner. Culture and habit are twopoles of the same process. Culture is the productof individual habits and their source and limitation,but unless the habits of members are consistentwith organisational culture, commitment will notfollow.

Habits

So, our staff must operate within clearcommunication systems and become familiar withthem. It means, as already outlined, agreement witha common identity and shared understanding ofthe product. It means that operations are conductedwithin clear and effective understandings of whatthe pruduct is and how every individual mattersbecause of their unique contribution to the totalmission. That must become part of their habitualwork, not like some staff of British Rail, who atbest blame the train in front or else othercolleagues, for example, the signallers, for latearrival. Getting commitment requiresunderstanding of each individual's place in theproduction of our agreed model and his or heracceptance of collective responsibility.

Feedback

The incorporation of effective quality assuranceprocedures into our institutional culture can onlybe ensured by continuous, comprehensive andeffective feedback. Only by paying constantattention to quality issues, can future funding besecured, the competitive edge be enhanced andour numbers maintaincd. So quality assurance hasto bc embedded into our systems at every level.

4 Mendip Papers 41

Our production manager takes an interest. Thedirector of academic programmes reads everyexaminer's and moderator's report and requiresaction on any challenge to quality standards fromthe appropriate head of department, who in turnensures that the course leader pursues it with thecourse committee. Every school maintains itsacademic standards committee, but since qualitybegins with our customers it has to be operated byeverybody. So it is documented and controlled byour institutional systems, roles and responsibilitiesare clearly-defined and we try to get everyone to'own' their individual responsibility, by directparticipation in review procedures that focus onour students' needs.

aro') r2z;6gE

rr--

urSan CncITOZVI-j-1aZial

SVE4 13 5a r

0=, W.C.107.ntsifLOVZ

Where does it come from?

Where quality commitment comes from needs ananalysis of the present position.

Staff concerns

The concern for quality starts with student needs,but introducing changes to meet such needs ignoresthe professional roles of staff at its peril. Unlesswe are disastrous employers, we appointed ourstaff because of their expertise and knowledge.If we are going to produce our model, it has toconform to their concerns or we risk mobilisingresistances and reducing job satisfaction. Thismust sound conservative. The professions oftenseem preoccupied with protecting the present ratherthan founding the future. Nevertheless, themanifestation of their power in the individual staffmember has to be the starting point of thenegotiation of the model's quality.

42 Mendip Papers

Institutional values

Each institution is unique and strong identity isthe mark of a successful organisation. That's wherethe vision and the mission come in. Theyencapsulate the values that determine the product;they are often the synthesis of the professionalconcerns members bring to their work; they willshape the needs analysis that prepares our strategiesfor meeting students' needs and clients'expectations.

Clients' expectations

Marketing our model requires interaction betweenwhat we are and where we are the context andlocation within which we operate. Our contextshapes our curriculum decisions. No qualitywithout equality makes sense for an institutionthat serves a population of which a quarter is ofminority ethnic origin.

Political pressures

Public funding means political accountability andeven political restraint. If the commitment toacademic freedom sends us off only in thedisinterested pursuit of sweetness and light we willget short shrift from our political masters; but wewould also fail to meet the product specificationswe have agreed. Equally, less formal influence onour model's design is exercised by key pressuregroups and opinion leaders. Their activities willimpinge on our management of quality and wemust address them.

ZUNg12HISIOPES at? -7-,a

;Zrirre,

(010S"SI

e3r)1.,

gtolffcogiANS.

ILOISpecf0045.

4 6

Histories

All these factors combine to produce the historyof both our product and our processes to produceand deliver it. They shape the culture of the college.Management needs to know that history and it hassucceeded if staff share the same story as theywork together in the production of the model.

Where do we want to go?

It follows that getting commitment to the qualitywe have defined has to accommodate all that hasbeen learnt from this analysis in order to managethe development of commitment to enhancing thatquality through strategic planning.

virklga@Wg VI

/06 se:SPAWN/.--

THAT *14WELLPOsfe

SESTRAPCS cN

Pow ER

cavecoa ,

admetr-951

1,1 a 000Ls}, custom(

!

/KITOGOi---- \ KANN IN t

,'..)-a-t_-=1...,,,

Job satisfaction

Product delivery must be a source of jobsatisfaction. The capacity to identify with thecorporate image of the product and to know whereyour activities fit in its successful production isclearly important. It must build on previoussources, but not rely on them. It is sustained bydialogue and support. What's in it for me? can nolonger be answered quite as positively as it was inthe halcyon days when promotion was a realisabledream; but it can't be answered by creating morework, more pain and discontinuity. One ofmanagement's jobs is to ease those processes.

Strategic planning

The development of programmes derives from thevalues of the institution. It is a truism that theprocess of strategic planning is about theoperationalisation of mission. It is still a featurethat has to be continually re-affirmed and the largerand more complex the organisation, the greaterthe value that coherence and clear direction has. Itis also worth reminding ourselves that even if anew model is called for, we can't usually affordthe luxury of a new production line.

Customer care

Customer care has to be the central concern ofquality management. Our picture of feedbackillustrated this by putting student opinion as thekey reference for understanding college cultureand shaping course design. Constructing thecollege charter was instructive. We nearly got backto the hybrid production model and producedseveral different charters. The reasons were purelydefensive. We tried to anticipate future litigation.When we went back to our mission, it fell intoplace. By asking what our customers needed andwhat we expected of them, we produced a singleunified document that is useful to us in describingour product and the quality of the services we aretrying to provide.

..'estraints on power

Ideology is an important element of values andtherefore of quality, but realism is a necessarycomponent of the management of an effective andefficient service. Again, it is important that all staffare realistic and aware and senior management isopen and clear about the restraints within whichthe college has to operate.

Futures

If history starts the process, the picture of wherewe want to go and what we want to achievecontinues it. So as we look forward to a newproduction model, we have to decide what we needto do in each of these areas. We hope it is aboutcreating novel approaches.

Mendip Papers 43

What do we need to do?

The element of 'design' necessary for change stillrequires some exercise of judgment. Stability ineducation is perhaps the most future orientatedvalue of the lot. Certainly Dearing's promise offive years' stability in the National Curriculumwon the hearts of teachers because of its novelty.It leaves us with a view that getting commitmentto quality is about getting commitment to managedchange. We need novel answers to these fivequestions:

For staff members: What's in it for me?How do we convince the people in thesystem that it's in their interests to change?How do we build on their professionalcommitment?

For the strategic planners: Where does itfit? How we can ensure the new product isfit for purpose?

For our customers: How do we market it?How do we make the contact that marriesour product with their needs?

For our paymasters: Who mustwe satisfy? How do weinfluence the powerbrokers, the pressuregroups and the opinionleaders and satisfythem of the utility andquality of our product?

Conclusion

If institutions are prepared to keep posing thosequestions as new ones each time, we will keep thetreadmill of quality turning. Without them, we willneed a comparative study, not of 'The role ofwilderness in the American mind' but of the roleof bewilderment in the English academic mind.We won't have an appropriate product for thefuture and if we don't have a product, we won'thave commitment. That is why the new BICCsaloon is a car with wings.

References

Goldsmith and Clutterbuck (1985) The winningstreak. Penguin

Peters, T and R Waterman (1982) In search ofexcellence. Harper & Row

For our planners: How dowe change?

W110 rivS1 cartfFy? sa.sz mime

j14111_40>""

44 Mendip Papers

Workshop summary

This section summarises the issues raised anddiscussions held in the three workshop sessions.Together with the summary of key issues fromdelegates' pre-conference questionnaires (seepages 4-6 above), these provide an agenda forfuture research and development.

Workshop 1: Identifying the issues

Clarification of the rationales for F/HEcollaboration from all parties involved,including sector-wide funding and qualitybodies, was thought to be essential toprogress. This would need to relate toindividual institutional missions anddefinitions of quality. The importance ofopenness, trust and recognition of differentstrengths and weaknesses between partnerinstitutions was emphasised.

Whilst it was felt important to value thediversity of collaborative provision,considerable uncertainty surrounded muchof the terminology used; although staff insome FEIs were now more 'expert' in itsinterpretation, new institutions wereembarking on such relationships without anationally agreed set of definitions or clearand detailed advice on best practice.

- Concern was expressed that muchcollaborative provision was still not carricdout in a spirit of equal partnership. In theface of resource difficulties some HEIssacrificed partnerships rather than imposingconstraints on internal departments withoften devastating effects on students' abilityto progress. Consequently there was a majorerosion of trust between some FE/HEpartners, reinforced by the perceived short-termism of HEIs linked to annual fundingcontracts.

- Such turbulence was not conducive to anatmosphere of effective quality assuranceand concerns were expressed about how to

establish systems which were ownedeffectively by both partners and recognisedthe strength of existing practices.Considerable ambiguity could arise over theinvolvement of external examiners andsome difficulties had been caused byinterventions of professional bodies withlittle experience of collaborativearrangements. Concerns were being feltincreasingly by FEIs over the processesconducted by the HEQC not only in respectof the audit procedure but also how thediscussions over standards would beconducted.

Concern was also expressed about thevariety of frameworks for quality assuranceacross funding, professional andexamination bodies. This could lead to aposition of FEIs being servants of too many,sometimes conflicting, masters. Thedifficulties were compounded when an FEIhad engaged in partnership arrangementswith more than one HEI. Student chartersand pressure for national degree standardswill also have an impact.

Following incorporation FEIs faced acompeting set of dilemmas in establishingtheir strategic priorities. Given theuncertainties over funding they had tobalance diversification against mission drift,and proportions of full-time to part-timeprovision as well as choosing appropriatepartners. All these had to be set against theimperative of ensuring the best experiencefor students. The impact of the developmentof a mass higher education system on thequality of the student experience forms thecontext for discussions of quality in F/HEpartnerships.

- Particular problems were recognised withlong-distance partnership arrangements,especially on the effect on studentprogression.

Mendip Papers 45

Workshop 2: Managing qualityassurance

It was recognised that the great variety ofquality assurance systems operating in bothFE and HE made it difficult to identify themost appropriate mechanisms for evaluatingcollaborative provision. Some systems hada focus on student satisfaction, others onthe operation of the partnershiparrangements; furthermore it was difficultto know whether there should be anemphasis on evaluation at the module orcourse/programme level. Concerns werealso expressed about the balance betweenannual monitoring and periodic review inorder that both operational and strategicissues were addressed effectively.

Concerns were voiced that the operation ofcollaborative provision would depend moreon personalities than systems. It wasrecognised that arrangements were ofteninstigated at the strategic rather than theoperational level with the consequence thatfront-line staff were often involved inpartnerships without attention being givento their other commitments. Furthermore,as quality assurance arrangements forpartnerships became more part ofmainstream QA activities some HEIs wereimposing inappropriate demands on partnerinstitutions or failing to acknowledge theQA arrangements already in place withexisting partners when establishing newcollaborations.

Some disquiet was expressed that the 'neworthodoxy' which emphasised partnershipfailed to recognise some of the advantagesthat the franchise model offered. Inparticular FEIs new to collaborativeprogrammes could avoid the dangers ofreinventing the wheel by concentrating oncustomising off-the-shelf existing franchiseprogrammes which had been market-testedpreviously by the HEI. Once institutionswere accustomed to working together moretruly collaborative programmes could beproduced building on appropriate staffdevelopment and mutual trust. In such amodel effective QA systems could also be

built since FE and HEE staff have a restrictednumber of issues upon which to work.

Further and higher education should aim torespond their quality procedures to theexpectations and agenda set by business andcommerce. Some employers now requirethe whole of a degree course to be takenwithin a university before they will offeremployment. It was reported that more than50 per cent of graduates currently do notobtain employment in their degree subjectarea: employers should be encouraged todefine their real needs. Often there am manysmall employers with differingrequirements. Local employers often wanta short-term 'training provision' and therecan be tensions with national bodies. Leadbodies and professional bodies appear tobe developing conflicts over NVQ levels 4and 5. A question for the CBI might be'How can your members convince those ofus in education that you have qualityassurance procedures in place that willensure for us that your advice is reliable?'.If practices in industry, commerce or aprofession change during the duration of acourse, then fitness for practice (purpose)may be affected. Part-time courses maychange appreciably during their durationand flexibility is important in validationprocedures.

Workshop 3: Recommendations forenhancing quality

There needs to be a nationally agreeddefinition of terms used in collaborativeprovision which recognises the diversity ofgood practice in partnership, including therange of appropriate mechanisms for qualityassurance.

All collaborative arrangements to beunderpinned by clear written agreementswhich cover initial institutional agreements,monitoring and review procedures(including QA), mutual rights andresponsibilities, obligations to students, andarrangements for terminating thepartnership.

46 Mendip PapersiU

Collaborative arrangements should beestablished at two levels" institutional andcourse. HEIs should normally accept otherHE institntions' QA agreements forinstitutional recognition and only imposerequirements for course level where thecourse team in the FEI and the HEI had thekey responsibility for QA.

There needs to be mutual support betweenFE and HE to maintain partnerships andobligations to students even in times ofresource constraints, national policy shiftsand reductions in student numbers. Studentson partnership schemes should be asimportant to the HEI as all other students.

To support student progression through acollaborative system there needs to be:

i) a focus on students and the studentexperience in collaboration and the qualityassurance criteria;

ii) clearly identified progression routes,backed up by high-quality guidance. Thismight include, in geographically dispersedsystems, an openness about howprogression may be difficult;

iii) consideration of the implications ofdelivering whole HE programmes in FE andhow this relates to what have been seen asthe essential features of the studentexperience in HE;

iv) jumping-off points for students withvalued and useful credits within a ladder ofprogression and with agreed ways to jumpback on again;

v) explicit consideration of progression toemployment with employer involvement inthe collaboration if possible;

vi) account taken of the diversity of studentsinvolved in collaborative ventures,especially as such ventures often have aspart of their aims widening access to HE.

The funding councils need to establishpolicies about the funding of HE in FEIs.

Those responsible for the national policyagenda should ensure that there is effectiveand regular communication betweenthemselves which is accompanied byunambiguous communications to both theFE and HE sector. Some stability in policyformulation would also be of greatassistance in ensuring the quality ofprovision.

The research agenda needs to recognise thedanger of focusing on quality fears and badpractice. There should be research into goodpractice in collaboration, to identify andpublicise examples of high qualityprovision, and to identify precisely what,for students, make a good quality F/HEexperience.

Mendip Papers

;Ji47

About the Mendip Papers

The Mendip Papers are a topical series of bookletswritten specially for managers in further and highereducation. As managers and governors take on newresponsibilities and different roles they face newchallenges, whether in the areas of resource andfinancial management or in the pursuit of quality,the recruitment of students and the development ofnew personnel roles. The Mendip Papers provideadvice on these issues and many more besides.

Some of the papers provide guidance on issues ofthe moment. Others offer analysis, providingsummaries of key recent research studies or surveys.The authors are experts in their areas and offerinsights into the ways in which the fields of post-school education and training are changing.

Mendip Papers provide up-to-date information onimportant current issues in vocational education

and training, as well as summaries of researchstudies and surveys, along with informed andsometimes controversial perspectives on the. issues.Managers need Mendip Papers to keep abreast ofcurrent developments and to deal with key problemsand challenges. Staff development officers andtrainers will find them invaluable as a basis for in-college m anagement training and staff developmentactivities.

The list of Mendip Papers is growing steadily. Ifyou have tackled a particular piece of research orconducted a survey in the fields of further, higher oradult education, or have undertaken an innovativemanagement initiative which would be of interestto other managers, please contact the series editor,Lynton Gray, at The Staff College with a view topublishing your work and disseminating itthroughout the post-school education system.

Titles in the series

Curriculum management

MP073 Putting the learner first: support through flexible learning 1994 £3.50

Jean Bolton

MP 071 Learning difficulties and the power of labelling in ABESue Bergin and Andy Johnson 1994 £3.50

MP 060 Explaining non-completion rates in Scottish universitiesAlan Wood ley 1994 £3.50

MP 058 A flexible approach to learning: articulating coursesJ E McLachlan and Vivienne Wood 1994 £3.50

MP 019 Solving the problem of mathematicsSir Roy Harding CBE 1991 £2.50

Further education and vocational education and training

MP 072 Vocationai qualifications and SLDD learners awork based learning approachMargaret Levy 1994 £4.00

MP 067 Raising quality in a competitive environment:the Dutch experienceJan Maas 1994 £4.00

MP 066 Raising quality in a competitive environment:the New Zealand experienceMargaret McCall and Bob Willyams 1994 £4.00

MP 065 Raising quality in a competitive environment:the Canadian experienceRobert Gordon and Bill Sinnett 1994 £4.00

MP 064 Raising quality in a competitive environment:the British experienceGeoffrey Melling and John Graystone 1994 £4.00

MP 056 'Funding learning' and all that: a synopsis of six reportsBob Kedney and Alison Scott 1993 £5.00

MP 047 Prison education's role in challenging offendingbehaviourPaul Ripley 1993 £3.00

MP 046 Preparing and presenting project reports ineducation managementLynton Gray 1992 £3.00

MP 043 Post-16 participation: the success storyDavid Pardey 1992 £5.00

MP 022 Prison education in England and Wales (revised)Paul Ripley 1993 £2.50

MP 011 Essential acronyms in further, higher and adulteducation (revised June 1994)John Graystone and Margaret King 1994 £3.50

Human esources

MP 069 A focus for human resource management in FEAndrew Betts 1994 £3.50

MP 063 Strategic evaluation of staff developmentJonathan Simmons 1994 £4.00

MP 052 Investors in People in the college context:the Weymouth College experienceCaroline Cheeseman and Anne Tate 1993 £4.50

MP 051 Coping with incapabilityBob Saunders and Bob Kedney 1993 £5.00

MP 050 Job evaluation in the FE corporationBob Saunders 1993 £6.00

MP 040 Power, authority, autonomy and delegation:a discursive journey round some big wordsColin Turner 1992 £4.50

MP 039 Soft-systems methodology: an approach toproblem-solving in the management ofeducationJorji Kowszun 1992 £3.50

MP 037 Job analysis and the preparation ofjob descriptionsBob Saunders 1992 £4.50

MP 035 Leadership and its functions in further and highereducationDerek Marsh 1992 £4.50

MP 033 Motivating staffColin Turner 1992 £3.50

MP 027 Creativity and managementColin Turner 1991 £4.00

MP 013 The role of the new vice-principalChristine Megson 1991 £3.50

5 4

Legislation and gayer nance

MP 078 Managing contract changeBob Kedney and Ted Ulas 1995 £5.00

MP 042 Reviewing the college disciplinary procedureBob Kedney and Bob Saunders 1992 £5.00

MP 041 Governance and incorporation: style and strategyBob Kedney 1992 £4.00

MP 038 The effects of employment legislation on collectivebargainingBob Saunders 1992 £3.00

MP 036 Governing corporate colleges (revised)John Graystone 1992 £6.00

MP 032 FE incorporation checklist for managers (revised)John Graystone 1992 £5.00

MP 025 FE funding and delegation schemes an exegesisDavid Atkinson 1991 £4.00

MP 018 Effective meetingsJohn Graystone 1991 £3.00

MP 016 Education reform legislation in the UK: a summaryJohn Graystone 1991 £4.00

Organisational theory

MP 015 Structures fact and fictionColin Turner . 1991 £5.00

MP 008 The perception of threat and the reality of declinein organisationsCohn Turner 1991 £3.50

MP 007 Organisational cultureColin Turner 1990 £4.50

MP 006 Socialisation into organisationsColin Turner 1990 £2.50

MP 005 Responding to change: the need for flexible collegestructures and practicesColin Turner 1990 £2.50

Planning and marketing

MP074 Strategic planning for adult educationPablo Foster and Bob Powell 1994 £5.00

MP 061 Strategic planning in FE: the impact of incorporationRick Dearing 1994 £3.00

MP 057 Using market research to aid educational decision-makingPeter Davies 1993 £4.50

MP 055 Towards parity of esteem? Marketing Advanced GNVQsPeter Davies 1993 £5.50

MP 049 Academic planning in the corporate collegeAlison Scott, Bob Kedney and Lynton Gray 1993 £4.50

MP 048 The competitive positioning of further educationcollegesAli Bakir 1993 £4.50

MP 031 Establishing customer needs and perceptionsBert Roberts 1992 £5.00

Quality and performance

MP 080 Managing quality assurance at the FE/HE interface 1995 £4.50Edited by Sue Brownlow

MP 077 FEFC inspection and the role of the internal nominee 1995 £3.00Malcolm Tipper

MP 075 The industrial and philosophicalorigins of quality assurance 1994 £5.00Edward Sallis

MP 070 A framework for quality managementEdward Sallis 1994 £5.00

MP 059 Equal outcomes equal experiences?Edited by Sue Brownlow 1994 £5.50

MP 045 The Northern Ireland further education qualityassurance surveyGerard Devlin 1992 £3.00

MP 034 Management and accountability in professional organisationsSociety for Research into Higher Education;editor Dr Helen Brown 1992 £5.00

MP 028 Developing common PIs and assessing effectivenessand qualityPeter Allsop 1991 £3.00

MP 020 College quality assurance systemsEd Sallis and Peter Hingley 1991 £5.50

MP 010 Performance indicators and adult educationPablo Foster 1991 £4.50

MP 009 The National Quality SurveyEd Sallis 1990 £4.50

Resour ces and technology

MP 079 Financing accommodation developmentsEdited by Sue Brownlow 1995 £5.00

MP 076 Value for money case studiesEdited by Bob Kedney 1995 £3.50

MP 068 Learning and technology in the further education sectoreds. Lynton Gray and Ann-Marie Warrender, with acontribution from Sir Gordon Higginson 1994 £4.50

MP 062 Funding flexibilityBob Kedney and Sty! Brownlow 1994 £5.50

MP 054 50 or more ways to reduce costs:opportunity analysis and selectionBob Kedney and Trefor Davies 1993 £5.00

MP 053 Designing a college accommodation strategy 1993 £5.50Bob Kedney

MP 044 The management of resource-based learningJeff Cooper 1993 £3.00

MP 029 PCFC funding: the first three yearsTony Jeans 1991 £3.50

MP 021 . Accommodation planning one polytechnic'sexperienceMichael Murphy 1991 £5.00

MP 004 Management staff ratios and unit costsBob Kedney 1991 £3.00

5.e