Quality Assurance Systems in Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ENHANCEMENT OF QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN APEC MEMBER ECONOMIES and Singapore. The National Accreditation Board (LAN) established in 1996 to quality assure the private providers merged with the Quality Assurance Division of the Ministry of Education to form the Malaysian Qualifications Authority (MQA) in 2006. Singapore launched the Singapore Higher Education Accreditation Council (SHEAC) in 2004 to offer voluntary endorsement / accreditation to private higher education institutions, but this has already been dissolved (in June 2006) and a different approach is being designed. Papua New Guinea is one of those small economies with one (leading) university in which the quality assurance function rests with the university itself and external QA is still under development. In a few other economies, the quality assurance strategy is in the developmental stage. Apart from the above efforts, several economies have national qualifications frameworks. Some merely provide a mapping of levels of qualifications (e.g. Australia) while others have a role in quality assurance as well (e.g. New Zealand). Some also embrace the qualifications offered in their economies by overseas providers. Although they have not always been established as quality assurance bodies, the complementary role they play at the qualifications level, with the national quality assurance bodies following the institution-wise approach, is significant. In Malaysia (where the quality assurance units for private and public institutions have been merged to form a single quality agency), the qualifications framework responsibility and the quality assurance are with the same agency. Hong Kong has a qualifications framework and the law is to be enacted soon to establish the register of qualifications. It will function under the authority of the HKCAA. To meet the demands of the changing higher education landscape/scenario, more initiatives are emerging and some of them are yet to be implemented. In Hong Kong, there are two developments that need a mention. The eight UGC-funded local institutions of Hong Kong have formed the `Joint Quality Review Committee’ (JQRC) with the support of the University Grants Committee (UGC) and the Education and Manpower Bureau (EMB) to oversee the quality of their self-financing sub-degree programs. Although these institutions have internal quality assurance mechanisms in place to ensure the quality of the programs they offer, the rapid development of sub-degree programs in recent years and the implementation of the qualifications framework have called for the establishment of JQRC. The other development in Hong Kong is the decision of the UGC to establish a semi-autonomous, non-statutory body to be named as the Quality Assurance Council of the UGC. The new body is likely to come into operation by mid-2007 and a preparatory committee has been formed to look into issues related to the setting up of this new body. In Vietnam, external QA processes have been approved by the Ministry and GDETA is progressing to conduct the reviews. It should be noted that some of the initiatives described in this report might undergo further changes and take new forms. For example, CNAP, Chile has just been reviewed and in the near future, it will be superseded by a new body to take account of the changes in the Chilean higher education system. In the next few years, many of these initiatives will become fully operational and many more new initiatives might emerge. 2.2 Ownership The quality assurance systems in the region have been established in different ways. There are four types of affiliation or ownership found among the APEC economies in establishing the quality assurance system: 1. Established as a governmental agency, may be as a unit in the ministry. 2. Established as a body fully independent of the government, without any role of the government in its establishment or functioning. A group of HEIs establishing a quality assurance agency is a typical example. 4
ENHANCEMENT OF QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN APEC MEMBER ECONOMIES 3. Established as a buffer body or established under a local buffer organisation where the government may have a role in its initiation to serve governmental functions but its control is independent of the government. 4. Established as a body without any role of the government or the HEIs in its establishment or functioning. Professional accreditation is a typical example. In economies where the system of higher education itself is undergoing reforms, emerging quality assurance initiatives are being developed as a part of the reform strategy by the government. In higher education systems where quality assurance has a longer history, the HEIs take a leading role by providing external reviewers, or by taking part in different stages of the process, and thus are in a position to shape the important developments of the quality assurance system. The role of the government in the establishment as well as in the functioning of the quality assurance system is very explicit in the case of Brunei Darussalam, China, Mexico and Vietnam and QA development is a national initiative. In contrast, in Canada, QA is a provincial (state) initiative and for example, in the province of Ontario, the Council of Ontario Universities (COU) has been developed by the universities of Ontario. The Philippines have chosen a system where higher education institutions are members of private accreditation agencies, organised according to various segments of the higher education system. And finally, the quality assurance agency in Australia, although an initiative of the State, Territory and Federal governments, has been set up as a national body with independence from governments and HEIs. Overall, USA, Canada, Philippines, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea have major quality assurance systems that are the initiatives of the HEIs. In these economies, overall quality assurance becomes a multi-agency effort, governments paying attention to certain other aspects such as qualifications framework, linking quality assurance outcomes to government decisions on funding, incentives, approval to function as HEIs, approval to run higher education programs etc. For example, in New Zealand, ITP-Q and NZUAAU are initiatives of the institutions whereas the NZQA established by the government looks into program approval and registration of institutions according to the qualifications framework of New Zealand. In Peru, the Consortium of Universities owned by the universities of Peru works towards improving the quality of higher education, although it does not function as a quality assurance agency. There are also organisations established and managed by groups external to both the HEIs and the governments that perform quality assurance functions. This is how accreditation of programs in professional areas of studies evolved. Known as specialised accreditation or professional accreditation, this type of accreditation was born out of the concern of a profession about the quality and relevance of educational programs that were preparing its practitioners and the quality of the practitioners. The survey results indicate that most economies have some amount of well-regulated quality assurance practices for professional areas of studies such as medicine, nursing, engineering, law and accounting. The professional bodies in these areas of studies exercise quality assurance through licensing or registration procedures. The focus of assessment of these agencies is the quality of graduates – future practitioners of the profession - and the procedures are developed and monitored by current practitioners of standing. Protecting public interest and safeguarding the standards of professional practice are central to these agencies. The quality assurance decisions of these agencies have implications for practitioners at national and international levels to practice their profession. But this overview does not intend to go into those details. The discussions in this report touch upon professional accreditation whenever necessary but the focus is on general quality assurance systems. The rationale behind the different ways in which QA systems are established needs a mention here. There are three situations where governments seem to have a major role. If the quality assurance system is expected to play a central role in the higher education system of the economy such as recognising institutions as higher education institutions, conferring the 5
Page 1 and 2: ENHANCEMENT OF QUALITY ASSURANCE SY
Page 3: A REPORT A report on quality assura
Page 74 and 75:
ENHANCEMENT OF QUALITY ASSURANCE SY
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
show all

Quality Assurance Systems in Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?