5. Memorandum submitted by
the Teacher Education Advisory Group
INTRODUCTION
1. The Teacher Education Advisory Group
(TEAG) is a joint committee of Universities UK and the Standing
Conference of Principals (SCOP), the representative organisations
for universities and higher education colleges. TEAG's members
are Vice-Chancellors and Principals of higher education institutions
(HEIs) with significant interests and expertise in teacher education.
The Group is chaired by Professor Bob Burgess, Vice-Chancellor
of the University of Leicester, and its members are:
Professor Eileen Baker, Principal, Bishop Grosseteste
College.
Professor Colin Lucas, Vice-Chancellor, University
of Oxford.
Dr Arthur Naylor, Principal, St Mary's College.
Professor Michael Sterling, Vice-Chancellor,
University of Birmingham.
Professor Rick Trainor, Vice-Chancellor, University
of Greenwich.
Dame Janet Trotter, Vice-Chancellor, University
of Gloucestershire.
Professor Graham Upton, Vice-Chancellor, Oxford
Brookes University.
Professor Geoff Whitty, Director, Institute of
Education.
2. TEAG welcomes the opportunity to submit
evidence on the work of Ofsted. Our evidence focuses on Ofsted
inspection arrangements for teacher training within higher education
and reflects established Universities UK and SCOP policy.
CURRENT INSPECTION
ARRANGEMENTS FOR
TEACHER EDUCATION
3. Universities UK and SCOP have been concerned
for many years at the heavy inspection regime for initial teacher
training in higher education and its lack of alignment with the
processes of the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). Providers have
faced a heavy burden of inspection, despite the vast majority
of ITT provision being assessed as good or better. Ofsted and
the QAA have failed to engage significantly in examining whether
their respective processes could be brought together in any way.
4. We have welcomed the introduction by
Ofsted and the Teacher Training Agency (TTA) of a revised inspection
framework from September 2002 which goes some way towards reducing
the burden of inspection and the demands on providers. The Ofsted/TTA
framework is, however, still inconsistent with, and takes no account
of, the new QAA audit-based approach (and vice versa).
Quality assurance in higher education has now developed to the
extent that greater focus can be placed on quality enhancement.
The current QAA model gives time for the development of enhancement
activities and we believe that such an approach should also be
reflected in Ofsted's work so that Education Departments can benefit
in a way similar to other subjects. TEAG would welcome informed
dialogue between all the key stakeholders on ways to streamline
and integrate quality assurance processes in teacher education
and other parts of higher education.
REDUCING BUREAUCRACY
IN HIGHER
EDUCATION
5. The Higher Education White Paper has
recognised the need to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy in higher
education, building on the work of the HEFCE-funded Better
Accountability project7 and the Better Regulation Task Force
(BRTF) report, Higher Education: Easing the Burden.8 The
BRTF report recommended that:
The DfES should ensure that HEFCE, the TTA, the
QAA and Ofsted work together to co-ordinate quality assurance
reviews and to explore where they can share review data. A protocol
for co-ordinating these activities should be agreed by the end
of 2002 (Recommendation 4, part 3).
6. The report also commented[7]
that:
. . . there is virtually no co-ordination between
the QAA and Ofsted. We were given examples of HEIs being inspected
by Ofsted one week and QAA[8]
the next. There is clearly scope for better co-ordination and
some sharing of evidence (BRTF report, section 7.6).
7. To date, we are unaware of any discussions
in relation to the recommended protocol for co-ordinating Ofsted
and QAA activities in HEIs. While the Higher Education White
Paper reports on progress being made in discussions between Ofsted/ALI
and the QAA[9],
this is in relation to current inspection and quality assurance
arrangements in further education colleges; no such commitment
to reducing the overall burden of accountability for teacher training
providers in higher education has been made to date.
8. Universities UK and SCOP have welcomed
the establishment of the new Bureaucracy Task Group to take forward
further work on better accountability and hope that this issue
can be considered within the Group's work programme. A new model
could draw on the experience of the recent productive collaboration
between the QAA and the Department of Health in developing and
evaluating new prototype reviews for nursing, midwifery, health
visiting and allied health professions. Six prototype reviews
have been undertaken by the QAA under contract to the Department
of Health, working in partnership with the Health Professions
Council, the Nursing and Midwifery Council and the Workforce Development
Confederations. The QAA report on the initiative[10]
draws on a range of evaluative data to inform recommendations
for consideration by the Department of Health and their partners
and stakeholders for an integrated and streamlined review method
for Major Review of NHS-funded health profession programmes between
2003 and 2006.
CONCLUSION
9. In its consideration of the work of OFSTED,
TEAG hopes that the Select Committee will take account of our
continuing concerns about the failure of OFSTED and the QAA to
make any significant progress in reducing the burden of inspection
for universities and HE colleges providing teacher training. We
need an approach which is properly rigorous while developing more
integrated and streamlined processes.
March 2003
7 Better accountability for higher education, Report
00/36, HEFCE, 2000. Back
8
Higher Education: Easing the Burden, BRTF, July 2002. Back
9
The future of higher education, Annex B: Work to reduce
bureaucracy in higher education, DfES, 2003. Back
10
Department of Health prototype review: QAA evaluation report
and example report, QAA, December 2002. Back
|
