How Do We Assure Quality?

National achievement exams for basic education are quite common in countries that desire
to assess the quality of learning in primary and secondary schools. The top country in
education, Finland, however, does not subscribe to testings, school rankings, and
inspections. This actually makes sense since if these exams reveal inadequacies, it is too
late in the process. Quality in Finland's education system comes from the starting point of
basic education: Teachers. The requirements to become a teacher in Finland are very
stringent, accepting only the cream of the crop. Quality assurance in basic education is best
achieved by keeping an eye on higher education. Future teachers come from institutions of
higher learning, the colleges and universities. Heads of schools do their postgraduate work
in these institutions as well. An ailing basic education is a symptom of problems in higher
education.
The Philippines is one country that that has the following specific statement in its
constitution, "Academic Freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning." Of
course, this statement is not really self-explanatory. The provision does not define what
"Academic Freedom" really means. Encyclopedia Brittanica defines "Academic Freedom" in
the following manner:
academic freedom, the freedom of teachers and students to teach, study, and pursue
knowledge and research without unreasonable interference or restriction from law,
institutional regulations, or public pressure. Its basic elements include the freedom of
teachers to inquire into any subject that evokes their intellectual concern; to present their
findings to their students, colleagues, and others; to publish their data and conclusions
without control or censorship; and to teach in the manner they consider professionally
appropriate. For students, the basic elements include the freedom to study subjects that
concern them and to form conclusions for themselves and express their opinions.
According to its proponents, the justification for academic freedom thus defined lies not in
the comfort or convenience of teachers and students but in the benefits to society; i.e., the
long-term interests of a society are best served when the educational process leads to the
advancement of knowledge, and knowledge is best advanced when inquiry is free from
restraints by the state, by the church or other institutions, or by special-interest groups.
The foundation for academic freedom was laid by the medieval European universities, even
though their faculties met periodically to condemn on religious grounds colleagues writings.
Protected by papal bulls and royal charters, the universities became legally self-governing
corporations with the freedom to organize their own faculties, control admissions, and
establish standards for graduation.
Freedom, as always, comes with responsibility. It should be clear that this freedom enables
educators in institutions of higher learning to better serve their students and society. This
freedom is enabling, it does not mean simply "being free". Self-governance does not mean
anarchy. It assumes ownership and self-discipline. Institutions of higher learning still need to
answer to society. Institutions of higher learning establish their standards. Standards are
necessary so that those who participate in these institutions know exactly what they are
getting themselves into. Those who enter these institutions also need to know what they
expect to attain through higher education. Standards are likewise not made in a vacuum.
Universities are indeed free to draw their own goals, but these goals are still measured in
terms of benefits to society. A college of engineering cannot draw a curriculum from scratch

that does not meet what a society expects from an engineer.

When I was in graduate school at Illinois, I pursued a topic of my own choosing. That was
freedom. However, it was also upon making that choice that the "free stuff" ended. There
were standards. To receive a doctorate degree of philosophy in chemistry, I must make an
original contribution that advances the field. Who was deciding if I actually did that? It was
not me. Yes, when doing the experiments and analysis, I could tell that I was learning
something new, but that judgment of mine was not sufficient. Research must be submitted
to peer review. I did present my work at conferences. In fact, I remember one presentation I
made in Ontario. The morning after my presentation I overhead an esteemed German
scientist in the field of my work scolding another renowned scientist from Berkeley for failing
to attend the talk I gave. That favorable impression was likewise not enough for me to think
that I now deserve the doctorate degree. Chapters of my dissertation were submitted as
separate papers to peer-reviewed journals. The papers are reviewed anonymously by
experts in the area of my research. In some of the papers, I received a favorable response
of "published as is", but in the others, I received substantial comments and criticisms which
required me to revise the papers and resubmit for a second review. These were experts and
it was likely that some were not even from the United States. After being able to publish my
research, I then proceeded to defend my dissertation. In Illinois, the graduate school
required one external member in the examination committee. Thus, for my defense, I invited
a professor from Madison, Wisconsin to be part of the "grilling" team. Grilled for hours, I
survived and received my PhD.
Currently, I am on the other side of the fence. As a professor in a university, I am finally
granted "Academic Freedom". And it is responsibility. As a member of a department, we do
design our own curriculum, but the design is not without standards. The two majors our
department currently offers match the current standards set by the American Chemical
Society (ACS). The two majors we offer are accredited by the association of chemists in the
United States. Being accredited means the program we offer comply with the course
requirements, both in number and depth. Accreditation policies can be quite specific. These
not only describe courses students must take but also the faculty in the department. For
example, there is a required minimum number of PhDs in the faculty for a BS Chemistry
program to be accredited by the ACS. These, however, are actually much smaller than the
goals and standards the department sets for itself. Regularly, the department goes through
a self-study. In fact, we had one a year ago. This self-study occurs for months in which the
department reviews its current goals and examines what it has accomplished for the past
years since the last self-study. Our department measures its output in terms of publications
in peer-reviewed journals and their citations, number of doctorate degrees granted, number
of bachelor degrees given, external funding, placement of alumni, and quality of entering
students. Self-study is really self-examination but at the end, the department selects and
invites several experts in chemistry - these are renowned professors of chemistry from other
universities, to review the department. The department receives a frank evaluation from
these external reviewers. We are then informed where we currently stand and what we
must do to improve. Serving students who aspire to go to medical school likewise imposes
restraints on our undergraduate curriculum. Our department does pay attention to what
medical schools expect from their students and the curriculum must align with these
expectations. The graduate program is no different from what I experienced in Illinois. Our
research must continuously be subjected to peer evaluation. Indeed, both undergraduate
and graduate programs are subjected to standards, both internal and external. This is how

quality assurance works. Academic freedom simply means that it is our responsibility that
our program is of quality.
Standards or accreditation can be imposed by agencies external to the university. The fact
that the government is the employer of public school teachers means that it is only expected
that the government plays a significant role in defining teacher education programs
especially when no independent agency is stepping up to the plate. Without such standards,
without self-studies, without peer review, there is simply no quality assurance. When
education programs are not subjected to standards, quality in basic education is an
impossibility.
To address the problems basic education in the United States faces, new standards for
teacher education have been recently drafted by the Council for the Accreditation of
Educator Preparation (CAEP):

http://caepnet.org/about/

The commissioners who drafted the standards are professors of education, deans, school
board members, state education officers, leaders of teachers' associations, and university
administrators. The draft is now open for public comments until March 29. The standards
are divided into five parts:
1. Content and Pedagogical Knowledge : Within this standard, both training in the
subject matter as well as in teaching strategies are important. Paying attention to
equity is also emphasized. A specific example for evidence for meeting the "content"
part of this standard is "There should be a recommended specific and common cutscore across states, and a pass-rate of 80% within two administrations."
2. Clinical Practice and Partnerhip : The educator school must provide "real life"
experiences to future teachers. In simple terms, the educator school must partner
with the schools and communities in which these future teachers will serve.
3. Candidate Quality, Recruitment and Selectivity : The draft is suggesting to raise
the bar by requiring entering teaching students to have had more rigorous high
school courses in advanced math and languages.

4. Program Impact : The outcome of basic education is applied as a measure for the
accreditation of a teaching school. The teaching school therefore takes ownership
and responsibility of what happens in primary and secondary schools.
5. Provider Quality, Continuous Improvement, and Capacity : This standard boils
down to requiring a teaching school to do regular self-studies and assessment.
Once these standards have been accepted, teaching schools can now be graded in the
following manner:
Recommendations on LEVELS OF ACCREDITATION
The Commission proposes four levels of accreditation decisions:
denial of accreditationfor providers that fall below threshold in two or more standards
probationary accreditationawarded to providers that meet or surpass the threshold in four
standards, but fall below in one of the standards
full accreditationawarded to providers that meet all five standards at the CAEPestablished thresholds
exemplary or gold accreditationawarded to a small number of providers that meet the
threshold level set for all five standards and surpass the threshold in a combination of
standards
The accreditation carries weight since both prospective students and employers take this
seriously. This is how standards can be imposed on institutions of higher learning. These
are necessary especially for colleges and universities that produce the public school
teachers of tomorrow. Not doing so simply pushes the problems downstream where it
becomes much more intractable.

Sumber : http://philbasiceducation.blogspot.com/2013/02/how-do-we-assurequality.html#ixzz3SUhWjEuP