Review - Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Analysis of quality assurance arrangements The European Quality Assurance Reference Framework for Vocational Education and Training outlines general principles for quality assurance in education and training which can be applied to the regulator level and to the provider level. It outlines three key strategies: • evaluation, assessment and review of VET, which includes common quality criteria, indicative descriptors and indicators • monitoring processes, including a combination of internal and external evaluation mechanisms to identify the strength of systems, processes and procedures as well as areas for improvement • measuring tools to provide evidence of effectiveness. 26 In various ways the quality assurance systems reviewed included aspects of this framework. Quality assurance processes—regulator Both Australia and New Zealand have a strong emphasis on standards for regulators and accrediting bodies. The AQTF 2007 itemises its requirements for both registration and accreditation of courses in a suite of documents that are publicly available: • AQTF 2007 Standards for state and territory registering bodies • AQTF 2007 National guideline for risk management • AQTF 2007 National guideline for audit moderation • AQTF 2007 National guideline for managing non-compliance • AQTF 2007 National guideline for industry regulator engagement • AQTF 2007 National guideline for responding to complaints about vocational education and training quality • AQTF2007 National guideline for conducting audits of the interstate operations of an registered training organisation • AQTF 2007 Audit handbook • AQTF 2007 Standards for state and territory course accrediting bodies • AQTF 2007 Standards for accredited courses • AQTF 2007 User's guide to standards for accredited courses • AQTF 2007 Template for course documentation for accreditation. Of interest is that all information of the AQTF 2007 is located together at www.training.com.au and the website includes links to the relevant state/territory authorities which have responsibility for registering and accrediting courses. New Zealand has also outlined its regulator requirements both for registration and for accreditation of courses in The audit standard for inter-institutional quality assurance bodies with delegation from the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. This standard sets out the expected requirements for quality assurance functions of both the New Zealand Qualifications Authority as a quality assurance body and those functions delegated to other quality assurance bodies. In the UK, for England, Wales and Northern Ireland there are explicit requirements for awarding body organisations. These requirements are documented in The statutory regulation of external qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (2004) found at www.ofqual.gov.uk/487.aspx and to be read in conjunction with the National Vocational Qualifications (NVQ) code of practice (revised 2006) found at http://www.ofqual.gov.uk/files/qca-06-2888_nvq_code_of_practice_r06.pdf 26 Commission of the European Communities, 2008, p.9. Comparisons of international quality assurance in vocational education and training Page 28 of 115
Regulatory monitoring and reporting (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority 2007) includes a section on the review process of the regulator in regard to awarding bodies monitoring arrangements. In Scotland, again there are explicit requirements for awarding body organisations, documented in the awarding body criteria (2007). 27 For other nations, there were no explicit standards or requirements documented and found in the public domain. However, this may not mean that they do not exist but that they may be in another form. In the case of Ontario for example, the Private Career Colleges Act explicitly covers the process for registration and course approval (accreditation) and the role of the supervisor in this regard. Quality assurance of providers A recent report on mapping the qualifications frameworks of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) economies highlights the importance of a quality assurance framework and its link to a qualifications framework—a qualification framework is only as strong as the quality assurance system supporting it. 28 Quality assurance addresses the ‘assurance of qualifications as meeting the requirements of the descriptors in the framework and of the providers awarding the qualifications’. 29 This report summarises the quality assurance of qualifications into three regulatory elements: accreditation, awarding and audit of providers: • Accreditation may rest with a single or multiple agencies, including self-accrediting providers. Some national qualifications frameworks have brought the accreditation of most groups of qualifications into a single qualifications authority or agency. In other national qualifications frameworks the accreditation functions remain distributed across multiple agencies and providers. • Award of qualifications can be carried out in various ways. In some countries a centralised agency awards groups of qualifications and in others awarding remains the responsibility of different awarding bodies and providers. There are no countries where all qualifications are awarded by a single central agency or authority. • Audit of providers typically involves some oversight of learning provision and assessment. This also can be located in a central qualifications agency or distributed across multiple agencies. Where these functions are distributed, qualifications frameworks can be used as benchmark tools for the standards to be achieved in quality assurance. 30 However, this approach does not tease out other various regulatory functions in terms of: • approving organisations as suitable for providing training and assessment • approving these organisation to deliver specific programs • ongoing monitoring of these training organisations (in addition to audit) • strategies that may be employed to manage non-compliant training organisations. Front-end processes—registration All nations reviewed in terms of their quality assurance systems have a process for gate keeping the approval or registration of training organisations. However these processes varied in terms of: • the level of scrutiny • parameters reviewed, for example program design, program materials, program facilities, complaints processes and refund policy. Level of scrutiny In all nations, there is a line drawn between those who do not require approval or registration and those that do. In almost all nations the line is very similar. 27 SQA, 2007, www.sqa.org.uk/files_ccc/AccreditationAwardingBodyCriteria.pdf 28 Burke G, McKenzie P, Shah C, Keating J, Vickers A, Fearnside R and Bateman A 2009, p.10. 29 Burke et al, 2009, p.10. 30 Burke et al, 2009, p.10–11. Comparisons of international quality assurance in vocational education and training Page 29 of 115
Page 1 and 2: Attachment A Comparisons of Interna
Page 3 and 4: Acknowledgements The project team w
Page 5 and 6: Executive summary Project purposes
Page 7 and 8: Course and qualifications accredita
Page 9 and 10: Any comments related to the evaluat
Page 11 and 12: Context: what influences the nature
Page 13 and 14: Systems The characteristics of thes
Page 15 and 16: o quality improvement—linking the
Page 17 and 18: As well each of the countries has d
Page 19 and 20: Table 1: Context summary Constituti
Page 21 and 22: Although the German federal governm
Page 23 and 24: There has been a strong emphasis on
Page 25 and 26: A consultation paper has been relea
Page 27: Qualifications and competency units
Page 31 and 32: • financials • protection of st
Page 33 and 34: For Singapore, approval criteria co
Page 35 and 36: In Ontario’s private career colle
Page 37 and 38: • competency standards and curric
Page 39 and 40: Development and Design. This criter
Page 41 and 42: • NZQA notifies and publishes out
Page 43 and 44: The Regulatory monitoring and repor
Page 45 and 46: In Scotland, the emphasis on intern
Page 47 and 48: As this report was being prepared,
Page 49 and 50: For private providers in Ontario, t
Page 51 and 52: Implications A review of the variou
Page 53 and 54: small degree of state supplementati
Page 55 and 56: Leney Tom, May Tom, Hayward Geoff,
Page 57 and 58: Glossary ACE AMAP APEC APS AQF AQTF
Page 59 and 60: Appendix 1: The European Quality As
Page 61 and 62: Quality criteria Indicative descrip
Page 63 and 64: Indicator Type of indicator Policy
Page 65 and 66: Indicator Type of indicator Policy
Page 67 and 68: Training organisations • AQTF 200
Page 69 and 70: Appendix 3: Canada, Ontario Canada
Page 71 and 72: local college board of governors, m
Page 73 and 74: Quality assurance approach Ontario
Page 75 and 76: Ontario—private sector Overview A
Page 77 and 78: Or • have 48 months of occupation
Page 79 and 80:
oad consultation. These replace key
Page 81 and 82:
orders to colleges that are not con
Page 83 and 84:
Comment Ontario participates in the
Page 85 and 86:
ones: • The tasks of the Federal
Page 87 and 88:
Overall, the system defines norms t
Page 89 and 90:
drive the results, well-developed e
Page 91 and 92:
Appendix 5: New Zealand Overview Th
Page 93 and 94:
Key aspects of QAS1 include: Defini
Page 95 and 96:
National Qualifications Framework a
Page 97 and 98:
Institute for technology and polyte
Page 99 and 100:
Appendix 6: Singapore Overview In S
Page 101 and 102:
Quality assurance approach on a reg
Page 103 and 104:
Appendix 7: United Kingdom England,
Page 105 and 106:
• corporate governance • admini
Page 107 and 108:
These standards are regulatory. Qua
Page 109 and 110:
The website (which is relatively ne
Page 111 and 112:
egard to policy that this generates
Page 113 and 114:
training needs. It defines standard
Page 115:
changes to UK regulatory practice a
show all

Review - Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?