Institutional Sustainability Assessment (ISA)

1. Institutional Sustainability Assessment (ISA) Prepared for the Association of College and University Registrars and Liason Officers (ACURLO) Inc, in Region IV-A, CALABARZON September 4, 2014

2. Outline • Why quality? • What are the multiple missions of Philippine higher education institutions (PHEIs)? • What prompted CHED to advocate and support quality and quality assurance? • What is CHED’s view of: • Quality? • Quality Assurance? (QA)? • What is a Quality Assurance (QA) System? • What is the benefit of having an internal/institutional QA system? • What is the role of CHED? • What is ISA? What are its objectives? • What are the Key Result Areas (KRAs) of ISA • Institutional Sustainability Assessment (ISA) • The Quality Assurance Framework • The ISA Key Result Areas

3. Why quality? Mandate • Commission on Higher Education • Philippine higher education

4. R.A. 7722 – the Higher Education Act of 1994 mandates the Commission on Higher Education to promote, support and ensure that higher education institutions in the country attain the highest level of QUALITY.

5. Philippine higher education institution is mandated to contribute to building a quality nation capable of transcending the social, political, economic, cultural and ethical issues that constrain the country’s human development, productivity and global competitiveness.

6. What are the multiple missions of Philippine higher education institutions (PHEIs)? • 1. To produce thoughtful graduates imbued with: • valuesreflective of a humanist orientation –respect for others as human beings ; • analytical and problem skills; • ability to think through the ethical and social implications of a given course of action; • the competency to learn continuously throughout life;

7. 2. to produce graduates with high levels of academic, thinking behavioral, and technical skills/ competencies that are aligned with national academic and industry standards; • 3. to provide focused support to the research required for technological innovation, economic growth and global competitiveness; and • 4. to help improve the quality of human life of Filipinos.

8. The Goal To have a critical mass of diverse HEIs offering quality programs that meet national standards, and international standards for disciplines/professions with acceptable standards.

9. What prompted CHED to advocate and support quality and quality assurance?

10. Lack of critical pool of graduates with the necessary thinking, technical and behaviouralcompetencies • The ASEAN community by 2015 • The commitment of the Philippine government to the evolving efforts to recognize and develop a system of comparable qualifications, degrees and diplomas across the Asia-Pacific region

11. What is CHED’s view of Quality? • The alignment and consistency of outcomes with the institution’s vision-mission and goals, demonstrated by learning and service outcomes at exceptional levels, and by a shared culture of quality.

12. Three perspectives of quality based on CHED’s definition • fitness for purpose • exceptional • developing a culture of quality

13. “Fitness for purpose”means the institution’s vision and mission and goals are translated into: 1. learning outcomes, 2. programs, and 3. systems.

14. “Exceptional” means being either distinctive, exceeding very high standards, or conformance to standards based on a system of comparability using criteria and ratings.

15. “Developing a culture of quality” refers to the transformationaldimension of the CHED’s notion of quality.

16. This means that both at the global and regional levels, countries need to demonstrate that their education system match world-class standards. • World class standards means a shift: • * from education to life long- learning • * from education as transmission of knowledge to education as building learner competencies including learning how to learn

17. Quality, is therefore premised on the HEI’s ideals and on its commitmentto achieve them while involving the organization in the process. This kind of commitment is translated into having a mindset for quality assurance (QA). The internal capacity of HEIs to translate policy into quality programs and quality results depends on established internal QA systems.

18. What is CHED’s view of Quality Assurance? • Quality Assurance is about “ensuring that there are mechanisms, procedures and processes in place to ensure that the desired quality, however defined and measured is delivered.” • (Church, 1988, Harvey and Green, 1993) as cited in the ISA Handbook)

19. In short HEIs has an internal capacity to establish a Quality system- a system that can translate policy into quality programs and quality results depends on established internal QA systems.

20. What is a Quality Assurance (QA) System?

21. It is a management system and process which when properly implemented could lead to quality outcomes as well as sustainable programs and initiatives. The QA systems look at institutional performance in terms of the HEI’s capacity to translate policy (in terms of VMG) into quality programs and quality results.

22. What is the benefit of having aN internal/institutional qA system? • Develop quality HEIs with a competitive advantage • About 2,000 HEIs of varying quality • Quality education that gives opportunity for employment and for good citizenship • Develop Perspective of HEIs • Keep the end in mind • Develop internal QA systems • Reflect the HEI’s capability to survive, to achieve its VMG and its culture of quality

23. Institutional QA Systems • Presence of the system • The mechanisms, procedures and processes exist. • They are defined, known by users, and ideally, documented through a manual or a memo. • Extent of implementation • All users follow the mechanisms, procedures, and processes. • Exceptions to the system are documented and justified.

24. Institutional QA Systems • Outcomes • The system leads to stakeholder satisfaction, HEI policy, HEI reputation, etc. • Effectiveness of implementation • The implementation of the system helps the HEI achieve their goals and targets, as shown by the quantity and quality of outcomes.

25. The HEIs Quality Assurance System INTERNAL QA SYSTEM EXTERNAL QA SYSTEM

26. Quality Assurance • P • R • O • C • E • S • S • E • S • VMG •  • Desired learning outcomes •  • Learning Environment • (Content + Methodologies) •  • Assessment

27. QA: Towards Mature HEIs Plan • Clear VMG • Definition of desired learning outcomes • Learning environment • Outputs: Program delivery, services • Inputs: Human, physical, financial resources; Systems • Monitoring and assessment • Performance indicators • Appropriate instruments • Internal and external perspectives • Improve and enhance Do Check Act

28. HORIZONTAL Typology PROFESSIONAL INSTITUTION UNIVERSITY COLLEGE AUTONOMOUS DEREGULATED REGULATED AUTONOMOUS DEREGULATED REGULATED AUTONOMOUS DEREGULATED REGULATED VERTICAL Typology

29. What is the role of CHED? To assist HEIS in developing a QA System through an Institutional Sustainability Assessment (ISA) Process.

30. What is ISA? • ISA is a quality assurance process that assesses the institutional sustainability of an HEI • Through the use of appropriate assessment tools it becomes possible to measure objectively the HEI’s performance as well as check if the mechanisms procedures, and process actually deliver the desired quality.

31. Objectives of ISA • To support HEIs in developing institutional systems that lead to quality outcomes, as demonstrated by students and graduates whose competencies meet internationally recognized standards and are relevant to employment. • To support HEIs in developing a culture of quality, reflected in internal QA systems that will help them perform effectively and efficiently and meet their desired outcomes and performance targets. • To engage HEIs in addressing policy issues, especially those that address the need to improve the quality of higher education.

32. CHED promotes ISA because it can serve as a learning process for the HEIs and contribute to its continuing quality cycle. The ISA is DEVELOPMENTAL in nature and entails a more reflective review of the institution’s VMG and desired outcomes.

33. The ISA Framework: The 5 Key Result Areas • Governance and Management (including management of resources) • Quality of Teaching and Learning (competency, programs, faculty) • Quality of Professional Exposure, Research and Creative Work (including linkages) • Support for Students (learning resources & support structure) • Relations with the Community (extra-curricular linkages, service learning, outreach)

34. KRA 1: governance & management • A. Core Indicator: Governance • Criterion: Governance arrangements • B. Core Indicator: Management • Criterion: Management, financial control, and quality assurance arrangements • C. Indicator: Enabling Features • Criterion: 1) the use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT); • 2) resource generation strategies to support its development plans; • 3) others

35. Governance and Management • Core Indicator: Governance • Criterion: The institution’s governance arrangements demonstrate probity, strategic vision, accountability, awareness and management of risk, and effective monitoring of performance. • Refers to the systems that reflect the principles guiding the overall use of authority and decision-making of the institution’s governing body • Possible outcomes: Attainment of objectives of the institution; esp. in areas of policy formulation/decision making, sustainability of operations, monitoring, and communication systems

36. Governance and Management • Core Indicator: Management • Criterion: The institution’s management, financial control, and quality assurance arrangements are sufficient to manage existing operations and to respond to development and change. • Refers to the overall systems and processes of the institution • Possible outcomes: Efficient and effective operations; support of stakeholders; speedy and appropriate response to external and internal developments

37. Governance and Management • Indicator: Enabling Features • Criterion: The institution has enabling features, e.g., • the use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) for more efficient and effective management; and • viable, sustainable, and appropriate resource generation strategies to support its development plans. • Refers to the particular initiatives of the institution that contribute to efficiency, productivity, and quality of the community environment • Possible outcomes: Efficient and effective operations, well-being of sectors of the community, achievement of development targets

38. KRA 2: quality of teaching & learning • A. Core Indicator: Setting and Achieving Program Standards • Criterion 1: Program Approval and Implementation • Criterion 2: Program Monitoring and Review • Criterion 3: Action to Strengthen Programs

39. KRA 2: quality of teaching & learning • B. Core Indicator: Faculty Profile • Criterion: Faculty members with expertise and competence • C. Core Indicator: Use of ICT and Learning Resources • Criterion: Effective use of learning resources, such as library resources, laboratories, and ICT

40. Quality of Teaching & Learning • Core Indicator: Setting & Achieving Program Standards • Criterion 1: Program Approval and Implementation - The institution has a system for approving programs, which takes into consideration the HEI’s VMG and resources, the desired competencies for its graduates, the development needs of the region/country, and its ability to ensure that its programs enable students to achieve the intended outcomes. It has systems to ensure effective implementation of the program to achieve the intended outcomes. • Possible outcomes: Credibility among stakeholders due to transparency of processes; Programs that are consistent with the HEI’s VMG and desired graduate competencies; Programs that are effectively implemented

41. Quality of Teaching & Learning • Core Indicator: Setting & Achieving Program Standards • Criterion 2: Program Monitoring and Review – • The institution has effective arrangements for monitoring and reviewing the effectiveness of its programs. • Possible outcomes: Effective teaching and learning, outstanding student achievements, innovative and efficient program delivery, performance of graduates of the program in terms of licensure examinations and employability

42. Quality of Teaching & Learning • Core Indicator: Setting & Achieving Program Standards • Criterion 3: Action to Strengthen Programs – • The institution takes effective action to address weakness, build on strengths, and to enhance performance by the dissemination of good practice. • Possible outcomes: Positive feedback on the effectiveness and impact of proposed and implemented changes

43. Quality of Teaching & Learning • Professional Institution • The programs produce graduates with professional competencies that are relevant and responsive to the needs of society. • College • The programs produce graduates with holistic perspective and broad knowledge of issues. • University • The programs produce graduates with specialized competencies and investigative skills.

44. Quality of Teaching & Learning • Core Indicator: Faculty Profile • Criterion: The institution has an adequate number of faculty members with the appropriate expertise and competence to teach the courses offered by the institution. • Refers to the systems and processes of hiring, retaining, and developing faculty with the appropriate expertise and competence • Possible outcomes: Student performance, rate of completion, and faculty competence

45. Quality of Teaching & Learning • Core Indicator: Use of ICT & Learning Resources • Criterion: The institution makes effective use of learning resources, such as library resources, laboratories, and information and communications technology, to support student learning. • Refers to the structures that allow faculty, students, and administrators to effectively use its learning resources • Possible outcomes: Efficiency in delivery of services, innovative programs, utilization of ICT and library resources

46. KRA 3: quality of professional exposure/research/creative work • A. Indicator: Professional Exposure • Criterion: Professional exposure programs (e.g., practicum, internship, and on-the-job training). • B. Indicator: Research Capability • Criterion: Creative research and advanced scholarly activity • C. Indicator: Creative Work and/or Innovation • Criterion: Creative work in the arts and/or innovation in science and technology.

47. Quality of PROFESSIONAL EXPOSURE, RESEARCH, & CREATIVE WORK • Indicator: Professional Exposure • Criterion: The institution has programs that allow students to practice their learned competencies in view of their future careers, such as programs for practicum, internship, and on-the-job training (OJT). • Possible outcomes: Collaboration of sectors and programs, which are relevant and responsive to the needs of society

48. Quality of PROFESSIONAL EXPOSURE, RESEARCH, & CREATIVE WORK • Indicator: Research Capability • Criterion: The institution has a research community of faculty, postgraduate students and postdoctoral research workers that fosters and supports creative research and other advanced scholarly activity. • Possible outcomes: Publications, highly functional and relevant research programs

49. Quality of PROFESSIONAL EXPOSURE, RESEARCH, & CREATIVE WORK • Indicator: Creative Work and/or Innovation • Criterion: The institution has programs that promote creative work and/or innovation in the arts and humanities, science and technology, social sciences, and/or management science. • Possible outcomes: Patents and awards

50. A. Core Indicator: Equity and Access • Criterion 1: Recruitment, Admission, and Academic Support • Criterion 2: Student Scholarships • B. Core Indicator: Student Services • Criterion: The institution has programs for student services, to support the non-academic needs of the students.