1 / 17

Possible changes to the Accreditation Process

Possible changes to the Accreditation Process. Quality Assurance Forum August 2011. Why necessary?. Broad level: Existing framework sound in terms of principles but relates to programmes only – candidacy and accreditation phases. Overambitious? Currently not implementing accreditation phase.

johnda
Télécharger la présentation

Possible changes to the Accreditation Process

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Possible changes to the Accreditation Process Quality Assurance Forum August 2011

  2. Why necessary? 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?

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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…

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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) • Composition: - • CHE member (not also HEQC) – chair • ED QA • 2 HEQC members ( on AC) • 1 IAC member

  12. If appeal lodged, appeal and all original reports and submissions evaluated by 2 independent reviewers, recommendation to Appeals Committee

  13. Document processes for: • representations, • new sites of delivery, changes of mode, changes of name, • complaints • notice of, and withdrawal of, accreditation

  14. Summary • Mandatory site visit for new institutions • Linking programme and institutional accreditation • Institutional accreditation – self-accreditation

More Related