Transcript A New Accreditation Framework – ideas for discussion

HEQF Review Update &
A New Accreditation Framework
QA Forum
Private Providers
September 2011
Developments
• 1. A revised HEQF
• 2. HEQF Implementation
• 3. A New Accreditation Framework
1. A Revised HEQF
• Review process
• Main findings:
– Mostly affirmed in intent and design
– Bit restrictive and inflexible in some areas
Three main areas of concern with framework
itself:
– Levels 5/6
– Pathways for professional qualifications
– Professional qualification at Level 9
10
Doc
9
Masters
8
PG
Dip
36
credits
7
6
5
AC
HC
PG
Dip
Prof
D
Snr
Doc
Prof M
Hons
AD
Dip
360
Deg
360
Deg
480
Deg
360
prof
Bach
120/156
Dip
360
PGC
E
Dip
240
Dip
240
Potential exceptions
•
•
•
•
MMed at 660 credits, MMedVet
Subspecialities
MBCHb
MBA level – 8, 9 – funding?
Proposals
Proposal 1:
• The CHE proposes that there be a
recognition of three broad qualification
progression routes, namely the vocational,
professional and general routes. While the
routes should be reasonably clear, the
CHE advocates permeable boundaries
between them.
Proposal 2:
• The CHE proposes that the HEQF should
provide for various forms of workintegrated learning including work-directed
theoretical learning, problem-based
learning, project-based learning and
workplace learning.
Proposal 3
• The Higher Certificate at Level 5 and the
Advanced Certificate at Level 6 should
remain on the HEQF. The HEQF should
make provision not only for the CHE to
include more qualification types on the
HEQF, but also to suggest the relocation
of some qualification types to other
frameworks in the future.
Proposal 4:
• A 240-credit Diploma at Level 6 as a
variant of the 360-credit Diploma, which
leads to a professional designation, should
be introduced.
Proposal 5:
• The CHE proposes the recognition of a
360-credit Bachelor’s degree with a
professional orientation at Level
Proposal 6:
• The CHE proposes that a Bachelor’s
degree in both 360- and 480-credit
variants may have a professional or
general orientation
Proposal 7:
• The CHE proposes that the purpose and
characteristics of the Advanced Diploma
be expanded to include preparation for
further study and that the Advanced
Diploma at Level 7 articulate into an
appropriate and cognate Honours degree
at Level 8 as well as into the Postgraduate
Diploma at Level 8.
Proposal 8:
• The CHE proposes the introduction of a
professional Master’s degree as a
separate qualification type to the general
Master’s in its current two variants.
Proposal 9:
• The CHE proposes the introduction of a
professional doctoral degree as a variant
of the research doctorate.
Proposal 10:
• The CHE proposes that the HEQF
specifies the minimum total credits for
each qualification type, as well as the
minimum credits at the exit level of the
qualification, but does not specify the
maximum credits at levels below the exit
level.
Prof
D
10
9
Prof M
8
PG
Dip
7
AD
6
AC
5
HC
Dip
240
Dip
360
Doc
Snr
Doc
Res M/course
M
Hons
Level
7 Deg
prof
Level
Deg
8
480
Deg
Level
7 Deg
2. HEQF Implementation
• Plan
• Data collection going ahead – postponed
slightly
• Effect of review
Process update
• HEQF-online going live end of this week,
with final version of template
• Same template, some columns deleted
• Submission dates:
– Early bird: 31 October 2011
– Late submission: 15 January 2012
Amendments to submissions
• Category A - submit S1 and S2
immediately
• Category B – submit S1 now and S2 six
months prior to calls for Category B
submissions
• Category C – submit S1 only
• Thus S1 for all, S2 only for As.
HEQF ALIGNMENT: IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATIONAL PLAN
UNIVERSITIES
Blue Group
UNIVERSITIES
Purple Group
PRIVATE
PROVIDERS
COMPREHENS
IVE
UNIVERSITIES
Red Group
COMPREHENS
IVE
UNIVERSITIES
Orange Group
UNIVERSITIES
OF
TECHNOLOGY
ALL
HIGHER
EDUCATI
ON
PROGRA
MMES
AND
QUALIFIC
ATIONS
SUBMITT
ED VIA
HEQC
ONLINE
FOR
APPRAISA
L AND
CATEGORI
SATION
CATERGORY A
CATEGORY B
CATEGORY C
MINIMAL CHANGES: EG NAMEOF
QUALIFICATION
MINOR CHANGES: IE LESS THAN 50%
CHANGE TO QUALIFICATION
MAJOR CHANGES: IE MORE 50%
CHANGE TO QUALIFICATION
EST. 60 – 70% OF APPLICATIONS
EST. 30 – 25% OF APPLICATIONS
EST. 5% OF APPLICATIONS
LARGE SCALE EVALUATIONS OF
APPLICATIONS IN AC-STYLE MODEL
‘ACCREDITATION-STYLE’ EVALUATION
BY INSTITUTION TYPE, DISCIPLINE AND
QUALIFICATION TYPE
MAKE NEW APPLICATION FOR
CANDIDACY-PHASE ACCREDITATION
NOT APPROVED
OUTCOME: APPROVED AND ‘DEEMED’
ACCREDITED
NOT APPROVED
OUTCOME: APPROVED AND ‘DEEMED’
ACCREDITED
NOT ACCREDITED
OUTCOME: PROVISIONAL
ACCREDITATION
3. New framework
Broad level:
• Existing framework sound in terms of
principles but relates to programmes only
– candidacy and accreditation phases.
Overambitious? Currently not
implementing accreditation phase.
• No real link with institutional quality
capacity – audit/institutional review/site
visits …. Self-accreditation?
Regulatory issues:
• Some principles need amendment or
foregrounding e.g. blind peer review
• Spell out re-accreditation in relation to
registration with DHET
• Better provisions for complaints,
withdrawing of accreditation and appeals
Context changes:
• 2nd cycle – institutions at different stages
of “quality maturity”
• Mergers, growth in private sector,
established institutions now developing
new sites/changing sites
• HEQF – new framework for all
qualifications, not just new
• Changing roles of CHE/SAQA
Purposes of accreditation
• Assure and enhance quality in higher
education programmes and the institutions
that offer them – grant recognition status
for meeting minimum standards
• Protect students…
• Support providers to institutionalise a
culture of self-managed evaluation
• Increase public confidence…
What do we want to do with new
framework?
• Integrate institutional accreditation with
programme accreditation and with other
HEQC processes (institutional
audits/reviews, national reviews), and deal
with promised self-accreditation
• Therefore, build a system of institutional
accreditation
Some context factors
• 23 publics (22 audited in 1st cycle), 114
privates, 11 audited, some site-visited)
• HEQF – need to get over first before
implementing big new parts of framework
(2014/15)
• New and existing programmes – diff acc
statuses
• Regulatory changes urgent
Institutional accreditation
• Purpose – to determine institutional
capacity to offer HE programmes
• Outcome:
– provisional accreditation (if new)
– conditional accreditation
– on notice of withdrawal of accreditation
– accreditation (self-accreditation status)
– not accredited
Processes
• New institutions – application, SER, site
visit, (3yrs)
• Existing institutions –
– Those audited with no serious
recommendations, plus good accreditation
history – simple process, application, a
reviewer, AC, HEQC
– Those eligible for audit but not audited need
audit first
– Those not audited – self-evaluation, site visit.
Overview of programme and institutional accreditation
New
institutions
Programme
accreditation
Audited
institutions
Programmes
accredited
prior to first
cycle
Site visit
Institutional
accreditation
New
programmes
Conditions
Unaudited
institutions
Institutions not
eligible for
audit
Audit
Site visit
Programme
accreditation
Candidacy
programmes
Resubmitted
programmes
Accreditation of new institutions
Submit ONLINE application for institutional
accreditation along with application for
programme accreditation
Directorate
assesses for
completeness
Institutional
application
Programme application (parallel with
institutional application)
Site visit panel
appointed by
Directorate
Reviewer
appointed by
Directorate
Site visit
conducted and
report submitted to
Directorate
Review reports on site visit and programme,
recommendations and application documents submitted to
Accreditation Committee with the recommendation from
the Directorate
Recommendation made to
HEQC which makes decisions,
Provisional
accreditation of
the institution is
decided
Programme accreditation
process goes ahead,
decision is made and
Directorate communicates it
Institution accepts
outcome and
proceeds
accordingly
Institution does not
accept outcome and
submits representation
Provisional
accreditation of
the institution is
not decided
Programme accreditation
process deferred, institution
given time to attend to
institutional issue.
Directorate communicates
this
Institution accepts
outcome and
proceeds
accordingly
Institution does not
accept outcome and
submits representation
Existing provisionally accredited institutions
Institutions with
programmes
accredited in 2011
or before
Application
submitted any
time before
December 2014
Audited
institutions
Institutions that
were not audited
Self review and report on
progress report from the IAC
which includes
recommendation on whether
site visit is needed and what
focus should be
IAC does not
recommend site
visit
IAC recommends
site visit
Directorate
appoints reviewer,
Directorate
appoints site
review panel
Public institutions
Private institutions
Institutional review
arranged by the
Review
Directorate
Process followed
as for new
institutions
Reports to AC
who make
recommendation
to HEQC
HEQC makes
decision,
Directorate
communicates it
Extension of
provisional
accreditation
Notice of intention
to withdraw
accreditation
Accreditation
Institutional
response
Institution accepts
decision and
proceeds
accordingly
Institution does
not accept
decision and
submits
representation
Programmes
• Candidacy phase for new programmes
• Existing programmes – HEQF alignment,
deemed accredited (structural coherence,
names etc) – link to institutional
accreditation
• Re-registration – summarised report on
current status of programmes to DHET.
Appeals
• Representation within 21 days, reevaluate, back to AC and HEQC
• Can re-apply after 12 months
• New appeals process:
• Appeals Cttee, meets 2x per year (1x)
• If appeal lodged, appeal and all original
reports and submissions evaluated by 2
independent reviewers, recommendation
to Appeals Committee
• Document processes for:
– representations,
– new sites of delivery, changes of mode,
changes of name,
– complaints
– notice of, and withdrawal of, accreditation
Summary
• Mandatory site visit for new institutions
• Linking programme and institutional
accreditation
• Institutional accreditation – selfaccreditation