Possible changes to the Accreditation Process

1. Possible changes to the Accreditation Process Quality Assurance Forum August 2011

2. Why necessary? 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?

3. 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

4. Context changes: • 2nd 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

5. 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…

6. 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

7. Some context factors • 23 publics (22 audited in 1st cycle), 116 privates (a handful 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

8. 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

9. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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) • Composition: - • CHE member (not also HEQC) – chair • ED QA • 2 HEQC members ( on AC) • 1 IAC member

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

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

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