The Dangerous Obsession with Qualification Achievement Rates

The Dangerous Obsession with Qualification Achievement Rates

In the world of education, the pursuit of qualifications has become an obsession. Training providers, institutions entrusted with moulding future professionals, are increasingly driven by a flawed measurement system (QAR) that prioritises achievement rates over genuine learning outcomes. This system, often touted as a benchmark for success, has instead led to a culture of manipulation and compromise.

Take, for instance, the recent provider highlighted by FE Week, where a training provider faced criticism for allegedly coaching students solely to pass assessments rather than fostering understanding and competence. This to me is a stark reminder of how the current system incentivises shortcuts and undermines educational integrity.

At the heart of this issue lies the Qualification Achievement Rates (QARs) system, designed ostensibly to gauge the effectiveness of training providers in delivering qualifications. However, in practice, QARs have become a distorted measure of success, pushing providers to prioritise high pass rates at any cost.

The purpose of education should be to equip learners with the knowledge and skills necessary to thrive in their chosen fields, not merely to collect certificates. Yet, the relentless focus on QARs has perverted this goal, forcing providers into a race to inflate numbers rather than nurture genuine learning experiences.

This fixation on achievement rates has spawned a series of detrimental behaviours within training providers. Instead of fostering creativity and critical thinking, educators are pressured to streamline their curricula to ensure assessment passage. Learners, in turn, are subjected to a conveyor belt of information memorization rather than meaningful engagement with their subjects.

Moreover, the emphasis on QAR has had a chilling effect on innovation within education. Providers are discouraged from experimenting with new teaching methods or investing in comprehensive support systems that could enhance long-term learning outcomes. Instead, they are coerced into a relentless pursuit of short-term gains, sacrificing educational quality on the altar of statistical success.

The repercussions extend beyond the classroom. Qualified professionals emerging from such a system may possess qualifications / certificates, but may lack the practical skills and deep understanding necessary to excel in real-world scenarios. This mismatch between qualifications and competence not only harms individual career prospects but also erodes trust in the value of education as a whole.

It is time to reassess our priorities in education. The current fixation on qualification achievement rates is a symptom of a deeper malaise — a system that measures success in numbers rather than knowledge. True educational reform must prioritise holistic learning experiences, robust assessment frameworks that emphasise understanding over rote memorization, and the cultivation of skills that are relevant and adaptable in a rapidly changing world.

Training providers must be liberated from the tyranny of QAR and empowered to focus on what truly matters: equipping learners with the intellectual curiosity, critical thinking abilities, and practical skills that will serve them throughout their lives. Only then can we reclaim the true purpose of education and ensure that future generations are prepared not just to pass exams, but to thrive in an increasingly complex global landscape.

I agree with much of this. It reminds me of the time a lead Ofsted inspector fixated on a provider’s QAR asked me “Why have you allowed so many apprentices to leave before completing their apprenticeships?” The question strongly implies the provider is fully responsible and the QAR backs this up, which is absurd when wide ranging circumstances are often far beyond the control of even the most diligent provider. The problem is the QAR methodology which essentially labels every non-achiever as being the fault or failure of the provider (except for those made redundant). People in the apprenticeship sector know the QAR paints the bleakest possible picture and often bears no resemblance to the levels of learner and employer satisfaction. It also fails to recognise any progress by non-achievers. So why are we seemingly stuck with this? At best, it’s a supplimentary indicator of outcomes that’s quite frankly a misleading measure of provider performance, especially as it’s usually presented and therefore interpreted without any understanding of the circumstantial facts.

Peter Marples

Director at Fair Result

3 个月

Great and articulated article Patrick. I couldn’t agree more and only Today heard of a provider having their contract cancelled because of qar results without any other broader measure of quality even being considered. But when you set such harsh measures, you end up with people gaming the system and then no consistency on how it is dealt with by the Esfa and others Just one example of a large provider with 33% achievement, lost £20m In a year, owe the Esfa £5m to be repaid over the long term but Still get a grade 2 in ofsted - simply wrong

要查看或添加评论,请登录

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了