Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Criticism of marking system "kept hidden"
14 May 2009
MPs told that university failed to pass on examiner's classification concerns. Melanie Newman reports
An external examiner's conclusion that a university's degree classification system was "perverse" was never passed on to the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), a Commons inquiry into allegations of dumbing down in higher education has heard.
Gavin Reid, director of learning and teaching at the University of Leeds' School of Chemistry, told the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee that the standards watchdog had been kept in the dark regarding concerns raised about Leeds' classification system. "The QAA only sees what management puts in front of it," he told MPs as he gave evidence on behalf of the University and College Union on 6 May.
Under the Leeds system, marks of between zero and 20 per cent are rounded up, whereas marks of between 80 and 100 per cent are rounded down, Dr Reid explained.
The external examiner's remark that this was a perverse system reached the university's learning and teaching board but went no further, Dr Reid said.
A spokeswoman for Leeds said the classification system allowed reconciliation of marks in technical subjects - where students may score up to 100 per cent - with marks in the arts and social sciences - where scores in the 90s were less common.
"Although marks at each end of the scale are compressed, this doesn't impact upon the final degree class obtained by students. The system is under continual review," she said. No external examiner had raised concerns about the standards of Leeds awards, she added.
"All have signed pass lists and confirmed that standards are appropriate. Three of our 249 externals in the last session questioned the methodology and complexity of the classification system; their reports were fully considered, debated and made available to the QAA."
In a statement, the QAA said: "Institutional audit teams examine hundreds of documents, including external examiner reports, as part of the audit process. It is not QAA's normal practice to disclose details of specific documents used in audits.
"The institutional audit report for the University of Leeds lists good practice and recommendations identified by the audit team."
At the select committee hearing, Evan Harris, Liberal Democrat MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, asked the UCU representatives if they felt under pressure not to bring their universities into disrepute.
Dr Reid said: "Some feel they can't speak out in staff meetings, let alone to Times Higher Education."
Veronica Killen, UCU representative for Northumbria University and a senior lecturer in midwifery - who also gave evidence to the committee - said: "We have somebody going through a disciplinary (action) for speaking out to the press."
Julia Charlton, a senior nursing lecturer at Northumbria, had spoken out against cuts in healthcare education budgets. She was quoted in a national newspaper on 27 April as saying: "The staff-student ratio is already the worst in Europe. We're already teaching basic skills in groups of 24 rather than eight, even before the cuts. If the groups get even bigger it's just not possible to teach them how to communicate with patients or take blood. They can get to the end of their training not competent to practise."
The threat of disciplinary action was withdrawn before a UCU branch meeting to discuss the case.
Managers accepted that the lecturer had been speaking on behalf of the UCU, not on behalf of the university, Ms Killen said.
melanie.newman@tsleducation.com.
Readers' comments
This problem is not unique to HE, it is prevalent in FE where most times you find post holders who are in post, not because of qualification, rather, because of their length of service/time in the institutions. On the contrary, documentation presented to new members of the team preach the need for transparency and provide room for critical discussions at staff/team meetings, but when things don't go down well with the HoD, disciplinary proceedings become the end to the problem, alebait at the expense of the individual lecturer. When targets become the norm, most times little or no attention is paid to details with the consequent result of the learners facing the brunt, and the lecturer loosing their job. I hope lecturers are not black listed as is done with construction workers for speaking out.
This problem is not unique to HE, it is prevalent in FE where most times you find post holders who are in post, not because of qualification, rather, because of their length of service/time in the institutions. On the contrary, documentation presented to new members of the team preach the need for transparency and provide room for critical discussions at staff/team meetings, but when things don't go down well with the HoD, disciplinary proceedings become the end to the problem, alebait at the expense of the individual lecturer. When targets become the norm, most times little or no attention is paid to details with the consequent result of the learners facing the brunt, and the lecturer loosing their job. Most times students are not allowed to fail eventhough they deliberately refuse to submit work. Lecturers are at times instructed to literarilly dictate to learners who type the answers, thanks to laptops in institutions these days. I hope lecturers are not black listed as is done with construction workers for speaking out.
I often saw this in universities where I served as external examiner. These are primarily new universities which do not like any external quality monitoring which is what an external examiner does and in one university in particular the staff were so angry about the constructive criticism in the external examiner report that I was very worried about my physical safety. In others the universities simply ignored the report comments and carried on as usual.
I have been an external in a number of science departments in a variety of institutions and did not usually encounter this sort of behaviour. These departments have covered both old and new universities and the od concerns I have ever encountered have been with old-university professors and franchised FE/Agricultural colleges. In my experience new Universities seem, if anything, to go over the top with quality monitoring. The old Universities tending to plump for the old boy network/back of cigarette packet type monitoring.