Quality Assurance - Does it Stifle Innovation or Drive Improvement?

When I started this series on how Ontario's college system can tackle the current enrollment and financial crisis, I dug into various data sources to get a broader picture than just my own lived experience. The system KPI data was particularly interesting, and I was struck by how consistent the provincial graduation rate has been over 8 years.

During this time, the college system has followed the Ontario College Quality Assurance Service (OCQAS) processes and policies, designed to ensure quality at both program and institutional levels. Seeing that steady graduation rate alongside all that OCQAS work made me wonder if something was missing. I'd assumed those robust QA processes would lead to a rising graduation rate. So, why hasn't it? Here are three potential reasons or some mix of these (though there are likely more):

• The QA processes have already reached their maximum potential impact on graduation rates.
• The QA processes have no impact on graduation rates.
• The QA processes are measuring the wrong things, so what's being implemented isn't actually helping graduation rates.

Looking at individual colleges, the graduation rates are all over the place – some consistently above the provincial average, some consistently below, but almost all with fluctuations. Again, it makes you wonder about the real impact of QA on graduation rates.

What this suggests to me is that QA might be pushing everyone towards conformity in areas that don't really move the needle on graduation rates. And/or it looks like issues uncovered by QA aren't being addressed in a way that actually improves those rates. This isn't about criticizing anyone's hard work or the current processes and practices – it's about recognizing that we need bold leadership to evolve QA and make a real difference on graduation rates and student outcomes.

The goal of QA should be to find the problems and solutions that truly improve student outcomes. This is where we need that bold leadership and innovative thinking. So, where do we start?

Finding the Gold in Conformity:? Don't get me wrong, there's huge value in consistency. It can free up resources and highlight areas that need innovation. The current QA processes have identified great approaches to things like service delivery and data tracking. But these best practices aren't always shared or adopted system-wide. For example, each college has its own course outline template, but why not have one system-wide template that meets QA standards? Every change to a template has ripple effects on institutional resources that may have no value to improving student outcomes. System-level agreement on essentials could cut down on that change and its impact. We need to find those elements that can be standardized and implemented system-wide, then leave them alone for a good long while. I'm sure there are plenty of lessons from 20 years of OCQAS' work that could be applied here. We need to find the standards where we've squeezed out all the value and be done with them then shift our focus to those where there's still room for improvement.

Setting Quality Standards for Engagement: Good learning is all about engagement – students engaging with the material, with each other, with faculty, and with the institution. And it's a shared responsibility and accountability. George Kuh's research shows a strong link between engagement and positive student outcomes. Can Ontario's colleges develop quality standards that spark innovation in engagement? There are examples across the system showing that high engagement leads to higher graduation rates without lowering academic standards. We need to uncover these examples and apply the learning more broadly. Focusing on quality engagement, rather than just measuring processes and policies, could allow for better use of resources across the system with greater positive outcomes for students.

Changing the Incentives: Right now, QA mostly rewards following the rules, which is important. But we also need to reward risk-taking, uncovering problems, and trying new things. The current process encourages finding issues, but there's little incentive for colleges to disclose them publicly. No one wants to air their dirty laundry. But it's addressing those issues that will lead to better student outcomes. Rather than only showcasing their best features, institutions should be incentivized to identify and address areas, programs, and services where they are underperforming. And further incentivized for solving the problems and institutionalizing the lessons learned. We need incentives for being bold and innovative, and QA needs to reflect that.

Quality Assurance is vital to Ontario's college system, and it's brought many benefits. But with flat graduation rates, there seems to be a huge opportunity for bold leadership. Can QA innovate to get more value out of limited resources? By maximizing the value of conformity, focusing on quality standards for engagement, and aligning incentives with student outcomes, QA can drive a sustainable applied learning model in Ontario. Quality assurance shouldn't just be something we have to do – it should be something we want to do because it makes us all better, not just on paper, but in the real work of education.