The Canadian Council for Learning has released another report, this time on quality in post secondary institutions in Canada. According to CEO Paul Capon, "Other countries have developed and implemented standards in an effort to maintain and improve the quality of their PSE sectors. We have to do the same." However, the report, which may be found on the CCL website, does not explain why "doing the same" is an imperative. Read the full PDF monograph. It asserts, "Canada lacks an informational framework through which to understand, measure or clearly demonstrate the quality of its PSE sector." This, they assert, is important to funders. "People who invest in human capital through a purchase of higher education do not know precisely what they are buying until well after the investment is made." (p. 19)
Yet there are measures, provided by institutions every year, which define the success of these institutions through the success of their graduates and the economic impact on communities. And really, if we want to be honest about this, the objective is to change the objectives of the system. "The job of determining the ultimate goals of post-secondary education, from which quality measures ought to derive, properly belongs to governments, institutions and stakeholders." Moreover, the measures undertaken in the countries that we 'must follow' have been widely criticized. The Bologna Process, for example, cited in the report as a model (p. 20), is not effective. "The Bologna Process is perhaps not so much about marketisation, as bureaucratisation: it means the reorganisation of higher education not around the market, but around a series of tick-box standards." And Australia's AUQA program is also questioned. "AUQA is fundamentally flawed. It has become a self-serving industry, the quality audit industry. It's not adding value to the higher education system and it's not giving rise to discussions about the sort of issues that are at the heart of quality."
Why Canada would emulate such programs, without an assessment demonstrating the value of such a program, is a mystery.
Yet there are measures, provided by institutions every year, which define the success of these institutions through the success of their graduates and the economic impact on communities. And really, if we want to be honest about this, the objective is to change the objectives of the system. "The job of determining the ultimate goals of post-secondary education, from which quality measures ought to derive, properly belongs to governments, institutions and stakeholders." Moreover, the measures undertaken in the countries that we 'must follow' have been widely criticized. The Bologna Process, for example, cited in the report as a model (p. 20), is not effective. "The Bologna Process is perhaps not so much about marketisation, as bureaucratisation: it means the reorganisation of higher education not around the market, but around a series of tick-box standards." And Australia's AUQA program is also questioned. "AUQA is fundamentally flawed. It has become a self-serving industry, the quality audit industry. It's not adding value to the higher education system and it's not giving rise to discussions about the sort of issues that are at the heart of quality."
Why Canada would emulate such programs, without an assessment demonstrating the value of such a program, is a mystery.
Today: 0 Total: 1101 [Direct link] [Share]
