Benchmarks and Benchmarking

1
Benchmarks and Benchmarking in the UK - Lessons
Learned Catherine Connor Quality Enhancement
Unit London Metropolitan University
2
1. Context - Higher Education in the
UK2. Context-London Metropolitan University3.
Quality Standards Benchmarks Quality
Assurance Agency4. Benchmarking in Higher
Education in the UK5. London Metropolitan
University Quality Management
Benchmarking6. Lessons Learned
3
Benchmarks and Benchmarking

• Benchmarks are reference points or
  measurements used for comparison, usually with
  the connotation that the benchmark is a 'good'
  standard against which comparison can be made
• Benchmarking is a process of finding good
  practice and of learning from others
• Benchmarking is also a means of measuring
  performance against comparator institutions

4
Higher Education in the UK
Country Universities Higher Education Institutions
England 89 131
Scotland 14 19
Wales 10 11
Northern Ireland 2 4
United Kingdom    115 165
5
Statistics UK 2011/12
Students 2,496,645 Undergraduate 1,928,140 Postgraduate 568,505 Income (k) 27,798,559 Staff 378,250 Academic 181,385 Non-academic 196,860 Expenditure (k) 26,684,729
6
Universities/HEIs in the UK
7
London Metropolitan University - past
8
London Metropolitan University - today
9
Holloway
Moorgate
Aldgate
10
(No Transcript)
11
(No Transcript)
12
(No Transcript)
13
Degree Awarding Powers and University Title in
the UK
165 recognised bodies with Degree Awarding Powers
and 700 others delivering HE courses
14

• Quality Assurance Agency, UK

15
How does the UK QAA safeguard standards?

• QAA is independent of government and
  universities
• Each institution is responsible for the quality
  and standards of their awards
• The UK Quality Code for Higher Education
  provides institutions with guidance on benchmark
  expectations on quality and standard
• The QAA audits compliance and highlights good
  practice through Higher Education Review (HER)
  every 6 years

16
UK QUALITY CODE for Higher Education
17
The UK Quality Code

• The purpose of the Quality Code is
• to safeguard the academic standards of UK higher
  education
• to assure the quality of the learning
  opportunities that UK higher education offers to
  students
• to promote continuous and systematic improvement
  in UK higher education
• to ensure that information about UK higher
  education is publicly available and accurate.
• The Code gives individual higher education
  providers a shared starting point for setting and
  maintaining the academic standards of their
  higher education programmes and awards

18
The Quality Code
The Quality Code has 3 parts comprising of a
number of chapters Each chapter has an
Expectation and a number of indicators. Part A
Setting and maintaining threshold academic
standards Part B Assuring and enhancing
academic quality  Part C Public Information
19
Qualification and Subject Benchmarks

• Framework for Higher Education Qualifications
• provide important points of reference for setting
  and assessing academic standards
• promote a common understanding of the
  Expectations associated with typical
  qualifications by facilitating a consistent use
  of qualifications titles

20
Qualification and Subject Benchmarks

• Subject benchmark statements provide a means for
  the academic
• community to
• describe the nature and characteristics of
  programmes in a specific subject or subject
  discipline.
• represent general expectations about standards
  for the qualifications at each level - the
  attributes and capabilities that those possessing
  qualifications should have demonstrated.

21
National Level Data for Benchmarking

• Key Information Sets the items of information
  which students find most useful when making
  choices about which course to study
• Unistats
• League Tables
• The Guardian
• The Complete University Guide

22
Entry requirements

• Each university has different entry
  qualifications and requirements - minimum grade
  or total number of tariff points
• Some institutions take additional information
  into consideration, such as contextual data about
  school or postcode
• UCAS Tariff points held by students previously
  enrolled on the course.

23
Employment Data

• The Destination of Leavers from Higher Education
  (DLHE) survey
• Recent graduates - working, studying, looking for
  work or even travelling
• If employed, they supply job description and
  details of the company
• Survey - in two parts
• an early survey covering all students who
  complete their course roughly six months after
  completing
• and a later survey of a sample of these
  respondents three and a half years (40 months)
  later on.
• 80 complete the early survey
• 40 complete the later survey

24
(No Transcript)
25
Full-time degree leavers entering employment by
employment circumstances and occupation 2010/11
Full-time Primeros degree leavers entering employment by employment circumstances and occupation 2010/11 Full-time Primeros degree leavers entering employment by employment circumstances and occupation 2010/11 Full-time Primeros degree leavers entering employment by employment circumstances and occupation 2010/11 Full-time Primeros degree leavers entering employment by employment circumstances and occupation 2010/11 Full-time Primeros degree leavers entering employment by employment circumstances and occupation 2010/11 Full-time Primeros degree leavers entering employment by employment circumstances and occupation 2010/11
Standard Occupational Classification Employed full-time in paid work Employed part-time in paid work Self-employed/freelance Voluntary work/other unpaid work Total in employment
Managers and senior officials 9200 1015 980 140 11335
Professional occupations 34615 2970 975 1055 39610
Associate professional and technical occupations 36045 5900 4575 3060 49575
Administrative and secretarial occupations 9470 3070 90 795 13425
Skilled trades occupations 820 355 245 60 1480
Personal service occupations 5925 3380 220 770 10295
Sales and customer service occupations 8285 12355 55 220 20915
Process, plant and machine operatives 430 255 45 20 755
Elementary occupations 4465 6010 130 115 10720
Not known 195 55 10 60 325
Total 109445 35365 7330 6295 158440
Source HESA Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education Institutions 2010/11 Source HESA Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education Institutions 2010/11 Source HESA Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education Institutions 2010/11 Source HESA Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education Institutions 2010/11 Source HESA Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education Institutions 2010/11 Source HESA Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education Institutions 2010/11
See Annex below for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland figures See Annex below for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland figures See Annex below for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland figures See Annex below for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland figures See Annex below for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland figures
26
The National Student Survey (NSS)

• annual survey of final year university students
  canvassing their opinion about what they liked
  and did not like about their student learning
  experience during their time in higher education.
  
• statements are put to students who rate their
  university and course on a five-point scale from
  'definitely disagree' to 'definitely agree'. The
  groups of statements cover topics such as
• The teaching on my course
• Assessment and feedback
• Academic support
• Organisation and management
• Learning resources
• Personal development

27
(No Transcript)
28
(No Transcript)
29
(No Transcript)
30
http//unistats.direct.gov.uk/
31
(No Transcript)
32
What we do at London Met

• QAA Benchmarks
• Benchmarking

33
Quality Assurance at London Met General Principles

• National QA standards (reference points) informed
  by international standards
• Quality culture promoted at national and
  institutional level
• shared values and commitment to quality assurance
  and enhancement
• structures to support this
• Institutional responsibility linked to senior
  executive
• All staff fully engaged in quality assurance and
  enhancement

34
Quality Manual

• Institutional quality assurance and enhancement
  procedures, guidance and templates including
• procedures for the approval, monitoring and
  periodic review of courses
• procedures for student engagement and public
  information
• guidance on enhancement

35
Quality Cycle at London Met
36
Course Approval Course/Module Modification Course Approval Course/Module Modification Course Approval Course/Module Modification Course Approval Course/Module Modification Course Approval Course/Module Modification Course Approval Course/Module Modification Course Approval Course/Module Modification Course Approval Course/Module Modification Course Approval Course/Module Modification
Process Action 1 Action 1 Action 1 Action 1 Action 2 Action 2 Process completion 3 Process completion 3
Business Case Approval for a new course (submitted to the Deans Forum) Deans Forum outline approval with mitigating actions where required Deans Forum outline approval with mitigating actions where required Deans Forum outline approval with mitigating actions where required Deans Forum outline approval with mitigating actions where required Faculty approval according to Deans Forum advice Faculty approval according to Deans Forum advice QEU reports back to Deans Forum that approval is complete based on Chairs approval of conditions and Framework and Regulatory compliance. New course (and associated module) specifications are submitted to Academic Planning Information (Academic Registry) QEU reports back to Deans Forum that approval is complete based on Chairs approval of conditions and Framework and Regulatory compliance. New course (and associated module) specifications are submitted to Academic Planning Information (Academic Registry)
Process Action 1 Action 2 Action 2 Action 2 Action 3 Action 4 Process completion 5 Process completion 5
Module / Course Modification Proposal QEU risk assessment and suggested mitigation for high-risk modules only to address QEU mitigation requirements to address QEU mitigation requirements to address QEU mitigation requirements QEU determines completion of modification process Modification completion reported to Faculty Undergraduate and Postgraduate Committee Revised Course and/or Module Specifications forwarded to Academic Planning and Information (API) by QEU Revised Course and/or Module Specifications forwarded to Academic Planning and Information (API) by QEU
Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring
Process Action 1 Action 2 Action 2 Action 2 Action 3 Action 4 Process completion 5 Process completion 5
Module and Course Logs Module and Course Leaders maintain academic quality log Action taken in response to concerns raised by student or staff feedback and reported in log Action taken in response to concerns raised by student or staff feedback and reported in log Action taken in response to concerns raised by student or staff feedback and reported in log Module and Course Logs submitted to appropriate Performance Enhancement Meeting (PEM) PEM outcomes could lead to module or course modification or consideration of extra resources PEM outcomes reported to appropriate Faculty Undergraduate Postgraduate Committee PEM outcomes reported to appropriate Faculty Undergraduate Postgraduate Committee
FAMS Compliance statement and evaluation of performance (including summary of External Examiner comment) submitted by each Dean to Undergraduate and Postgraduate Committee Compliance statement and evaluation of performance (including summary of External Examiner comment) submitted by each Dean to Undergraduate and Postgraduate Committee Compliance statement and evaluation of performance (including summary of External Examiner comment) submitted by each Dean to Undergraduate and Postgraduate Committee Compliance statement and evaluation of performance (including summary of External Examiner comment) submitted by each Dean to Undergraduate and Postgraduate Committee Compliance statement and evaluation of performance (including summary of External Examiner comment) submitted by each Dean to Undergraduate and Postgraduate Committee Undergraduate and Postgraduate Committee determines compliance and any requirement for central intervention Undergraduate and Postgraduate Committee determines compliance and any requirement for central intervention Undergraduate and Postgraduate Committee determines compliance and any requirement for central intervention
Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review Review
Process Action 1 Action 1 Action 2 Action 3 Action 3 Action 4 Action 4 Process completion 5
Periodic Review QEU maintains course approval and sexennial review schedule (courses/course clusters)   QEU maintains course approval and sexennial review schedule (courses/course clusters)   Course Leaders prepare a self-evaluation document and refreshed Course and Module Specifications QEU convenes a panel with external representation   QEU convenes a panel with external representation   Panel meets with Course Team and students and determines outcomes and/or action required   Panel meets with Course Team and students and determines outcomes and/or action required   Outcomes reported to appropriate Faculty Undergraduate Postgraduate Committee and University Undergraduate Postgraduate Committee  
37
External Examiners
38
2011/12 Faculty 1 (Cass) Faculty 2 (LGIR) Faculty 3 (FLSC) Faculty 4 (FSSH)
UG Home/EU (FPE) students 2228 1320 3953 4068
UG Overseas (FPE) students 159 208 520 678
         
PG Home/EU (FPE) students 549 323 529 1228
PG Overseas (FPE) students 93 117 482 316
         
Level 4 Progression 77 80 79 73
Level 5 Progression 87 82 82 84
Good Degree (1st or 2.1) 59 52 51 54
PG Completion 66 75 76 64
PG Distinction or Merit 69 63 66 62
         
NSS 2012 - Overall Satisfaction 62 90 82 79
NSS 2012 - Response rate 73 62 70 67
DLHE 2010/11 90 88 85 85
         
UG External Examiner reports due 26 12 25 61
UG External Examiner reports received 27 11 13 43
UG Course Logs due 35   57 34
UG Course Logs received 27   51 31
         
PG External Examiner reports due 17 6 20 46
PG External Examiner reports received 18 6 17 36
PG Course Logs due 14   44 45
PG Course Logs received 14   42 23
         
UG Module Logs due 288   537 837
UG Module Logs received 251   516 434
PG Module Logs due 63   244 310
PG Module Logs received 47   222 120
         
UG Course Committee minutes 10 4 25 68
PG Course Committee minutes 4 4 35 90
39
Lessons Learned - Benchmarks

• Agreed national framework required
• Essential for standards assurance
• Independent scrutiny
• Comprehensive understanding in universities
• Use of external subject experts and employers
• Encouragement of good practice
• Openness and transparency
• Quality Culture

40
Lessons Learned - Benchmarking

• Supports student choice
• Data and information accurate and available
  often co-ordinated by external agencies
• Promotes accountability and helps safeguard
  public funds
• Supports sector improvement
• Drives enhancement across universities and
  within
• Supports efficiency across universities and
  within

41
Any questions?