Review - Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research

Quality
assurance
approach
Ontario College Quality Assurance Service (OCQAS) 65 includes the Program
Quality Assurance Process Audit (PQAPA), which has been developed and
implemented as the second component of the self-regulatory mechanism for the
colleges of applied arts and technology.
As a co-requisite to colleges gaining greater authority over their own programs, the
need for a provincial standard for college postsecondary program quality assurance
was identified. PQAPA supports the responsibility of each college and its board to
manage the quality of their own programs. The PQAPA requires the following
actions:
1. The establishment of an independent, arms-length oversight body to coordinate
the PQAPA.
2. The implementation of program quality assurance processes by, and internal
to, each college.
3. An academic quality audit of each college’s program quality assurance
processes to be conducted by an external panel.
4. A review of each audit report by the oversight body to ensure that the panel’s
process has conformed to the approved guidelines and the report has treated
each college fairly and consistently.
5. The provision of an appeal process prior to the release of the final audit report.
These actions appear to apply to both the OCQAS plus the colleges.
Requirement 3 indicates that the academic quality audits are based on a five-year
cycle.
It appears that the audit methodology is similar to the AUQA model.
The panel chair and the panel members are selected from a defined pool and also
undertake training. It is a requirement that the panel chairs (and panel members)
have experience with college roles and responsibilities, and are familiar with the
operation of colleges and have experience in the quality audit process. Much of the
time this means they are former/retired senior academic/administrative staff from
the Ontario college system or some similar college system. The panel is generally
made up of three members.
The academic quality audit begins with a self-study by the college and a subsequent
site visit by an audit panel. The self study report (no more than 20 pages) is
accompanied by a completed quality criteria form, which is part of the package of
information forwarded to the external audit panel prior to the site visit. The panel
may request more information before the visit of approximately 1.5 days, and an
audit report is prepared.
The panel categorises its overall findings of the colleges’ quality assurance
processes as falling within one of the following five categories of maturity. In each
case the panel may reach a unanimous or a majority decision. The five categories of
maturity of the college’s quality assurance processes can be defined as:
• Minimal effort—means there are no organised quality assurance and
improvement (QA&I) processes in place within the college.
• Reactive effort—means that the college responds to problems mostly with ad
hoc methods. The QA&I criteria and processes receive little systematic
attention.
• Formal effort—means that individual initiatives and experimentations with
65 www.ocqas.org/index-en.html
Comparisons of international quality assurance systems in vocational education and training Page 73 of 115