Program Directors and the Quality Agenda

1. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA Program Directorsand the Quality Agenda Lucy Schulz, Director: Student and Academic Services June 2002 Educating Professionals - Creating and Applying Knowledge - Serving the Community

2. Outline of presentation • The current quality agenda in higher education • What we know about AUQA • What we think is important for AUQA • Lessons from other places • Some guiding principles • Features of a quality system • The audit process • UniSA’s response so far • Areas of potential strength and weakness

3. The current quality agenda in higher education • A significant change in public funding • Increased competition • A growing consumer rights movement • Increased performance data in the public arena • Closer external scrutiny • Rapid developments in IT-enabled learning

4. While there is widespread acceptance that the standard of higher education is being maintained in a period of rapid growth and change, attention is being paid to such matters as selection procedures for admission, curricula, student attrition rates, length of study, staff qualifications, financing and costs of study, and research capability. It is in the interest of higher education to be able to present evidence systematically on the ways in which these and like matters are being addressed.(Skilbeck and Connell, 2000; 3)

5. What we know about AUQA • Full audits have commenced (Curtin and Adelaide are two of the universities to be audited in 2002) • AUQA is a company owned by State and Territory Ministers of Education. The Board consists of 12 members including 3 Commonwealth Govt. nominees, 3 State and Territory nominees, 4 elected representatives from the self accrediting Universities, 1 elected representative from the non self accrediting institutions and the CEO of the Agency • The CEO is David Woodhouse who was formerly Head of the NZ Academic Audit Unit • AUQA website is http://www.auqa.edu.au/

6. More about AUQA • The agency has a small core of staff and appoints experts to panels as required (Ruth Grant, Michael Rowan, Kym Adey and Bruce King are all trained external auditors) • Audits are based on broad criteria, and are conducted against each institution’s mission/ goals (what do we say about ourselves and our aspirations) • Audit reports will be published in the public domain • Audits to be conducted every five years and to be based on a detailed self assessment (portfolio prepared by the University being audited)

7. Issues of importance to AUQA – today’s list • International activities • On line learning • Operations through other parties • New relationships, networks and partnerships • Complaints and grievances • Standards • Risk Management

8. Lessons from other places • The UK experience • Institutional and discipline based reviews • Adversarial rather than helpful • The HK experience • Oldest quality accreditation agency • Rigorous and well funded approach • Woodhouse was formerly a Deputy Director • US and Canada • No national system • Disaggregated with different quality agencies

9. Lessons from other places • The NZ experience • Academic Audit Unit established by NZ VCs • Very similar to CCQAHE in Australia during the early 1990s • National and institutional themes • Commences with self assessment • Audits every two years

10. A principled approach • A shared language and understanding of the University’s approach to quality • Integrated development of academic and support systems • Evidence based decisions and priorities • Efficient and focused tracking measures • Attention to mission and reputation

11. A principled approach • Agreed quality development priorities are addressed promptly, innovatively and collaboratively • Leadership at all levels of the organisation • Attracting and retaining quality staff • Change is organisational learning • Quality assurance and improvement occur in a cyclical not linear fashion

12. Features of a quality system (AUQA manual 2001) • Proximity (well designed systems and processes, quality and its assurance involve both professional and management functions) • Feedback (QA is a continuous, active and responsive process) • Indicators (outcomes make reference to standards) • Externality (external points of reference, responsive to national and international contexts)

13. The audit process • What is the University’s system for assuring the quality of what we do? Consider these four dimensions: • Approach (what are we trying to achieve, do we understand our context and capabilities, from mission to specific strategy) • Deployment (how effectively is the approach being implemented, are staff able to undertake requirements, are there adequate resources) • Results (how well are we achieving what we set out to do, what are the results for our stated objectives) • Improvement (do we know how we can improve and in what areas, what information are we using)

14. Developing a UniSA response • Documented our quality framework - see our website at http://www.unisa.edu.au/quality/index.htm • Understanding our strengths and weaknesses and identifying gaps • Refining our planning and review processes • A stronger emphasis on assurance and revisions to policies eg. A35A. • Self assessment in the lead up to AUQA audits

15. Areas of potential strength and weakness? • Community and stakeholder relationships (industry links, operations of advisory c’tees, professions etc) • Relationships with VET sector • Benchmarking (especially internationally) • Quality rhetoric versus reality • Tracking performance over time • Graduate qualities strategy – across the University • Processes for reviewing progress in accordance with Statement of Strategic Intent • Quality of transnational programs and their management • Student feedback

16. Australia is part of a global community delivering higher education and the increased emphasis on quality assurance is a global phenomenon. We must have a national quality assurance framework that is internationally credible.(Kemp in Skilbeck and Connell, 2000; 59)