Current self-evaluation practice in tertiary sectors across Wales
In this section we present an overview of the strengths and areas for improvement in self-evaluation for each of the tertiary sectors that are within Medr’s oversight and external inspection or review process by Estyn or QAA. We also present a summary of strengths and areas for improvement for the tertiary system, as a whole.
Tertiary system summary overview
Taking the tertiary system in Wales as a whole, what are the common themes, strengths and areas for improvement in self-evaluation?
- Embedded, cyclical self-evaluation: Regular annual cycles with self-evaluation reports (SER) and quality improvement plans (QIP) are common; many providers also review termly.
- Clear frameworks: Estyn and QAA frameworks give a shared structure that most providers adopt.
- Broad evidence bases: Lesson or session observations, peer observations, learning walks, scrutiny of work, surveys (learner/staff/employer), and performance data are widely used; many providers now use live dashboards.
- Learner voice is established: Representative bodies, forums, surveys, and governors/ambassadors help surface issues from learners.
- Governance and oversight: Governing bodies and senior leaders usually moderate/approve SERs and track QIPs.
- Collaboration & sector forums: Cross-provider networks support consistency and sharing practice.
- Action orientation: In the best cases, providers set challenging targets and monitor progress systematically; HE providers often reflect on strategic change and distinctiveness.
- Impact over process: Too many SERs describe activity rather than evaluate impact on learners’ outcomes .
- Precision of quality improvement plans: Actions, milestones, success criteria, and timelines are often not sharp enough, weakening monitoring and accountability.
- Overgenerous self-assessment: Variable rigour, limited triangulation, and a compliance mindset lead to over-positive judgements.
- Use of data – the issues vary according to sector:
- Destinations/progression data collection and analysis are underdeveloped (ALC, FE, schools).
- Grade profiles/higher grades get insufficient focus vs. completion rates (FE).
- Consistent post-16 measures underused in schools; heavy reliance on commercial value-added tools.
- Longitudinal/external datasets (e.g., NSS/HESA/LEO) not consistently systematically integrated in HE quality processes.
- Attendance/punctuality monitoring: headline figures (including explained absences) mask in-class attendance issues.
- Partnership coherence and quality assurance: Where consortium or partnership arrangements exists, self-evaluation can over-focus on the lead provider; quality assurance at partnership level is not robust enough.
- Continuity and ownership: Staff changes or lack of organisational ownership can stall the impact of quality improvement plans