NATIONAL REVIEW OF ACADEMIC PROFESSIONAL PROGRAMMES IN

NATIONAL REVIEW OF ACADEMIC & PROFESSIONAL PROGRAMMES IN EDUCATION INSTITUTIONAL PREPAREDNESS WORKSHOP 24 & 26 April 2006 HEQC 2005 1

Contents of Presentation • • • Workshop Objectives. General guidelines. Scope of the National Review Components Re-accreditation Process. A staggered national review. Timeline: 2006 and 2007. Making Judgements. Update on M Ed HEQC 2005 review. 2

Objectives • To provide and discuss information and guidelines for institutions regarding the review of PGCE, ACE and B Ed programmes. • To provide information on portfolio development, site visits, use of evidence, reaccreditation process, decision-making and any other areas related to the national review. • To reflect on the M Ed review using experiences of institutions. • To discuss other issues institutions wish to raise. HEQC 2005 3

General Guidelines • The review should take into account issues of the supply/demand/upgrading of educators and what the HEQC and HEIs can reasonably manage. • The HEQC will adopt a programme rather than a qualification approach to the review. • Focus - B Ed (Foundation Phase), PGCE (FET Phase) and ACE (Maths or Science). HEIs not offering these specialisations had an alternative specialisation selected. NO INTERNAL REVIEWS. • HEQC reserves the right to select any specialisation based on other criteria – e. g. numbers of students. • Information on modes and sites of delivery must be clearly indicated. HEQC 2005 4

Scope of the Review • Comprehensive evaluation of programmes offered by HEIs (public and registered private) as well as programmes offered by SA HEIs abroad and foreign institutions in SA. • Ensure that programmes meet minimum standards of quality. • Grant recognition for the continuing validity of programmes. • Improve the quality of programmes granted accreditation with conditions. • Monitor the integrity of the qualifications of pipeline students enrolled in de-accredited HEQC 2005 5 programmes.

Review Components • Re-accreditation of programmes: assessment of the quality of provision against a number of criteria consensually developed by the HEQC and different stakeholders and the granting of continuing validity of the qualifications obtained through a programme. • Follow-up: to ensure that conditionally accredited programmes meet the conditions stipulated by the HEQC Board for them to become fully accredited and to guarantee that the quality of provision for pipeline students enrolled in de-accredited programmes is given due consideration. • State Report: identifies strengths and weaknesses in the provision of a particular programme/discipline highlighting good practice; investigates issues of concern raised in the re-accreditation process; identifies trends in local provision HEQC 2005 6 within the context of international trends.

Re-accreditation Process Four Phases: • • Preparatory and Developmental Phase Evaluation Phase Decision-making Phase Improvement and Follow Up Phase HEQC 2005 7

A Staggered Review • • Review to be conducted over two years. Group 1 HEIs: to submit portfolios – June 2006. Group 2 HEIs: to submit portfolios - Feb 2007. Criteria: – Merger. – Cohort of graduates. • HEIs wishing to come earlier or later can make a request to that effect. 2005 HEQC 8

A staggered review II • Advantages: - More time for HEIs which have undergone mergers to prepare for the review. – Results in August 2007 before new enrolments for 2008. – Use of same panels for a larger number of HEIs to ensure more consistency in decisionmaking. – Smooth administration of the process - HEQC 2005 9

Timeline: 2006 • Group 1 HEIs: – Portfolios due: 30 June 2006. – July: Secretariat – desktop preliminary analysis. – Site visits – end-July to October 2006. – November 2006: report writing/standardisation. HEQC 2005 10

Timeline: 2007 • Group 2 HEIs: – Portfolios due: 28 February 2007. – Desktop analysis: March 2007. – Site visits: April to May 2007. – Report-writing/standardisation: May 2007. • Re-accreditation Committee: June 2007. • Recommendations to HEIs: June 2007. • Submission of responses: July 2007. • HEQC Board meeting: August 2007. • Final decisions: end of August 2007. HEQC 2005 11

MAKING JUDGEMENTS Degree of compliance with the Criteria: • Commend: all minimum standards are fully met. Innovative features identified in relation to the criterion (i. e. sector-leading best practice and worthy of emulation by other providers. • Meets Minimum Standards: Minimum standards in relation to the criterion are met. • Needs Improvement: Does not comply with all the minimum standards, but problems identified/weaknesses could be addressed in a short period of time. • Does Not Comply: Does not comply with the majority of the minimum standards and the shortcomings could not be addressed in a short period of time. HEQC 2005 12

DECISIONS TABLE CATEGORIES RECOMMENDATION/DECISION Systemic Issues & Minor Shortcomings. L-T weaknesses which do not compromise the quality of the programme. e. g. equity, research, appointment of externals, weighting of formative & summative assessment. HEI to provide a report on steps taken to address problems identified. Areas fixable in 21 days to be addressed immediately. FULL ACCREDITATION Fixable short-term shortcomings. e. g. modules missing or poor follow thro’ of DE students. HEI to send improvement plan with details on compliance strategy with time lines not exceeding 1 year. Detailed report (with evidence) at the end of one year. ACCREDITATION WITH CONDITIONS Irreparable shortcomings. Stds below reqmts, underqualified staff, programmes financially not viable. HEI notified that the programme did not meet the criteria and minimum standards. NO ACCREDITATION HEQC 2005 13

Update on the M Ed review • 23 programmes of 19 HEIs were evaluated. • HEQC Board met on 7 -8 March 2006 to make final decisions. • Decisions to be communicated during the first week of May 2006. A month later, the results will be posted on the CHE website. • HEQC to start communicating with unsuccessful HEIs on teach-out/transfer arrangements and with HEIs granted conditional accreditation re: improvement plans and progress reports. • Impact Research Study: To evaluate the potential impact of the M Ed review and to inform the upcoming review. • Debates on the Review and Quality Assurance by HEQC 2005 14 4 journals in SA.

Thank You Theo Bhengu Tel: 012 392 9147 Fax: 012 392 9179 email: bhengu. t@che. ac. za HEQC 2005 15