HEQF Review Update & A New Accreditation Framework QA Forum Private Providers September 2011

Developments 1. A revised HEQF 2. HEQF Implementation 3. A New Accreditation Framework

1. A Revised HEQF Review process Main findings: –Mostly affirmed in intent and design –Bit restrictive and inflexible in some areas Three main areas of concern with framework itself: –Levels 5/6 –Pathways for professional qualifications –Professional qualification at Level 9

AD Deg 360 prof Dip 360 Bach 120/156 Prof M Prof D Snr Doc PGC E Dip 240 PG Dip 36 credits HC AC Deg 360 Deg 480 Hons PG Dip Masters Doc Dip 360

Potential exceptions MMed at 660 credits, MMedVet Subspecialities MBCHb MBA level – 8, 9 – funding?

Proposals Proposal 1: The CHE proposes that there be a recognition of three broad qualification progression routes, namely the vocational, professional and general routes. While the routes should be reasonably clear, the CHE advocates permeable boundaries between them.

Proposal 2: The CHE proposes that the HEQF should provide for various forms of work- integrated learning including work-directed theoretical learning, problem-based learning, project-based learning and workplace learning.

Proposal 3 The Higher Certificate at Level 5 and the Advanced Certificate at Level 6 should remain on the HEQF. The HEQF should make provision not only for the CHE to include more qualification types on the HEQF, but also to suggest the relocation of some qualification types to other frameworks in the future.

Proposal 4: A 240-credit Diploma at Level 6 as a variant of the 360-credit Diploma, which leads to a professional designation, should be introduced.

Proposal 5: The CHE proposes the recognition of a 360-credit Bachelor’s degree with a professional orientation at Level Proposal 6: The CHE proposes that a Bachelor’s degree in both 360- and 480-credit variants may have a professional or general orientation

Proposal 7: The CHE proposes that the purpose and characteristics of the Advanced Diploma be expanded to include preparation for further study and that the Advanced Diploma at Level 7 articulate into an appropriate and cognate Honours degree at Level 8 as well as into the Postgraduate Diploma at Level 8.

Proposal 8: The CHE proposes the introduction of a professional Master’s degree as a separate qualification type to the general Master’s in its current two variants.

Proposal 9: The CHE proposes the introduction of a professional doctoral degree as a variant of the research doctorate.

Proposal 10: The CHE proposes that the HEQF specifies the minimum total credits for each qualification type, as well as the minimum credits at the exit level of the qualification, but does not specify the maximum credits at levels below the exit level.

HC AC Dip 360 AD Level 7 Deg Deg 480 Hons Res M/course M Doc Level 7 Deg prof Prof D Snr Doc Dip 240 PG Dip Hons Prof M Level 8 Deg

2. HEQF Implementation Plan Data collection going ahead – postponed slightly Effect of review

Process update HEQF-online going live end of this week, with final version of template Same template, some columns deleted Submission dates: –Early bird: 31 October 2011 –Late submission: 15 January 2012

Amendments to submissions Category A - submit S1 and S2 immediately Category B – submit S1 now and S2 six months prior to calls for Category B submissions Category C – submit S1 only Thus S1 for all, S2 only for As.

HEQF ALIGNMENT: IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATIONAL PLAN ALL HIGHER EDUCATI ON PROGRA MMES AND QUALIFIC ATIONS SUBMITT ED VIA HEQC ONLINE FOR APPRAISA L AND CATEGORI SATION CATERGORY A MINIMAL CHANGES: EG NAMEOF QUALIFICATION CATEGORY B MINOR CHANGES: IE LESS THAN 50% CHANGE TO QUALIFICATION CATEGORY C MAJOR CHANGES: IE MORE 50% CHANGE TO QUALIFICATION UNIVERSITIES Blue Group UNIVERSITIES Purple Group UNIVERSITIES OF TECHNOLOGY COMPREHENS IVE UNIVERSITIES Red Group PRIVATE PROVIDERS EST. 60 – 70% OF APPLICATIONS LARGE SCALE EVALUATIONS OF APPLICATIONS IN AC-STYLE MODEL EST. 60 – 70% OF APPLICATIONS LARGE SCALE EVALUATIONS OF APPLICATIONS IN AC-STYLE MODEL OUTCOME: APPROVED AND ‘DEEMED’ ACCREDITED EST. 30 – 25% OF APPLICATIONS ‘ACCREDITATION-STYLE’ EVALUATION BY INSTITUTION TYPE, DISCIPLINE AND QUALIFICATION TYPE EST. 5% OF APPLICATIONS MAKE NEW APPLICATION FOR CANDIDACY-PHASE ACCREDITATION EST. 5% OF APPLICATIONS MAKE NEW APPLICATION FOR CANDIDACY-PHASE ACCREDITATION OUTCOME: APPROVED AND ‘DEEMED’ ACCREDITED OUTCOME: PROVISIONAL ACCREDITATION NOT APPROVED NOT ACCREDITED COMPREHENS IVE UNIVERSITIES Orange Group

3. New framework 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?

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

Context changes: 2 nd 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

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…

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

Some context factors 23 publics (22 audited in 1 st cycle), 114 privates, 11 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

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

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.

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.

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)

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

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

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