160 likes | 257 Views
Proposals for Incentives and Sanctions Tim Fowler NZQA August 2010. Improving performance . NZQA wishes to assist in improving performance through incentives and sanctions. Based on high-trust, high-accountability. Incentives and sanctions would be driven by EER outcomes .
E N D
Proposalsfor Incentives and SanctionsTim Fowler NZQAAugust 2010
Improving performance • NZQA wishes to assist in improving performance through incentives and sanctions. • Based on high-trust, high-accountability. • Incentives and sanctions would be driven by EER outcomes.
Implications for providers • High performance and capability would bring rewards while unsatisfactory performance would lead to sanctions. • A level playing field for all non-university tertiary education providers. • Applies to ITPs, PTEs, GTES, wānanga - not ITOs (yet).
Initial mechanisms for incentives and sanctions • The level of external scrutiny for programme approval, accreditation and consent to assess against unit standards. • Processing time for programme (course) applications. • Tenure of accreditations. • Frequency of external evaluation and review (EER).
“High confidence” status Two “Highly Confident” EER judgements: • reduced external scrutiny for new programme approval/accreditation, and consents to assess against standards • faster turnaround times for applications - 30 working days • accreditations renewed • EER every four years provided no interim quality concerns.
“Confidence” Status One “Highly Confident”, one “Confident” EER judgement: • consent to assess against standards granted without a site visit where the provider already has field accreditation • faster turnaround times for applications - 30 working days • accreditations renewed • EER every four years provided no interim quality concerns.
“Business as usual” status Two “Confident” EER judgements: • full documentation for programme approval/accreditation and consent applications • standard turnaround time – 55 working days • accreditation renewed • EER every four years provided no interim quality concerns.
“Suspended” status (1) At least one ‘Not yet Confident’ EER judgement: • consider suspending applications for programmes and consents • TEO would need to provide further evidence to maintain accreditation and consents, post-EER actions considered • EER would generally take place within 12-24 months.
“Suspended” status (2) At least one “Not Confident” EER judgement: • programme and consent applications suspended • provider needs to provide further evidence to maintain accreditations, post-EER actions considered. • individual accreditation may be withdrawn if a grade of Poor was obtained in a specific qualification, discipline or industry focus area • EER would generally be within 6 -12 months, although this may need to vary if concerns are serious.
Implementation • Final policy to be implemented by January 2011. • Progressive roll-out, until every provider has had its first EER, by the end of 2012. • Until then, current quality assurance arrangements continue.
Consultation questions • How robust is it to assign a quality assurance status to a TEO based on the results of external evaluation and review? What, if any, other measures could be used? • How well do you think the proposals to use incentives and sanctions based on the quality assurance status of a TEO will drive improvements in educational quality? • Which of the four mechanisms would encourage your organisation most to improve its performance? What will be the effect of the mechanism?
Consultation questions • What other mechanisms or processes could be included in this policy? • Taken overall, what impact will the proposed incentives and sanctions have on your organisation? • How well will the proposals outlined create a consistent and equitable approach to improving quality across the non-university tertiary education provider sector?
Consultation questions • The paper proposes assigning a TEO to one of five levels of quality assurance status. How many levels do you think are needed to differentiate between TEOs? Please explain your reasoning. • How effectively do the criteria proposed for each quality assured status differentiate between the levels of performance of TEOs? • What suggestions do you have to improve the criteria to distinguish between each quality assured status? For instance could “high confidence status” be expanded and still represent “high quality”. • What suggestions do you have on how to improve the proposals?
Consultation submissions • Please send submissions to: improvingperformance@nzqa.govt.nz • Final date for submissions - 8 September 2010.