Recently, the newspapers have been filled debate post who criticizes the new quality assurance system as recently decided by the government. The Alliance parties and the Sweden Democrats has written parliamentary motions aimed at tearing up the new system. Common to all posts is that they completely misunderstand how the university's educations can be developed and that they are in many ways dishonest in their argumentation. For the Swedish National Union of Students, it is inconceivable to criticize such a wise and long-term system - not least considering how important it is for the country's students with a system that puts our learning at the center.
The critics make it appear that public opinion is against the new system that the government has decided on. Nothing could be more wrong. On the contrary, the vast majority of the consultation response was very positive. The system has been developed in close collaboration with universities, students and working life. An investigator was appointed by the alliance government after they themselves, completely without anchoring in the higher education sector, had chosen to stop the system they had decided on four years earlier. The investigator has handled his assignment in an exemplary manner and succeeded with the art of proposing a system with good anchoring and which has the potential to develop the university with much better quality with unchanged resources.
The Swedish National Union of Students, together with both universities and working life representatives, has had insight into the entire process, and believes that criticism of the system is unfounded or misdirected. Let us explain why! The criticism seems to be based on five points:
"The system is not results-focused" - The previous system tried to measure the quality of education by examining students 'results, regardless of the students' original knowledge. This is a methodological error. The new system is designed to directly evaluate the results of the education, ie how well the education supports students' learning. For us students, the structure and pedagogy of the education is absolutely central. In the previous system, the learning activities were not clearly evaluated. In addition, the new system will evaluate the forms of examination and the system will take into account all degree objectives. The new system is certainly result-focused, but it measures the results of the education and is not studied.
"Labor market perspective is lacking" - Just like other stakeholders, representatives of working life have been involved in the process. As in the previous system, working life representatives will be involved in reviews both locally and nationally, and in the evaluations, questions about the usefulness of the education will be highlighted. On the other hand, it is not the task of the system to solve Sweden's skills supply, the matching in the labor market or to completely control the content of the educations. Instead, quality assurance should - hear and be amazed - develop the quality of the university.
"International experience shows that quality system evaluations do not work" - The statement is directly incorrect. Several countries with successful higher education have stable, long-term systems where higher education institutions and students have built up a quality culture precisely because they themselves have a responsibility for the evaluation. Denmark, the Netherlands and Scotland are some examples. Above all, it is strange to advocate that UKÄ and the higher education institutions should not carry out duplication of work by independently evaluating the education. The university does not have that many resources!
"Comparability in evaluation disappears" - Critics seem to believe that when higher education institutions' responsibility for evaluating the quality of education increases, it will not be possible to compare the quality of different educations. Firstly, it is a misunderstanding - the quality work will generate information about the training's implementation and results that can be compared. Secondly, the quality system will check that the higher education institutions have clear public information about their educations, as this is required by the international standard for quality assurance that the new system will follow. Thirdly, the new system will thankfully not contain the kind of greatly simplified and normative assessments of quality of education that the previous system contained. The quality of education for all students cannot be competed for - it must be built from within. Surely no one wants students to take such simplifying information into account when choosing education?
"Higher education institutions will rate themselves - the incentives for development disappear" - Critics point out that they have misunderstood the core of the system. All review will be done by external assessors - academics, students, working life representatives. On the other hand, it is the university's responsibility to organize the review so that all education - not just some, as in the abolished system, is reviewed. In this way, the results can be used in the activities and the profile of the educations and local goals are evaluated - not just the national degree goals. Instead of focusing on setting normative grades on quality, the system focuses on how all education should be developed. By giving teachers and students the conditions to participate in development, greater incentives are also created to participate. This will lead to higher education institutions having to build functioning, “sharp” quality systems, which in turn will be reviewed by UKÄ. Such a system has much greater potential to create change that is meaningful to us students than just reviews from UKÄ. The University Chancellor's Office will still be able to withdraw degree permits if the higher education institutions' systems are not clear enough. Introducing a national review of all programs would only undermine the positive effects that are expected of clarifying the role of higher education institutions.
Quality evaluation of higher education should be an issue where many interests agree on common goals. The university needs long-term, clear conditions to be able to take the responsibility for its activities that they have according to the law. For Sweden's students, it is obvious that the purpose of the quality assurance system must be to promote improvements in all education in an effective way. We want to be involved and take responsibility for developing our educations.
Therefore, we hope that the critics choose to familiarize themselves with the extensive work that has led to a system in which we have the greatest confidence. Put the energy into contributing to the continued work instead! Sweden's students and their student unions will continue to contribute to developing the university in a direction where wholeness, openness and good conditions for learning are at the center.