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

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

HEQC 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, re- accreditation 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 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 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 programmes.

HEQC 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 within the context of international trends.

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

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

HEQC 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 –Use of same panels for a larger number of HEIs to ensure more consistency in decision- making. –Smooth administration of the process - HEQC.

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

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

HEQC 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 DECISIONS TABLE CATEGORIESRECOMMENDATION/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 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 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 4 journals in SA.

HEQC Thank You Theo Bhengu Tel: Fax: e.ac.za