Higher Education (Hansard, 5 April 1984)

§ Sir Keith Joseph

I have today appointed jointly with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales a committee of inquiry to review current procedures for the academic validation of first and higher degree courses in the public sector of higher education. The committee's terms of reference will beto identify and examine key issues for the effective and efficient maintenance and improvement of academic standards in the way those responsible for the academic validation of first and higher degree level courses in the public sector in Great Britain discharge their responsibilities, having regard to the validation arrangements of sub-degree higher education courses in the public sector, and distinguishing as necessary between different branches of learning; and to recommend changes as appropriate.

My right hon. Friends and I have appointed Sir Norman Lindop chairman of the committee. The other members are:

Mr. Leighton Davies
Dr. Joseph Dunning
Professor Geoffrey Elton
Professor Elie Kedourie
Sir Alec Merrison and
Dame Mary Warnock.

The issues which I hope the committee will address are set out in a letter which I am sending today to the chairman of the committee on our joint behalfs. The letter reads as follows:

Dear Sir Norman,

ACADEMIC VALIDATION IN PUBLIC SECTOR HIGHER EDUCATION

Following the Government's decision to establish a Committee of Enquiry under your Chairmanship into the academic validation of first and higher degree level courses in the public sector, I now write to you on behalf of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales as well as on my own account to offer guidance as to some of the issues which we hope will be addressed in the course of the Enquiry. What follows is not, of course, intended to prescribe the scope of your Committee's work, but rather to indicate areas which we believe to be of particular significance.

My central concern as Secretary of State for Education and Science is to raise and safeguard academic standards throughout the education system, by increasing the effectiveness with which the resources available are used and by strengthening the arrangements and procedures that bear on standards. Within the public sector of higher education, the various academic validating bodies share this responsibility with the institutions themselves, and I am concerned that they should each be enabled to fulfil their role in this regard as efficiently and effectively as possible. I have for some time, however, felt that existing arrangements might be improved; and some recent reports from Her Majesty's Inspectorate have strengthened that belief.

The Government has therefore decided that a wide-ranging inquiry into the academic validation of degree level courses in the public sector would be appropriate. We do not envisage that the Enquiry will concern itself directly with the arrangements whereby the professional bodies accredit or approve courses of professional training. But we hope that otherwise your Committee will interpret liberally the remit to it to look at the key issues for the maintenance of the academic standards of degree courses in the public sector, both those validated by the Council for National Academic Awards (CNAA) and those validated by individual universities. These issues concern of course not only the activities and practices of the external validators, but also the functioning of the academic processes of the institutions themselves. In this connection you will need to take note of the co-existence in many colleges of sub-degree courses with their different systems of validation operated by different validators.

The terms of reference of the Committee note that different considerations may arise in different branches of learning. We would ask that your Committee give this due attention.

We note for your Committee's attention the following particular issues:

a. the place of external validation in the maintenance of academic standards in general, and in the relationship between the assessment of a course as proposed and its realisation in practice;
b. the ability of the various existing arrangements for the validation and review of courses to ensure the rigorous and sufficient assessment of the objectives of a course and the means proposed for meeting those objectives;
c. the cost of such arrangements — including the opportunity cost of the time of those involved — in relation to the benefits;
d. the respective responsibilities of the institutions, validating bodies and external examiners to ensure that the academic content of a course is of a nature appropriate to degree level; and is designed, presented, assessed and examined in a balanced and fair way;
e. the need to distinguish for purposes of external validation and review between institutions according to the confidence that may be placed in their ability to safeguard their academic standards through their own internal validation mechanisms. The Committee may wish to consider whether for some institutions in the sector the requirements for external validation of their courses might be modified and, if so, what conditions must be fulfilled and on what terms should the modifications be introduced;
f. the desirability of ensuring national comparability of academic standards between institutions in the public sector of higher education; between the university and the public sectors of higher education; and over time:
g. the ability of existing validation arrangements to respond effectively to new needs and developments from without as well as within the education service;
h. the relation between the validation or review of individual courses and the assessment of an institution's general fitness to provide higher education; and
i. the respective responsibilities of the validating bodies and institutions in ensuring that the abilities of the students enrolled on a given course are consistent with its structure and content.

We fully recognise that these are difficult issues that could occupy the Committee for an extensive period of debate. We would ask however that the Committee seeks to complete its work within a year. We would also welcome in the meantime an interim report of progress from the Committee at a convenient juncture.

I have seen the Chairmen of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and of the CNAA, who are happy to participate in the Enquiry and have offered their full cooperation. I look forward myself to seeing you and your colleagues at an early opportunity. In addition, if you would find it helpful at any stage to have an informal meeting with any of us or our Ministerial colleagues within our Departments, I hope you will feel free to approach us.

Because of the interests in this, we are laying a copy of this letter before the House and making it available to the press.

Yours sincerely,

Keith Joseph