NATIONAL REVIEW OF PROFESSIONAL

1
NATIONAL REVIEW OF PROFESSIONAL ACADEMIC
PROGRAMMES IN EDUCATION

• PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
• 7 June 2005

2
CONTENTS OF PRESENTATION

• National reviews in the context of the work of
  the HEQC.
• Factors influencing choice of programme/discipline
  for a national review.
• Rationale for this national review.
• Re-accreditation process.
• Criteria Development.
• Some statistics from the Baseline Survey
  Questionnaire.
• Maths and Science Education.

3
National Reviews in the context of the work of
the HEQC

• National Reviews - a particular form of
  accreditation that focuses on the
  re-accreditation of existing programmes in a
  specific discipline area.
• National Reviews are conducted within the context
  of the general HEQC accreditation criteria, but
  they also include criteria specific to the
  programmes/disciplinary area focused on.
• They take into account providers as well as
  stakeholders concerns and interests in the
  training of students or professionals in a
  particular area including the articulation
  between the learning programme and the skills
  required from graduates in an actual work
  situation.

4
National Reviews 3 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.

5
Factors influencing choice of programme/discipline

• Programmes with a high impact on society, the
  economy.
• Programmes with high numbers of students
  enrolled.
• Proliferation of offerings and a need to restore
  the credibility of qualifications and protect
  students against poor quality programmes.
• Programmes which have been identified in the
  National Plan for Higher Education as needing
  attention, e.g. postgraduate programmes.
• As a result, the MBA was the first national
  review undertaken by the HEQC.
• Next review selected professional and academic
  programmes in Education starting with M Ed (2005)
  and following with PGCE, B Ed and ACE (2006).

6
Rationale

• The fundamental role of educators in producing
  human capital for the country.
• The quality of school leavers qualifying for
  higher education is dependent upon the quality of
  teacher education, amongst other factors.
• The ability to implement school reform depends on
  the quality of teachers, amongst other factors.
  
• Concerns have been expressed by the DoE and other
  stakeholders about the quality of teacher
  education provision in South Africa.
• Need for the HEQC to develop criteria to enable
  judgements on new teacher education and other
  Education programmes, especially from higher
  education institutions that have not offered
  these before.

7
Rationale II

• The priorities set by the National Plan for
  Higher Education i.e. review of the quality of
  postgraduate programmes. The development of the
  next generation of researchers in education
  depends to a large extent on the quality of such
  programmes.
• Mergers.
• Incorporation of former teacher education
  colleges into universities could have quality
  implications for these programmes.
• Help students choose programmes that offer
  acceptable quality.
• Are the investments made in the upgrading of
  teachers delivering on their objectives?
• The need to have a better understanding of the
  quality, costs and benefits as well as relevance
  of professional and academic Education programmes
  to regional and national goals.

8
Re-accreditation Process I

• 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.

9
Re-accreditation Process II

• Four Phases
• Preparatory and Developmental Phase
• Evaluation Phase
• Decision-making Phase
• Improvement and Follow Up Phase

10
Preparatory Phase

• Consultation process DoE, MCTE, Deans Forum,
  ETDP-SETA, SACE, ELRC, HESA, APPETD, SADTU, SAOU,
  NAPTOSA, SAIDE, HSRC, NADEOSA, UMALUSI, SAQA,
  CEPD, PDEs, workshops with students and
  academics, and meeting with the Minister of
  Education and constituting expert reference
  groups.
• Development of the Framework to guide the
  process.
• Design and implementation of a baseline
  questionnaire to gather data on programme
  offerings as well as to understand the size and
  shape of the discipline.
• Literature review on different practices of
  evaluation of professional and academic
  programmes in Education, including a study of the
  Canadian and US systems. Development of criteria
  by regional task teams. Harmonisation of draft
  criteria into a national framework.
• Selection of target qualifications to be
  evaluated.

11
Evaluation Phase

• Informing institutions on selection (M Ed in
  Educational Leadership and Management) in 2005.
• Institutional readiness workshops.
• HEIs submit self-evaluation portfolios.
• Nomination and preparation of evaluators.
• Development of site visit templates and comments
  on these by selected experts.
• Communication to HEIs of composition of panels
  (institutions may object).
• Screening of portfolios.
• Two to three-day site visits by teams of trained
  expert peers.
• Improvement-oriented evaluation of Mathematics
  Science Education programmes.
• Development of evaluation reports.

12
Decision-making Phase

• Appointment of Accreditation Committee (AC).
• Evaluation of reports by the AC and preparation
  of recommendations to the Board.
• Communication of recommendations to institutions.
  HEIs have 21 days to respond on errors of fact or
  omissions.
• Review and final recommendations to the Board.
• Decision-making by the Board.
• Communication of final outcomes to HEIs.
• Public release (press statement).
• Summaries of findings/decisions CHE website.

13
Criteria Development
14
Criteria II

• Proposed Criteria for Structured M Ed programmes
  released on 28 February 2005 for an initial round
  of comments and again on 26 April 2005 for
  another round of comments until 23 May 2005.
• Proposed Criteria for M Ed by Dissertation only
  released on 10 May 2005 until 30 May 2005.
• Comments were integrated. Criteria ready for
  distribution to institutions.
• The rest of the criteria will be completed by the
  end of July 2005.

15
BASELINE SURVEY ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL
PROGRAMMES IN EDUCATION

• SOME STATISTICS
• (SAMPLE OF 17 OUT OF 29 INSTITUTIONS)

16
Enrolment patterns
17
Number of staff per category
18
Some figures based on 17 submissions

• 19 qualifications offered through 611 programmes.
• Largest number of programmes ACE, followed by
  Masters.
• Some institutions offer up to 29 different
  specialisations of M.Ed.
• Institution offering fewest programmes 6.
• Institution offering the most 127.
• Sites of delivery 180.

19
Maths Science Education

• Improvement-oriented with no consequences.
• Will be conducted in respect of each of the
  programmes that will be reviewed (M Ed, PGCE, B
  Ed and ACE).
• HEIs will still do self-evaluation portfolios,
  submit them to the HEQC and a full evaluation
  will be conducted with the same amount of rigour.
  
• Difference HEIs will get a report informing them
  of strengths and weaknesses of their programmes
  and directing them to address the weaknesses
  within a stipulated period of time. No
  accreditation decision will be attached to these
  programmes.

20
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.

21
DECISIONS TABLE
22
Thank YouTheo BhenguTel 012 392 9149Fax
012 392 9179bhengu.t_at_che.ac.za