1. STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT Quality Assurance Forum Public Providers Olivia Mokgatle 28 August 2012

2. Introduction • Beginning of 2011 main focus of the Standards Development activities was Framework development • Inform and guide the approach and process of development of Qualification Standards • Informal Reference Group – Advisory • Wide consultation (Experts and Peers in the sector) - CHE philosophy • Internal and external consultation, including the 2011 QA Forum workshops • Valuable input helped to inform and shape • - conceptual thinking • - approach to standards development • Culmination in first draft Framework for Qualification Standards in Higher Education • December 2011 CHE sent out the Draft Framework to all interested parties in the Sector for comment

3. Progress • Summary of Submissions: • Submissions deadline was10 February 2012 • By16th March 2012 - 27 responses received • Public and Private providers, HESA, Unions and Professional Bodies • Collated and analysed responses - Summary of Submissions • Further internal discussions (CHE) and SD Reference Group • Overall valuable input from the submissions • Attention given to areas of general agreement and concerns • Diverse opinions

4. Major questions and concerns were raised: • Implications to existing QA initiatives ( CHE and Provider ) • The development of standards (Methodological and logistical issues) • Clarity of roles and responsibilities among key role players in the sector e.g. SAQA • Key themes emerged and helped direct the line of enquiry and organization of the summary of submissions • 14 areas of enquiry emerged – each with several questions/concerns to be addressed • CHE responses are in RED - It is hoped that the responses would cause thought, and encourage further discussions • Current Focus: • 2nd draft Framework is underway • An attempt to develop draft Qualification Type Standards for Diploma and Bachelor’s degrees • Glossary of Terms • Pilot using a select Fields of study/Disciplines • Experts groups/Communities of practice • Formal Representative Reference Group

5. AREAS OF ENQUIRY • THE PURPOSE AND AIMS OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT • Major questions: • What problem is standards development actually addressing? How will standards address the problem? • 2) Is standards development distinctive from quality assurance? • 3) Will qualification standards just mean more regulation of higher education, and greater demand for compliance? • 4) What implications for, and impact on, institutional differentiation will standards development have? • 5) Will standards undermine the intrinsic logic and value of particular learning contexts? • 6) Should standards distinguish between various modes of tuition? • 7) Will qualification standards incorporate standards for work-integrated learning?

6. CLARITY AND INTERPRETATION OF THE FRAMEWORK Major questions: 1) Will the Framework include a glossary of terms? 2) Will the Framework include an example of a qualification standard? 3) Are qualification standards adequately distinguished from other types of standards? 4) How will qualification standards be aligned with programme development? 5) Will the Framework clarify criteria for ‘professional’ education?

7. ROLES IN STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT • Major questions: • 1) How will the CHE role of developer of standards relate to the SAQA role of registrar of qualifications? • 2) What steps will be taken to ensure close cooperation between the Quality Councils? • 3) Who will be responsible for the development of standards for occupational/vocational qualifications at levels 5 and 6? • THE INTENDED BENEFICIARIES OF STANDARDS • Major questions: • What benefit will qualification standards have for students? • 2) Would qualification standards be of equal importance and benefit at all NQF levels? • 3) How will standards development foreground and integrate communities of practice? Who would the communities comprise, and what would they do? • 4) Do qualification standards aim to be of particular benefit to ‘weaker’ institutions?

8. STANDARDS AND INSTITUTIONAL AUTONOMY • Major questions: • How will standards affect institutional autonomy and academic freedom? How will they ensure a balance between autonomy and accountability? • 2) How will standards accommodate contextual and institutional-type differences? • Are the differences represented (or implied) by a contextual-conceptual knowledge spectrum or by the notion of qualification pathways? • 3) It is generally agreed that standards should not result in any kind of institutional ranking, but ranking happens anyway (in the marketplace), so would standards development have any additional (negative) effect? • 4) Will the aims of standards development (including the promotion of institutional autonomy and academic freedom with accountability) be compromised by other ‘management’ strategies, such as PQM approval or SAQA registration?

9. RELATIONSHIP WITH PROFESSIONAL BODIES Major questions: 1) How will standards influence or affect the relationship between the function of the CHE as quality assurer and the professional body function of setting requirements for professional designation or registration? 2) Is there a clear distinction evident between qualification standards and professional criteria for designation/registration? 3) In the development of standards, what form of, and structure for, consultation with professional bodies would be appropriate?

10. DELEGATION TO HEIs OF CERTAIN FUNCTIONS • Major questions: • Will qualification standards influence, in any way, the process of delegation of functions and of self-accreditation of institutions? • 2) Can standards development be regarded as a step towards greater institutional self-regulation and autonomous quality assurance? • 3) How would any form of self-regulation of qualifications be aligned with professional body criteria for designation?

11. STANDARDS WITHIN THE NQF “NESTED” APPROACH • What is the proper relationship between NQF level descriptors and qualification standards in higher education? • 2) Are all NQF level descriptor categories equally appropriate for all qualification pathways and levels? • THE NOTION OF A ‘RANGE OF STANDARDS’ • 1) What danger is there in a ‘range’ of standards being used as a measure of institutional hierarchy? • 2) What potential does a ‘range’ of standards have to be a guide to internal institutional quality development? • 3) Should qualification standards be complemented by some form of good/best practice guide? And a qualifier/discipline/subject statement

12. QUALIFICATION ‘PATHWAYS’ • Major questions: • What danger is there of qualification ‘pathways’ being linked to, and an influence on, differentiation between institutional types (within the sector, and between the public and private sectors)? • 2) Are pathways to be linked to institutional mission, goals, resources and capacity? • 3) Will standards specify (or else guide) ratios of contextual-conceptual knowledge, and knowledge-skill-applied competence for different pathways? • 4) Are pathways to be construed as indicative, descriptive or normative as they apply to qualifications?

13. HOW MANY LAYERS SHOULD STANDARDS ADDRESS? Major questions: 1) Given the diversity of opinions expressed, is there any reason for the CHE to change the approach proposed in the Framework, at least during a pilot phase? 2) How will the layers selected for standards development relate to the programme criteria set by professional bodies for designation/registration? 3) Would a broad understanding of standards benefit from a clear distinction being made between a qualification standard and a qualifier/discipline/subject statement?

14. GRADUATE ATTRIBUTES Major questions: 1) Are graduate attributes identical to outcomes? If there is a difference, how is it to be defined? 2) Can graduate attributes include (in a meaningful way) generic capacities such as ethical practice, independent enquiry, environmental sensitivity, and constitutional values?

15. TIMEFRAMES AND INITIAL FOCUS Major questions: 1) What effects should other CHE/HEQC processes (HEQF alignment, national reviews, institutional reviews) have on the timeframe for standards development? 2) Will there be any detrimental effects on the sector if the CHE commences with a pilot phase and critical assessment prior to full implementation? 3) What qualification types and/or fields are candidates for a pilot phase? 4) What is the anticipated ‘shelf-life’ of a qualification standard?

16. Thank You!