Analyzing Political Interest in Quality Management of Higher Education

Political Interest in Quality Management of Higher Education in the UK and the U.S.A.: Case Assignment

A change is being witnessed in regional methods of approaching the association between development and higher education quality. A novel emphasis is being placed on quality of research, with organizational quality assurance being brought into some regions, whereas other areas are also seen increasing their share of students in postgraduate courses as a means for improving national R&D quality. The idea that attaining formal education is the fundamental mechanism behind a number of citizenship features is essentially accepted (Skolnik, 2010). Consistently, education is shown to enhance political involvement, turnout at elections, political knowledge, democratic outlooks and attitudes, and civic involvement.

Political Involvement in Higher Education

United Kingdom

The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) for British higher education was founded in the year 1997, for rationalizing higher education's external QA existing till then. The agency is separate from governmental bodies; its ownership is the hands of organizations representing the leaders of colleges and universities in the United Kingdom (Universities UK, Standing Conference of Principals, Universities Scotland, and Higher Education Wales) (Childers, Williams & Kemp, 2014).

The agency looks after public interest, with respect to robust higher educational qualification standards. Furthermore, it stimulates colleges and universities towards ongoing management improvements in higher education quality by means of: carrying out audits and other external reviews in colleges and universities; explicitly outlining academic standards throughout the nation's Academic Infrastructure; providing recommendations on academic quality and standards; and advising the government on university title and degree awarding authority applications (Childers et al., 2014; Wolff, 2014).

An era of considerable transformation is being witnessed by British higher education, driven by numerous factors: economic, political, technological, and cultural. The higher education framework of the country constitutes a major success story. The British system teaches more than two million pupils per annum; its global reputation for delivering superior quality education attracts more than 300,000 foreign students every year. Its higher education institutes represent the focus for teaching known facts, investigating the unknown, contributing to new knowledge, and developing problem solvers, doers, and critical thinkers, such that the nation is equipped with the intellectual skill required for handling challenges in all levels of society and advancing the civilization of UK (Gecer, 2013; Fulfors, 2013).

British governmental authorities establish the general financing structure for education. Colleges and universities are autonomous, publicly-financed private organizations enjoying academic and intellectual freedom. They aren't constrained by any rigid curriculum fixed by the Government. But almost all of them acquire Government finance via higher education financing councils, which are separate for England, Wales and Scotland. Meanwhile, for Northern Irish higher education, funds are provided by the Employment and Learning department. English, Welsh and Northern Irish colleges and universities are financed via the tuition fees of students, as well (Wolff, 2014).

ii. United States of America

Ever since the fifties, the U.S. government has adopted a nongovernmental system of accreditation for ascertaining higher education institutes' eligibility to avail themselves of federal student monetary aid as well as other federal finances. The educational commissioner's office was equipped with a federal procedure for recognition of regional and national accreditation agencies, for producing a record of accreditation agencies recognized by the U.S. federal government (Manning, 2014; Dill, 2014).

Recognizing accreditation agencies for accrediting educational programs and institutes and granting them eligibility for receiving federal funding, such as the federal student monetary aid, is federal authorities' key role. The educational department recognizes accrediting agencies for ensuring that they are reliable authorities with regard to education/training quality provided by the programs or institutes they accredit, for federal purposes, including those of the 1965 Higher Education Act, as amended. An institute is listed by the department as a recognized national accrediting agency if it satisfies recognition standards or quality criteria (Whittle, Pell & Murdoch-Eaton, 2010).

A significant leadership role has been adopted by states in instituting performance accountability frameworks for driving higher education improvements. A majority of states have, of late, instituted higher education performance-reporting processes, which address some performance measures. One key point to bear in mind is that the aforementioned performance accountability processes and associated state regulatory structures (like proprietary educational certification, program approval, etc.) constitute another higher educational quality assurance layer, which is mostly inconsistent with, and separate from, accreditation processes and quality standards (Whittle et al., 2010; Manning, 2014).