Developments in Programme Accreditation

QA Forum with Professional Bodies

August 2011

Developments

• 1. A New Accreditation Framework

• 2. A revised HEQF

• 3. HEQF Implementation

1. 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), 116

privates (a handful 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.

Institutional accreditation

New institutions

Audited institutions

Unaudited institutions

Programme accreditation

Institutions not eligible for

auditSite visit

Audit

Site visit

Programme accreditation

New programmes

Candidacy programmes

Resubmitted programmes

Conditions

Programmes accredited prior to first

cycle

Overview of programme and institutional accreditation

Submit ONLINE application for institutional accreditation along with application for

programme accreditation

Directorate assesses for

completeness

Institutional application

Programme application (parallel with institutional application)

Reviewer appointed by 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,

Institution accepts outcome and

proceeds accordingly

Institution does not accept outcome and

submits representation

Site visit panel appointed by Directorate

Site visit conducted and

report submitted to Directorate

Provisional accreditation of the institution is

decided

Programme accreditation process goes ahead, decision is made and

Directorate communicates it

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

Accreditation of new institutions

Institutions with programmes

accredited in 2011 or before

Audited institutions

Institutions that were not audited

Public institutions Private institutions

Institutional review arranged by the

Review Directorate

Process followed as for new institutions

Application submitted any

time before December 2014

Self review and report on progress report from the IAC

which includes recommendation on whether site visit is needed and what

focus should be

Directorate appoints reviewer,

IAC recommends site visit

Directorate appoints site review panel

IAC does not recommend site

visit

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

Existing provisionally accredited institutions

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, re-evaluate, 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 – self-accreditation

2. 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

ADDeg 360 prof

Dip 360

Bach 120/156

Prof M

Prof D

Snr Doc

PGCE

Dip 240 Dip

240

PG Dip

36 credits

10

9

8

7

6

5HC

AC Deg 360

Deg 480

HonsPG Dip

Masters

Doc

Dip 360

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 work-integrated 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.

HC

ACDip 360

AD

Level 7 Deg

Deg 480

Hons

Res M/course M

Doc10

9

8

7

6

5

Level 7 Deg prof

Prof D

Snr Doc

Dip 240

PG Dip Hons

Prof M

Level

8Deg

10

9

8

7

6

5

3. HEQF Implementation

• Plan

• Data collection going ahead – postponed slightly

• Effect of review