Peter Cullen QQI, Head of Validation and Delegation QQI Validation White Paper Private/independent providers providing programmes leading to QQI awards Peter Cullen QQI, Head of Validation and Delegation 29/01/2016

This presentation will: outline our thinking concerning validation particularly from the perspective of private/independent providers providing programmes leading to QQI awards emphasise what is likely to change and why note the main implications of the change outline the envisaged time scale for implementation help you prepare your feedback on the white paper—the deadline for submissions on validation policy and criteria is 26 February 2016. 29/01/2016

Unified Policy and Criteria There would be core validation policy and criteria common to all E&T The core policy would be augmented by specialised validation policy and criteria (e.g. for programmes leading to CAS awards or for English language proficiency programmes or for research degree programmes) All validation processes would involve Self evaluation report by the applicant against the validation criteria Independent evaluation Publication by QQI of the independent evaluation report following decision 29/1/2016

Some key concepts to note Provider Relevant provider Programme Provider’s validated programme Minimum intended programme learning outcome Validation Shared curriculum Shared programme (concept no longer to be used) Collaborative programme Coordinating provider Differential validation Devolved responsibility 29/1/2016

12 broad validation criteria The provider is eligible to apply for validation of the programme The programme objectives and outcomes are clear and consistent with the QQI awards sought The programme concept and implementation strategy and its interpretation of QQI awards standards are well informed and soundly based (considering social, cultural, educational, professional and employment objectives) The programme’s access, transfer and progression arrangements are satisfactory The programme’s written curriculum is well structured and fit-for-purpose There are sufficient qualified and capable teaching staff available to implement the programme as planned There are sufficient physical resources to implement the programme as planned The learning environment is consistent the needs of the programme’s learners There are sound teaching and learning strategies There are sound assessment strategies Learners are well informed, guided and cared-for The programme is well managed 29/1/2016

Prerequisites Before applying for validation a provider must have established procedures for quality assurance under section 28 of the 2012 Act; established procedures for access, transfer and progression under section 56; complied with section 65 in respect of arrangements for the protection of enrolled learners; and consulted with the person referred to in section 44 subsection (11), if that subsection applies to the provider. 29/01/2016

Self-evaluation Prior to making an application for validation of a programme, a provider will need to conduct, and prepare a report on, a critical self-evaluation of the relevant programme against the applicable validation policy and criteria. Experience shows that the quality and candour of this evaluation can be an indicator of a provider’s capacity to provide quality programmes—i.e. providers who cannot do this well may be challenged to quality assure a programme of education and training! 29/1/2016

Documentation The programme-related documentation must include sufficient information to address the applicable validation criteria for example: An outline of the programme and identification of the QQI awards to which it leads; The documented programme (including for example what is taught, how it is taught, by what means and in which modes it is taught, by whom is it taught, where it is taught, when it is taught, how it is assessed, to whom it is taught in general terms, who owns the programme, and how the programme is managed and quality assured and by whom) this should integrate or be supported by: The programme’s assessment strategies and procedures; The programme’s teaching and learning strategy (this covers education and training); CVs for the programme’s key staff; Comprehensive listing of the physical facilities and learning resources; Documented procedures for the operation and management of the programme; Five-year plan for the programme demonstrating viability Samples of the material to be provided to prospective learners; Samples of the material to be provided to enrolled learners; Samples of assessment tasks, model answers and marking schemes for each award stage. Also it must have details on the programme-specific QA and collaboration agreements with collaborating providers, awarding bodies and employers where applicable. 29/1/2016

Independent evaluation Applications would be evaluated by an external group that is independent of the provider and well matched to the specific programme to be validated In some cases there may be a visit to the provider Evaluators will be identified (will not be anonymous) Evaluation would involve transparent and proportional rigour The level of scrutiny would adapt to QQI’s uncertainty concerning the application presented All validation reports would be published by QQI Allow up to 25 weeks for validation (though often much quicker) 29/1/2016

Changes for all Approach would provide a unified approach informed by VET and HET guidelines including the “Handbook for VET providers: Supporting internal quality management and quality culture” and the “Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG) ” crisper validation criteria new approaches to devolving responsibility to providers for a risk-based evaluation rather than one-size-fits-all clarity about the scope of changes that may be made to validated programmes It is compatible with new guidelines on flexible and distributed learning (e.g. e-learning) We recognise that we may need to provide more detailed guidance for presenting programmes involving FLD for validation. 29/1/2016

For FET providers The approach would, for example: expect FET providers to be outward looking when interpreting needs guided by QQI awards standards involve a significant evolutionary step: empowering, challenging but not unduly disruptive lay foundations for more autonomous activity facilitate more streamlined online applications enable discipline-area approach to evaluation in certain cases (a special kind of devolved responsibility approach) 17/10/2015

Non-CAS QQI FET awards Programmes could be validated for non-CAS QQI FET awards provides for provider-determination of expected learning outcomes to meet specific social, cultural and employment needs guided by broad standards QQI’s 2014 Policy for Determining Awards Standards provides for this and the new validation policy would enable the implementation of this Those with capability and capacity to do so could freely develop their own programmes using QQI’s generalised standards and submit these for validation e.g. new apprenticeships 17/10/2015

For HET providers The policy and criteria are somewhat similar to the HETAC 2010 policy and criteria but not the same—they are more focused, probing and comprehensive The process is broadly similar to the current one but the reports will be more focused on the validation criteria than the current ones are 29/1/2016

Slightly altered terminology Terminology aligns with new standards and award making policies Refer to shared curriculum instead of shared programme— significant efficiencies would still apply each provider application for validation of own programme addressing topics including customised curriculum, staffing and other resources are specific to them Refer to devolved responsibility rather than programme approval agreements—QQI’s process would be followed Compound programmes are modularised integrated programmes leading to major, special purpose, supplemental, or professional awards. Minor programmes, are programmes leading to minor awards where the provider does not provide a corresponding compound prog. leading to a CAS award. A minor programme MUST BE developed for the purpose of preparing a learner to partially meet the requirements for a specified non-minor award. This would be tested rigorously by validation. 29/1/2016

Implementation plan Hope to work with FET sector to develop an implementation plan as the changes are significant Explain the new policy Plan the roll out Systematically train independent evaluators Encourage the development of secondary sources providing support and guidance for providers on related matters Will probably need to produce detailed guidelines on preparing applications. Looking for interested people! 29/1/2016

Context: other QQI infrastructure The new validation policy and criteria would build on 2014 Policy and Criteria for Making Awards and 2014 Policy for Determining Awards Standards be optimised for the forthcoming suite of new QA guidelines be compatible with current QA guidelines to allow time for QQI’s reengagement process to roll out Supporting material would include, e.g. New assessment conventions and protocols New external authenticator guidelines (FET) New guidelines on reviewing programmes and presenting them for revalidation 29/1/2016

Aiming for April 2016 April 2016 target for commencement of the new policy White paper published in December 2015 for response by the end of February 2016 Adoption of new policy in April 2016 It is envisaged that applications under the new policy would be accepted immediately following its adoption in April 2016 e.g. apprenticeship programmes We hope to be able to allow a transition period up to September before rescinding the current FET policies. We would like a swift but orderly transition and would be happy to discuss timing. Please don’t accelerate the rate of development to get validation applications in before the adoption of the new policy! 29/1/2016

Re-validation Normally every five years or following a change in award standard The new validation criteria will apply The evidence base is enhanced because the programme has been running Opportunity to make significant changes to programmes (much more than would be the norm during shorter cycle reviews e.g. annual) Similar programmes can be evaluated together provided this does not compromise the quality of the self-evaluation or independent evaluation processes Shared curricula can be examined collaboratively but programmes are the provider’s responsibility Guidelines on this have to be developed this year! 29/1/2016

Suggested topics for discussion Is the approach clear in terms of the process? Is it clear in terms of the criteria? Do you think the criteria are appropriate? Are there things we have missed? What do you see as the challenges for you in this approach? What do you see as the opportunities provided by this approach? 29/1/2016