The arguments for and the

meaning of quality
Helen Thomas

Teachers, lecturers, heads of schools and departments, directors of studies,

and
managers, are all familiar with the idea of quality, and interpret it in a
variety
of ways in their own working context. This article explores the background
to
the quality debate as it a¤ects both the private and the state sector, noting
similarities and di¤erences between them; it looks at definitions of quality
as
they manifest themselves in schemes of quality assurance for the private
Introduction language
It school
is not only sector,
in the and
field of for thelanguage
English state further and higher
teaching, whether education
in a
sector,
private language school, a state secondary school, or at higher education
and
level,seeks a rationale
that we andtomeaning
come face face with for qualitythe
quality; for concept
all practitioners.
surfaces in all
kinds of context. We talk about the quality of life and quality time, we
drink quality wine and are pressed to buy from the company that o¤ers a
quality service. Education has been increasingly beset by the quality
debate over the last 15 years, and there is a wealth of literature exploring
definitions of quality, its implementation, and frameworks. In the
context of our private lives it is easy to accept that individuals may have
quite di¤erent definitions for the quality of life, or for what constitutes
quality time. The concept of quality within education, however, is more
complex, yet there is need for consistent interpretation and
understanding. Accreditation schemes in the field of ELT are relatively
old, but literature on quality in ELT is somewhat sparse. White (1998)
notes the lack of literature on quality in language teaching—a situation
which has not changed much in the past three or four years. However,
the October 2001 conference of the British Association for State English
Language Teaching (BASELT ) did have a focus on quality.

Searching for a In trying to grasp the concept of quality in education, one starting point
definition is to look for a definition. Theoreticians have struggled and come up with
a variety of definitions, including quality being determined by the degree
to which set objectives are achieved, fitness for purpose, added value, and
client satisfaction (Vroeijenstijn 1992). A straw poll among
practitioners—teachers and managers—at a seminar I ran elicited the
following definitions of quality: excellence, improvement, and—when
given the analogy of a Rolls Royce versus a Trabant car—fitness for
purpose. Improvement strikes immediately as a comfortable and

234 ELT Journal Volume 57/3 July 2003 © Oxford University Press
 acceptable interpretation in the context of education which is, after all,
about developing and improving—improving knowledge, skills, and
opportunities in life. However acceptable it may be that improved
lessons, improved results, and improved resources, for instance, mean
better quality, interpreting quality as improvement also leaves
unanswered questions. What exactly is it that is being improved? If it is
lessons, how do we know they are improved? Is it really the teaching, or
is it the learning? How is improvement demonstrated? League tables for
schools are based on the assumption that better exam results mean
higher quality, but the validity of such league tables, and the
comparisons they invite, are easily questioned. The British league tables
for performance of secondary schools look at exam results, and assume
that the schools with the highest number of high grade GCSE s are the
best. From the teacher’s perspective the criteria may be rather di¤erent,
and school pupils are unlikely to list examinations statistics as their
criteria for improvement or quality. For the headteacher, exam
performance statistics not only inform a view of improvement, but may
have a direct bearing on budget. To take improvement as a definition
for quality leaves many unanswered questions. As with other definitions,
it fails to capture some of the important whys of quality. By looking at
what lies behind quality, we can reach a better understanding and
definition.

Economic arguments Within the world of English language teaching there are a number of
bodies which play a role in quality. These include ACELS , EAQUALS ,
NYESZE , and IALC in Europe, NEAS in Australia; AAIEP and UCIEP in
the United States, while in Britain there are ABLS , BALEAP , and the
largest such body—EiBAS ¡. These acronyms are those of associations or
schemes that accredit language teaching organizations and award a
quality seal of approval. It is worth asking the rather crude question: why
do language teaching organizations want to be accredited and carry a
quality seal? As educators, we are likely to believe that it is because they
want to improve for the good of the students and teachers, and because
of a belief that education is always about improvement. This may indeed
play a part, but perhaps more important for the individual schools is the
desire to improve their share of the market. Language teaching
organizations have to assure their business and generate income. This is
not to suggest that private language schools are cut-throat businesses,
there simply to make money: they are not. None the less, all private
language schools are businesses, and can only carry out their business if
they have suªcient income to enable them to do their job well. Students’
fees provide the income, and by being accredited, schools believe they
will be more attractive to students. Being able to
demonstrate quality is an imperative for keeping business going. Thus
the development of accreditation and recognition schemes, I would
claim, has an economic rationale. If we look at the mission statement of
EiBAS , as a large and well-established accreditation scheme, however,
there is no suggestion that it has anything to do with economics.

The aim of the English in Britain Scheme is to protect international

students studying or planning to study English as a foreign language

The arguments for and the meaning of quality 235

 in the UK , by o¤ering access to a range of services which meet agreed
quality standards.

Political arguments This statement focuses on protecting students, and assuring their access
to language education that meets agreed quality standards. One of the
concerns behind the development of some accreditation schemes was
the presence in the market of ‘cowboy’ language schools, which paid
poor wages to unqualified teachers, and made money from unsuspecting
students without due regard to the value of the language learning
experience o¤ered. This was clearly wrong. Schemes were needed which
would enable students to select institutions, knowing they would o¤er a
good learning experience; at the same time such schemes operated to
exclude the ‘cowboys’, thus increasing the market share for respectable
schools. The EiBAS scheme was set up and run by the British Council
who, it could be argued, did not seek a share of the market. This
undermines the economic argument. If we consider the cultural
diplomacy role of the British Council, however, we can see how the
accreditation scheme can be interpreted as one way of achieving friends
for—and promoting—Britain, in a political (with a small ‘p’) aim, which
arguably may also have financial spin-o¤s.

The EiBAS mission statement also includes the phrase agreed quality
standards, a concept shared with other accreditation schemes. Whose,
however, are the agreed standards? One interpretation is that the
standards are those of a self-selected group, which may include teachers,
directors of studies, directors of schools, and members of professional
bodies, who together believe they know what the standards should be, and
who then develop the schemes with their standards in mind. One
perspective is that they set themselves up as a superior constituency,
putting themselves in the position to assure their business. This
statement of agreed standards thus has a professional political undertone.

The state sector I have argued so far that financial and political aims have underpinned
the development of quality assurance schemes within the private
language school sector. What parallels are there, if any, in the state
sector? Until relatively recently, British schools and higher education
institutions enjoyed a high degree of institutional autonomy—much
higher than in many European states. The ‘what’ and ‘when’ of the
curriculum was decided primarily by the individual school and the
teachers, the main external influence coming from exams such as the
11+, the grading exam, and ‘O’ and ‘A’ levels. With the advent of the
national curriculum, and its associated tests, the pendulum has swung
from autonomy to a significant degree of centralized control. In 1992
OFSTED (the British Oªce for Standards in Education) was set up by the
government, with the aim of Improving standards of achievement and
quality in education. The national curriculum limits dramatically the
traditional autonomy in the system, and OFSTED is there to monitor
what is happening in each school across the country. These changes
originated in government.

Higher education has seen a similar shift in Britain, a pattern shared

with the higher education sectors of some other countries such as

236 Helen Thomas

 Sweden and the Netherlands. Universities in Britain were highly
autonomous, and able to do pretty much as they liked, with a very limited
degree of external involvement in them. Quality was assumed; the
external examiner system, with peers confirming the standards in the
institution they visited, was the only formal quality mechanism. This,
however, was within an élite system of higher education based on trust
and paternalism. The last few decades have seen immense changes in
higher education; Britain has moved from an élite to a mass higher
education system; polytechnics and colleges of higher education have
gone in the development of a unitary higher education sector. This
massification of higher education is a political goal, the achievement of
which requires significant investments of public funds. Public money,
however, has to be accounted for, the argument being that the public
needs to be assured that its money is being well spent. The means used
to provide this accountability is quality. By requiring external quality
assurance, the government responds to the public demand for
accountability. Just as the school sector is subject to quality assurance
through OFSTED , the university sector is subject to quality assurance
through the QAA (Quality Assurance Agency), a quango funded by the
Higher Education Funding Council for the purpose of monitoring the
quality of higher education. The Agency’s mission is:

to promote public confidence that the quality of provision and

standards of awards in higher education are being safeguarded and
enhanced.

A comparison of the aims of EiBAS , OFSTED , and QAA shows some

similarities: all three bodies make statements about standards, with both
EiBAS and QAA aiming to safeguard and protect. The underlying
motivation for the development of these three bodies may be di¤erent:
more
financially driven, in the case of EiBAS , and politically, in the case of the
QAA and OFSTED . In either event, they arrive at similar overall aims.

Quality goals The same question can be asked in respect of standards as could be asked
in the discussion of quality. What are these standards? I suggested that
the groups setting up accreditation schemes decided upon the standards
themselves. This, however, is an inadequate account of standards. By
looking at the process of accreditation run by these schemes, I think we
are o¤ered some insight into possible interpretations of standards. To
become recognized by EiBAS , for example, institutions have to provide a
great deal of documentation covering all aspects of the school or
institution. The inspectors look at management, including the
recruitment, employment, and training of sta¤; they interrogate financial
management and marketing materials. They examine the pedagogic
side, the qualifications of sta¤, the teaching resources, the teaching in
action, and the size of classes; they look at the teaching space, library
facilities, social space, and so on. It is a comprehensive inspection of
everything involved in the teaching of English within the institution. To
be accredited, the institution has to demonstrate that it carries out the
processes to the standards set out: a defined percentage of teaching sta¤
must be TEFL qualified; all sta¤ must have a contract; teaching
observations must be part of the school’s regular activities; publicity

The arguments for and the meaning of quality 237

 materials must include maximum class size. In other words, the
accreditation process operates on a threshold basis. The institution must
demonstrate that it reaches the prescribed minimum standards and, if it
does, it will gain accreditation. The standards describe what is considered
to be fit for the purpose of teaching English as a foreign language in
Britain. At the heart of the accreditation scheme lies a definition of
quality, one which incorporates threshold or minimum standards, and
fitness for purpose.

Does the definition of quality implicit in QAA processes similarly

incorporate minimum standards and fitness for purpose? As in EiBAS
recognition, a great deal of documentation is involved for a QAA subject
review™. During the QAA review visit, there are meetings and teaching
observations and, apart from financial matters, broadly similar things fall
within the review. At the end of the review, the institution is not
accredited, but receives grades for each of six di¤erent areas of the
provision. A grade of 1 in any area means that the area is unsatisfactory.
Otherwise the subject is approved. The basis by which the reviewers
reach their judgement is not with reference to external standards, as in
the case of the accreditation scheme, but with reference to what the
institution itself says it is trying to do. The questions the review asks are:
is the institution doing what it says it is doing in relation to this subject,
and how well is it succeeding? While there is no agreed threshold or
minimum standards, there is a statement of how fit for purpose the
provision is. Underlying QAA ’s approach is a definition of quality as ‘fit
for purpose’, where the institution itself defines what that purpose is.
There is no externally agreed set of norms against which provision is
measured. Part of the recent controversy in the higher education sector
centres on the set of norms (the Code of practice, the qualifications
framework, and subject benchmarking statements) which will impose
threshold standards on universities—an imposition to which much of
the sector, with its long tradition of autonomy, is deeply opposed.
Implicit within the QAA subject review process, then, is a definition of
quality as fitness for purpose, to which the notion of threshold standards
is now being added. Within EiBAS there is now a strong threshold
definition, with fitness for purpose embedded in it.

The time frame A common characteristic of accreditation and inspection schemes is that
the processes operate within a defined period. Documents have to be
submitted to deadlines, visits are planned for given dates, and the
outcome of these visits informs the ‘verdict’. The visits are demanding
and stressful. Part of the work is the collection of all the relevant
documents. It is not only collecting them, however, since there is the
writing of them, too—the retrospective minutes of meetings, policy
statements, and so on. This is part of the wet paint syndrome. Inspection
visits can be—and often are—carefully stage-managed events at which
institutions become successful. What the inspection visits provide is a
snapshot of the institution at a given time; there is nothing to say,
however, that this given time is truly representative of the institution
during the rest of the time. The dynamics of change in any educational
setting will not be incorporated into the picture gained during the visit; in

238 Helen Thomas

 the same way, many of the weaknesses may not be revealed because the
institution is proficient at covering them up. What doubters and cynics
say is that such visits are not a true reflection of the quality at all. There is
more than a grain of truth in this view, and valid questions are: do
accreditation visits really get to the quality of what is going on? Could
schools slip back into another mode of operation once the inspection
team has packed its bags and gone?

Professionalism From my experience of visiting and of working in institutions, I believe

that most teachers and lecturers mostly want to do a good job. They want
to improve, and they want their students to acquire the skills and
knowledge they are trying to teach. Inspection and review visits are a
snapshot, but in most cases the picture gained is not a temporary one
created for the review. Certainly activity will have been undertaken in
preparation for the review: discussions and self-reflection that only took
place because a visit was looming. The important thing is that they did
take place, and that once they have happened, they cannot be undone.
Debates about what we teach and how, for instance, are stimulated by the
quality inspection, and these debates are valuable. And here is one of the
benefits of quality, and accreditation processes: they do have an impact
on quality, and this is a lasting impact. The real picture may not be
exactly as that painted for the inspection, but the developments and
reflection undertaken in preparation will not disappear. Teachers are
professional, they want to do well and improve, and be sure that whatever
they do is fit for the purpose.

Fitness of purpose There is another angle to quality that teachers, lecturers, and managers
need to be aware of, however. I noted in relation to the QAA Subject
Review process that what is being taught in the university is not
determined by external reference points. The department decides what it
is going to teach and how. What is evaluated is the extent to which the
institution does what it says it is doing. In a fictional department
somewhere in the heart of England, the aims of the course are to teach
the history of English as a foreign language, to inculcate a thorough
knowledge of English descriptive linguistics, and of the di¤erent
Englishes to be found globally; to familiarize students with the great
works of literature, and enable them to transpose between
Shakespearean English and American English. The department excels in
this, and in the review scores top marks. Were the students to be invited
to have a conversation about British politics, conduct business, or watch a
film, however, they would be thrown into diªculties. In theory, a QAA
subject review takes no account of this. The fictional English language
department does exactly what it sets out to do, and does it very well.
There is fitness for purpose because the curricula and their delivery
enable the students to achieve the intended aims. There is something
uneasy about this, however, which suggests there is yet something more
to quality than fitness for purpose. Surely there is no point in the
language programme being excellent in the way defined by the subject
review, if what it o¤ers is inappropriate or irrelevant to the needs of the
students and to society? The relevance or appropriateness of what we
teach is also part of the quality. In other words, it is not just fitness for

The arguments for and the meaning of quality 239

Assessment, Servant of Twopurpose
Masters?whichTheis important,
Frombut fitness
1996 of purpose.
to 1999 Ensuring
she was head that
of the our of
School
Netherlands University Perspective’,
programmes in A.
areCraft EnglishisLanguage
fit of purpose also partEducation at Thames
of professional Valley In
behaviour.
(ed.). Quality Assurance in Higher Education.
thinking University,
about quality within our own before
worktransferring
context, wetomust
King’slook
College
at the
Brighton: Falmer Press. how, the what, and the what London
for:School
qualityofisEducation in 1999.
process and She has
product, and the
White, R. 1998. ‘What is quality
relevancein language
of the product.been involved in quality management since 1997,
teacher education?’ ELT Journal 52/2: 133–9. and acted as chief academic auditor for King’s
College. Since 1998 she has been a review co-
Conclusion Quality for the professional ordinator
teacher formeans
the Quality
beingAssurance
committed Agency. She
to di¤erent
The author interpretations of quality,now notworks
only toasimprovement
a freelance in but
quality assurance in
to standards,
Helen Thomas taught EFLfitness
in Finland
for and higher education.
purpose, and fitness of purpose, too. This holistic view of
Hungary before joining the Britishneeds
Council, where Email: helenthomas@onetel.net.uk
quality to be embedded into any education institution. In seeking
she served in London, Zambia, and Hungary.
to manage and enhance quality in our practice as teachers, educators,
and managers, we must commit ourselves to an ethos in the institution
which encourages everyone to reflect on themselves in the context of the
institution, the sector in which they work, and in the broader economic
and political context. It is no longer possible to decide, as universities in
Britain could do in the past, to teach what we want. To be fully
professional we must account for all of what we do, and do it with full
awareness of the context. This, I believe, is how quality is achieved, and
only by all of us taking responsibility for understanding the full
complexity of quality will our practice continue to improve, and reach the
excellence which many of us seek to attain.

Final revised version received March 2002

Notes institution, which received money from the

1 AAIEP American Association of Intensive
English Programs.
ABLS Association of British Language Services.
ACELS Advisory Council for English Language
Schools (Ireland).
BALEAP British Association for Lecturers in
English for Academic Purposes.
EAQUALS European Association of Quality
Language Schools.
EiBAS English in Britain Accreditation
Scheme.
IALC International Association of Language
Centres.
NEAS National ELICOS Accreditation Scheme.
NYESZE The Association of Language Schools
(Nyelviskolák Szakmai Egyesülete) (Hungary).
UCIEP University and College Intensive
English Programs.
2 QAA Subject Review. Subject review was a
rolling programme whereby all taught
programmes in every subject for which the
institution received funding from the Higher London: The British Council.
Education Funding Council for England
(HEFCE ) was reviewed in a 7-year cycle which Review Handbook 2000–2001’. See
started in 1994 (under the name TQA ) and
ended in 2002. In any one cycle, there were
maybe a dozen subjects being reviewed, and any
HEFCE to teach these subjects was subject to a
review. The last round, for example, included
education, philosophy and theology, as well as
business, management, and politics. Modern
foreign languages, with English and linguistics,
were reviewed in 1995 and 1996; education was
reviewed in 2000 and 2001. Some MA in
ELT/TESOL courses were reviewed under
‘English’, some under ‘linguistics’ and others
under ‘education’.
See www.qaa.ac.uk
See also www.ofsted.gov.uk
References
Fry, H. 1995. ‘Quality Issues in Higher Education’.
Viewpoint 1: 1–4. London: Institute of Education
University of London.
Harvey, L. 1996. ‘Question of Definition’.
Managing HE . 2: 24–5.
The British Council. The Accreditation Scheme.
www.britishcouncil.org/english/courses/accredinfo.
htm
Pickering, G. 1999. Accreditation Schemes in ELT .
The Quality Assurance Agency. 2000. ‘Subject
www.qaa.ac.uk
Vroeijenstijn, T. 1992. ‘External Quality

240 The arguments

Helen Thomas for and the meaning of quality 241