The Council on Higher education (CHE) recently circulated for comment a consultation document entitled A Framework for Qualification Standards in Higher Education.
It is a rather dense document which provides both a context and case for an approach to exploring standards that moves beyond simply meeting a set of minimum requirements.
In general, I think most of us would probably support the need for benchmarking practice across and between qualifications at both national and international levels (p5) as a means to inform both quality assurance but also to develop quality (p6).
We would also probably agree that this is an ongoing process (p5) involving a community of practice (p6) in sharing understandings on core curriculum questions of the kinds posed on pp 19/20 of the consultation document. This might usefully be a feature of the work of national associations linked to particular professions such as teaching.
Saide supports the notion of moving from decision-making based on internal/hidden conventions to publicly debatable open principles – as we feel that institutions should be able to defend their decision-making and practice p.7.
Most of us would probably also agree on the need for discussion/ standards to guide the general/ specific elements of comparative qualifications analysis (pp11/12) so that qualifications gained in different disciplinary areas could be seen to be of comparable demand and to produce graduates with comparable competences.
The distinction between predominantly vocational/ occupational, professional and general qualifications pathways is useful (with teacher education, for example, falling into the professional pathway) (pp14-16).
Those of us working in fields such as Health, Social Work and Teaching would also support the notion of the introduction of professional Masters and Doctoral programmes (pp 24/35) as this provides a learning pathway for professionals to develop their practice.
I do not see any particular problems with the discussion document. As always the devil is in the detail. It is very difficult even within institutions to have meaningful and rational discussions about the assumptions that underpin their curriculum practice and it can be hard to find consensus. A document that provides a framework for rational discussion of these issues seems like a welcome contribution.
