探花视频

Risk of ‘standardisation’ as ministers mull progression measures

Universities would look to ‘game’ new metric for testing learning gain, critics warn, with external examination defended as ‘best we’ve got’

Published on
October 27, 2025
Last updated
October 27, 2025
Source: iStock/BluIz60

Proposals to reform assessment and the way teaching quality is measured risk standardising university curricula and treating institutions like big schools, critics have warned.

Outlining its vision for the higher education sector in its skills White Paper last week, the UK government said it wants to review the external examining system used by the sector to decide students’ grades and develop a “Progress 8”-style measure to assess students’ learning gain.

Modelled on a metric currently used in secondary schools, this would track how much students progress in their time at university and provide “sharper incentives to improve quality and outcomes”, the White Paper says.

But Paul Ashwin, professor of higher education at the University of Lancaster, said, if the proposals were introduced, higher education would be “pushed towards common curricula for undergraduate degrees, which would be a huge change and a huge loss to the quality of higher education”.

探花视频

ADVERTISEMENT

The proposals are “based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the way in which higher education is different from school education”, Ashwin added, and seem more focused on “controlling processes, rather than about educating students”.

Universities currently rely on external examiners based at other institutions who operate as a quality check on assessments and ensure students of the same ability studying the same discipline receive broadly similar marks.

探花视频

ADVERTISEMENT

The system has been blamed however for recent grade inflation?and for not ensuring students have the right skills when they graduate.

While the government did not say what should replace external examination, it committed to “consider the extent to which recent patterns of improving grades can be explained by an erosion of standards”.?

Dave Hitchcock, the course director?for history at Canterbury Christ Church University, said external examiners were one of the only “meaningful internal quality structures focused on teaching provision which provide unbiased advice untethered to an institution’s priorities”.

“Externals are meant to be rigorously focused on the pure academic value and quality of a degree, and almost all of them have been sounding the alarm in their reports about declines in that quality, and in the available choice of provision and depth of education available to students.”

The proposals would only apply to English universities, and Eve Alcock, director of public affairs at the Quality Assurance Agency, said this could create a lack of consistency across the UK.

“It is vital for the UK sector’s reputation that academic standards are consistent across Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England…Pulling the English thread alone could risk unravelling the UK-wide tapestry, undermining the whole UK sector.?

“There may well be opportunities to strengthen aspects of the system like external examining, but that work must be led with a UK-wide lens to keep the tapestry intact, and maintain domestic and international trust in UK degrees.”

探花视频

ADVERTISEMENT

Steve Jones, professor of higher education at the University of Manchester, said the paper follows a “similar pattern” where universities are praised for being “world-leading” but “ties itself in knots on fixes for grade inflation and metrics for learning gain, instead of stepping aside and trusting academics to know what they’re doing”.

探花视频

ADVERTISEMENT

It is “disappointing” to see phrases including “the erosion of standards” in the paper, he said, adding that the government seems “unwilling to credit young people for becoming better learners – let alone academics for becoming better teachers”.?

“No one pretends the external examining system is flawless, but it’s probably the best mechanism we have,” he said.

Jones and Ashwin agreed that moving towards similar measurements of student progress seen in the school system would undermine the research-based nature of universities and institutional autonomy.

Successive governments have sought to introduce Progress 8-style measures for universities, Jones said, “but higher education doesn’t lend itself to that kind of algorithm”.

The measure provides a score indicating how well a pupil has progressed over their time in secondary school, compared?with others who were at a similar attainment level at the start.?

Jones said there was a high risk of universities “gaming” such a system. “The idea of reducing our students’ learning to a single numeric value, calculated from one data point to another, should have been binned long ago.”

Meanwhile, Ashwin said when students in higher education are studying a variety of degrees with the curriculum set an institutional level, such progression metrics “don’t hold”.?

“There are so many concerns at the school level about students just learning to pass exams without coming into a personal relationship to knowledge, to want to extend that to higher education is bordering on madness,” Ashwin said.

探花视频

ADVERTISEMENT

juliette.rowsell@timeshighereducation.com

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please
or
to read this article.

Related articles

Reader's comments (2)

I do think the External Examiner system needs some reform and should be made more professional and accountable (certainly less whimsical). Of course, if so then there would need to be some serious additional resource for those colleagues who act as external examiners with proper work loading, some form of training etc etc. The same goes for external examinerships of PhDs etc. These are essential and they need to be workload appropriately as a service to the community (reciprocal) or if not and are seen as supplementary then they should be professionally remunerated at proper rates with appropriate expenses and the expenses and remuneration paid in a reasonable time (not 6-8 months later!). This just looks like yet another attempt to add further burdens on to those colleagues who undertake such duties with actually very little reward. Maybe we should be paid at the same rates as all those endless and expensive consultants that our senior managers are so find of tasking to do the jobs they are paid to do themselves? But there is a whole raft of duties we take on, including program reviewers, external reviewers for which we are paid peanuts. I guess more colleagues are beginning to say no to these things and if so then the systems stop working. The senior managers pay themselves fortunes for their "professional" managerial activities (and their various moonlightings!), but we are just expected to absorb all this as "service to the community or things we do for the love of the discipline".
new
Well yes exactly. And of course with the long term freezing of tax thresholds and rising inflation (in real terms a very real increase in tax), more of our earnings will go into the higher rate of 40% (higher in Scotland) which means we will lose 40% to it at source. You also have to travel often and maybe an overnight stay and expenses are paid weeks after they are incurred. So if they are doing several of these things a year you can find yourself owed not insignificant sums. If I have someone round my house to do some plumbing or electrical work then I have to pay them within a few days or they chase me up but if you are an academic providing a service then you have to fill in tedious forms for very small sums and wait couple of months to be re-imbursed for the money you have spent, let alone the minimalist payment. If you want more professional external review then you have to start paying proper professional rates of pay and reasonable times for re-imbursement. They can not have it both ways.

Sponsored

Featured jobs

See all jobs
ADVERTISEMENT