Benchmarks and Benchmarking
in the UK Lessons Learned
Catherine Connor
Quality Enhancement Unit
London Metropolitan University
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Context - Higher Education in the UK
Context-London Metropolitan University
Quality & Standards Benchmarks – Quality
Assurance Agency
Benchmarking in Higher Education in the UK
London Metropolitan University – Quality
Management & Benchmarking
Lessons Learned
Benchmarks and Benchmarking
• Benchmarks are reference points or measurements used for
comparison, usually with the connotation that the benchmark is a
'good' standard against which comparison can be made
• Benchmarking is a process of finding good practice and of
learning from others
• Benchmarking is also a means of measuring performance
against comparator institutions
Higher Education in the UK
Country
Universities*
Higher Education
Institutions**
England
89
131
Scotland
14
19
Wales
10
11
Northern Ireland
2
4
United Kingdom
115
165
Statistics – UK 2011/12
Students
2,496,645
Staff
378,250
Undergraduate
1,928,140
Academic
181,385
Postgraduate
568,505
Non-academic
196,860
Income (£k)
27,798,559
Expenditure (£k)
26,684,729
Universities/HEIs in the UK
London Metropolitan University - past
London Metropolitan University - today
Holloway
Moorgate
Aldgate
Degree Awarding Powers and
University Title in the UK
165 recognised bodies with Degree Awarding Powers and
700+ others delivering HE courses
Quality Assurance Agency, UK
How does the UK QAA safeguard
standards?
• QAA is independent of government and universities
•Each institution is responsible for the quality and standards of their awards
• The UK Quality Code for Higher Education provides institutions with guidance on
benchmark expectations on quality and standard
•The QAA audits compliance and highlights good practice through Higher Education
Review (HER) every 6 years
The UK Quality Code
The purpose of the Quality Code is:
• to safeguard the academic standards of UK higher education
• to assure the quality of the learning opportunities that UK higher education offers to
students
• to promote continuous and systematic improvement in UK higher education
• to ensure that information about UK higher education is publicly available and accurate.
The Code gives individual higher education providers a shared starting point for setting
and maintaining the academic standards of their higher education programmes and
awards
The Quality Code
The Quality Code has 3 parts comprising of a number of chapters;
Each chapter has an Expectation and a number of indicators.
Part A: Setting and maintaining threshold academic standards
Part B: Assuring and enhancing academic quality
Part C: Public Information
Qualification and Subject Benchmarks
Framework for Higher Education Qualifications
• provide important points of reference for setting and assessing
academic standards
• promote a common understanding of the Expectations associated with
typical qualifications by facilitating a consistent use of qualifications
titles
Qualification and Subject Benchmarks
Subject benchmark statements provide a means for the academic
community to
• describe the nature and characteristics of programmes in a specific
subject or subject discipline.
• represent general expectations about standards for the qualifications at
each level - the attributes and capabilities that those possessing
qualifications should have demonstrated.
National Level Data for Benchmarking
• Key Information Sets – the items of information which students
find most useful when making choices about which course to
study
• Unistats
• League Tables
• The Guardian
• The Complete University Guide
Entry requirements
• Each university has different entry qualifications and
requirements - minimum grade or total number of
tariff points
• Some institutions take additional information into
consideration, such as contextual data about school
or postcode
• UCAS Tariff points held by students previously enrolled
on the course.
Employment Data
• The Destination of Leavers from Higher Education (DLHE) survey
• Recent graduates - working, studying, looking for work or even
travelling
• If employed, they supply job description and details of the
company
• Survey - in two parts:
• an early survey covering all students who complete their
course roughly six months after completing
• and a later survey of a sample of these respondents three
and a half years (40 months) later on.
Full-time degree leavers entering employment by employment
circumstances and occupation 2010/11
Full-time Primeros degree leavers entering employment by employment circumstances and occupation 2010/11
Employed
full-time in
paid work
Employed
part-time in
paid work
Selfemployed/
freelance
Voluntary
work/other
unpaid work
Total in
employment
9200
1015
980
140
11335
Professional occupations
34615
2970
975
1055
39610
Associate professional and technical occupations
36045
5900
4575
3060
49575
9470
3070
90
795
13425
820
355
245
60
1480
Personal service occupations
5925
3380
220
770
10295
Sales and customer service occupations
8285
12355
55
220
20915
430
255
45
20
755
4465
6010
130
115
10720
195
55
10
60
325
109445
35365
7330
6295
158440
Standard Occupational Classification
Managers and senior officials
Administrative and secretarial occupations
Skilled trades occupations
Process, plant and machine operatives
Elementary occupations
Not known
Total
Source: HESA Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education Institutions 2010/11
See Annex below for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland figures
The National Student Survey (NSS)
• annual survey of final year university students canvassing their opinion
about what they liked and did not like about their student learning
experience during their time in higher education.
• statements are put to students who rate their university and course on a
five-point scale from 'definitely disagree' to 'definitely agree'. The
groups of statements cover topics such as:
• The teaching on my course
• Assessment and feedback
• Academic support
• Organisation and management
• Learning resources
• Personal development
http://unistats.direct.gov.uk/
Benchmarking at
University level
Identification
of
comparators
Helps positioning
in market
environment
Exposes
strengths and
weaknesses
Institutional
performance
Contextualises
institutional
performance
Data sets,
performance
indicators and
measures
What sort of
institution do you
want to be
Informs strategic planning
Improvement
What we do at London Met
• QAA Benchmarks
• Benchmarking
Quality Assurance at London Met
General Principles
• National QA standards (reference points) informed by international
standards
• Quality culture promoted at national and institutional level
 shared values and commitment to quality assurance and
enhancement
 structures to support this
• Institutional responsibility linked to senior executive
• All staff fully engaged in quality assurance and enhancement
Quality Manual
Institutional quality assurance and enhancement procedures,
guidance and templates including:
• procedures for the approval, monitoring and periodic review
of courses
• procedures for student engagement and public information
• guidance on enhancement
Course Review
Staff
Development
Course
Monitoring /
Improvement
Course design in
line with agreed
benchmarks,
frameworks and
regulations
Course
Validation
Course
Performance
Data / External
Examiner and
Student
Comment
Course Approval & Course/Module Modification
Process
Action 1
Action 2
Process completion 3
Business Case
Deans’ Forum outline approval with mitigating actions Faculty approval according to Deans’ Forum
Approval for a new where required
advice
course (submitted
to the Deans Forum)
QEU reports back to Deans’ Forum that
approval is complete based on Chair’s approval
of conditions and Framework and Regulatory
compliance.
New course (and associated module)
specifications are submitted to Academic
Planning & Information (Academic Registry)
Process
Action 1
Process completion 5
Module / Course
Modification
Proposal
Action 2
Action 3
Action 4
QEU risk assessment
to address QEU mitigation
and suggested
requirements
mitigation for high-risk
modules only
QEU determines
completion of
modification process
Modification
Revised Course and/or Module Specifications
completion reported to forwarded to Academic Planning and
Faculty Undergraduate Information (API) by QEU
and Postgraduate
Committee
Process
Action 1
Action 2
Action 3
Action 4
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
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
FAMS
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
Process
Action 1
Action 2
Action 4
Process completion 5
Periodic Review
QEU maintains course
approval and sexennial
review schedule
(courses/course clusters)
Course Leaders
QEU convenes a panel with
prepare a selfexternal representation
evaluation document
and refreshed Course
and Module
Specifications
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
Monitoring
Review
Action 3
External
Examiners
Appointment
of
independent
subject expert
Sampling of
student work
to confirm
standards
Attendance at
Course
Performance
Enhancement
Meetings
Submission
of written
report to the
University
University
analysis of all
External
Examiner
Reports at
UGPG
Committee
2011/12
UG Home/EU (FPE) students
UG Overseas (FPE) students
Faculty 1 (Cass)
2228
159
Faculty 2 (LGIR)
1320
208
Faculty 3 (FLSC)
3953
520
Faculty 4 (FSSH)
4068
678
PG Home/EU (FPE) students
PG Overseas (FPE) students
549
93
323
117
529
482
1228
316
Level 4 Progression
Level 5 Progression
Good Degree (1st or 2.1)
PG Completion
PG Distinction or Merit
77%
87%
59%
66%
69%
80%
82%
52%
75%
63%
79%
82%
51%
76%
66%
73%
84%
54%
64%
62%
NSS 2012 - Overall Satisfaction
62%
90%
82%
79%
NSS 2012 - Response rate
DLHE 2010/11
73%
90%
62%
88%
70%
85%
67%
85%
UG External Examiner reports due
26
12
25
61
UG External Examiner reports received
27
11
13
43
UG Course Logs due
UG Course Logs received
35
27
57
51
34
31
PG External Examiner reports due
17
6
20
46
PG External Examiner reports received
18
6
17
36
PG Course Logs due
PG Course Logs received
14
14
44
42
45
23
UG Module Logs due
UG Module Logs received
PG Module Logs due
PG Module Logs received
288
251
63
47
537
516
244
222
837
434
310
120
UG Course Committee minutes
10
4
25
68
PG Course Committee minutes
4
4
35
90
Lessons Learned - Benchmarks
• Agreed national framework required
• Essential for standards assurance
• Independent scrutiny
• Comprehensive understanding in universities
• Use of external subject experts and employers
• Encouragement of good practice
• Openness and transparency
• Quality Culture
Lessons Learned Benchmarking
• Supports student choice
• Data and information – accurate and available – often co-ordinated by external
agencies
• Promotes accountability and helps safeguard public funds
• Supports sector improvement
• Drives enhancement across universities and within
• Supports efficiency across universities and within
Any questions