NATIONAL REVIEW OF PROFESSIONAL & ACADEMIC PROGRAMMES IN EDUCATION

1. NATIONAL REVIEW OF PROFESSIONAL & ACADEMIC PROGRAMMES IN EDUCATION PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 7 June 2005 HEQC 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. HEQC 2005

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. HEQC 2005

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. HEQC 2005

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). HEQC 2005

6. 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. Rationale HEQC 2005

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. HEQC 2005

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. HEQC 2005

9. Re-accreditation Process II Four Phases: • Preparatory and Developmental Phase • Evaluation Phase • Decision-making Phase • Improvement and Follow Up Phase HEQC 2005

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. HEQC 2005

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. HEQC 2005

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. HEQC 2005

13. Criteria Development HEQC 2005

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. HEQC 2005

15. BASELINE SURVEY ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL PROGRAMMES IN EDUCATION SOME STATISTICS (SAMPLE OF 17 OUT OF 29 INSTITUTIONS) HEQC 2005

16. Enrolment patterns HEQC 2005

17. Number of staff per category HEQC 2005

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. HEQC 2005

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. HEQC 2005

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. HEQC 2005

21. DECISIONS TABLE HEQC 2005

22. Thank YouTheo BhenguTel: 012 392 9149Fax: 012 392 9179bhengu.t@che.ac.za HEQC 2005