Abstract
Set primarily in the context of the UK, this paper focuses on current issues, beginning with the definition of quality, and who defines it. The emphasis is on how these definitions are political and ideological.

Where there is some public subsidy, there is inevitably accountability. This leads to auditing, monitoring, and inspection, and requires a definition of quality and the most appropriate ways of measuring it. A number of contradictions are identified, including the possibility that the assurance of quality can itself contribute to deterioration in quality as well as its improvement.

Two key strategies are examined in detail. Benchmarking is borrowed from industry and is applied in lifelong learning to identify best practice. In higher education, subject benchmarking is a critical aspect of the new processes of academic review. In adult and further education, the approach to quality has been to look at the whole institution and its provision of learning. The use of benchmarks is for identifying best institutional practices.

The use of performance indicators has been controversial. The cult of measurement has had much criticism when applied to learning, especially in higher education. The most recent performance indicators introduced by the Higher Education Funding Council have focused on widening participation, drop out rates, projected efficiencies and outcomes, and research inputs and outputs. Benchmarking processes have been integrated with performance indicators. Does this make them any more satisfactory for use in lifelong learning?