Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Second Cycle of Quality Assurance: 2012−2017 Public Providers QA Forum Council on Higher Education Dr Mark Hay Executive Director: Quality Assurance 23.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Second Cycle of Quality Assurance: 2012−2017 Public Providers QA Forum Council on Higher Education Dr Mark Hay Executive Director: Quality Assurance 23."— Presentation transcript:

1 Second Cycle of Quality Assurance: 2012−2017 Public Providers QA Forum Council on Higher Education Dr Mark Hay Executive Director: Quality Assurance 23 August 2011

2 Outline  Implications of legislative changes  Developments in international QA  Challenges confronting the CHE  Collaboration with professional bodies  Second cycle of quality assurance

3 Legislative changes  The NQF Act No 67 of 2008 established the CHE as a quality council.  HE Act 101 (as amended) Performs its functions in relation to qualifications, quality assurance and quality promotion (S.7(1)) Responsible for the implementation of the HEQF (S. 7 (2)) The HEQC, in concurrence of the CHE, establish committees to assist it to perform its functions (S. 7(4))  CHE received legal opinion that the HEQC cannot delegate its quality assurance decision-making functions.

4 Developments in QA internationally  Greater regulation of providers Greater focus on accountability Making public QA outcomes as part of accountability and transparency Threat to institutional autonomy and academic freedom  Greater focus on academic standards Qualification standards Programme standards Achievement standards Information standards (transparency)  Implications for our national system?

5 Some challenges confronting the CHE/HEQC – 1  Credibility of our national QA system (national and international)  Reputation Decisions and processes (e.g. UKZN) Operationally: effective, efficient and timely  Balancing QA accountability and quality promotion  Supporting institutional autonomy and academic freedom  Steering the system to greater self-regulation, while supporting struggling HEIs

6 Some challenges confronting the CHE/HEQC – 2  Collaborating with DHET, eg integrating the three steering instruments SAQA Umalusi QCTO Professional bodies  Strengthening the monitoring and evaluation function  Implementing HEQF alignment in a constructive way  Conceptualising and implementing the standards development function

7  The HEQC, professional bodies and HE providers play different roles. As they all have an interest in the academic programmes, their responsibilities are separate but complementary. An example One system: different parts HEIs Professional Bodies HEQC How do they each do their parts which they do well and are good at and are interested in? As they all have an interest in the academic programmes, their responsibilities are separate but complementary

8 Complementary, but separate – 1  To function optimally and at the highest possible quality of education and intellectual development, the three interested institutions must recognise that their roles and responsibilities are  complementary, in the sense that they determine together the objectives towards which they work in the public interest, for example, in determining of attributes of graduates entering a profession;  separate, in that they have separate functions, objectives and competencies.

9 Complementary, but separate – 2  In achieving the shared objective of an excellent quality higher education system, it is essential that the three interested institutions recognise, acknowledge and respect each other’s responsibility and competence. Indeed, it is here that democratic process is best served in the way that different structures of society engage on issues of shared interest.

10 HEIs – 1  While it is an important feature of what they do, the purpose of an HEI is more than producing graduates who are skilled and ready for the workplace.  The discussion between a professional body and an HEI is principally about the competence and attributes of graduates as they leave the HEI and enter the professional training programme as determined by the professional body.  It is important to recognise that the attributes of a graduate are not only developed in the classroom or other formal aspects of the curriculum. Students draw much of their learning from the institutional culture of the HEI – the so-called “second curriculum”.

11 HEIs – 2  The competence and attributes of graduates at the exit level from a qualification programme at an HEI is an integration of the admissions policy, the curriculum structure, the pedagogy used to support the curriculum and the exit “standards” expected by the lecturing staff. Each of these aspects lie in the competence of the HEI and, while professional bodies have an interest in each of these areas, their influence can, at most, be advisory.

12 Professional body – 1  The professional body is obliged to develop a well articulated conception of the outcome competencies of graduates at the point of entry into the profession, and must retain the duty to withhold accreditation from an HEI that is considered not to achieve these outcomes – in the normal course of these processes as determined by the prof body.  In its turn, the professional body can only structure the professional training programme for entering graduates if it has confidence that the agreed level and extent of education and training at the exit level from the HEI has indeed been achieved.

13 Professional body – 2  Nevertheless, the professional body also recognises that there is a wide range of teaching and learning paths by which the outcomes can be achieved.  The right of the HEI to choose the teaching and learning path must not only be protected but also defended by the HEQC and the professional bodies.  Upon entry into the profession, the preparation of graduates for the demands of professional practice is primarily in the competence of professional bodies. There are occasions when exposure to professional practice is required during undergraduate studies at the HEI, for example, in the health sciences and teacher education programmes.

14 Professional body – 3  The prof body is obliged to develop a well articulated conception of the outcome competencies of graduates at the point of entry into the profession, and must retain the duty to withhold accreditation from an HEI that is considered not to achieve these outcomes – in the normal course of these processes as determined by the prof body.  Nevertheless, the professional body also recognises that there is a wide range of teaching and learning paths by which the outcomes can be achieved.  The right of the HEI to choose the teaching and learning path must not only be protected but also defended by the HEQC and the professional bodies.

15 HEQC  At the formal level the HEQC (as the quality assurance arm of the CHE) has an interest and mandate over the process of developing graduates in HEI’s that goes beyond the interest of the professional bodies. As examples: the HEQC must turn its gaze to the full range of qualifications from a professional department at an HEI, whereas the professional body is primarily concerned with the qualification that gives graduates entry into the profession; the HEQC must pay far more attention to institutional culture issues that would be of interest to the professional body.

16 Critically engaged  While the three institutions (HEIs, HEQC and professional bodies) have separate but complementary interests and mandates with respect to the nature and quality of graduates that emerge from an HEI, there are principles with which all three must be both critically engaged and united in defence.  Examples: the international comparability of our qualifications the importance of developing graduates who are to be engaged citizens within their disciplines equitable race, class and gender diversity of our graduates and professionals protecting institutional autonomy and academic freedom; and the highest standards of ethics in professional practice.

17 Collaboration with professional bodies The CHE/HEQC and professional bodies could collaborate in  Training evaluators and their use in accreditation and reviews  Information sharing on programmes and providers (the nature and level of information sharing to be decided)  Dealing with programmes that are problematic and require intervention  Development of qualification standards with professional councils in their respective disciplines.

18 Constraints  It is time-consuming as there are jurisdictional challenges  Difficulty of scheduling visits as each council has its own schedule  Unevenness of accreditation practices and their rigour  Cost implications for HEIs  Burden on the providers  Dual accreditation systems  Effective collaboration with a range of government ministries.

19 Second cycle of quality assurance  Finalising the Second Cycle Framework Document Accreditation National reviews Institutional reviews Self-accreditation status Quality promotion Capacity development

20 Institutional reviews - 1  Portfolio: three chapters  Chapter 1 Profile of the institution Changes to QA system since 1 st cycle Impact of and update from 1 st cycle recommendations  Chapter 2 – Cohort analysis (at least at the faculty level)  Chapter 3 – thematic reflective questions Evaluative questions (on the basis of the teaching and learning chapter in the cycle one institutional audit, engage with the evaluative questions as in the draft Framework document)

21 Institutional reviews - 2  Complexity of the educational process  Knowledge of students  Content and process of teaching and learning  Teaching renewal  Engagement with institutional identity and national priorities  The discourse on efficiency and compliance Add:  Assessment  One theme selected by the institution in negotiation with the CHE (e.g. teaching and research nexus, institutional culture, student learning, benchmarking, managing academic risks, first year experience…)

22 Reminders  HELTASA - CHE/HEQC National Teaching and Learning Awards – closed 22 August.  NRF Research Chairs Initiative – in teaching and learning.

23 Conclusion


Download ppt "Second Cycle of Quality Assurance: 2012−2017 Public Providers QA Forum Council on Higher Education Dr Mark Hay Executive Director: Quality Assurance 23."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google