Quality Assurance Systems in Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation

ENHANCEMENT OF QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN APEC MEMBER ECONOMIES
HKCAA took steps to reform its operating and financing models, as well as its accreditation
approach and procedures.
To review the arrangements for the provision of higher education in Hong Kong and the
direction UGC has to take in advising the institutions, UGC conducted a review in 2001. The
Review was led by a senior member of the UGC and was assisted by a Steering Committee,
composed mainly of local UGC members who were directly involved in, or were familiar with,
higher education in Hong Kong.
Some QA systems have undergone external reviews to ensure their own quality. NZUAAU
has undergone reviews in 1997 and 2001 and had a detailed discussion with each of the
universities in 2002. CNAP and AUQA have undergone external reviews in 2006. CNAP
requested a detailed external review by INQAAHE and in preparation for that it carried out a
self assessment exercise. An international team appointed by the Board of INQAAHE visited
the agency, interviewed a selection of stakeholders and wrote a report.
While CNAP opted to be reviewed against the Guidelines for Good Practice (GGP) for Quality
Assurance Agencies developed by INQAAHE, AUQA chose both its own objectives and the
GGP of INQAAHE for its review.
In the US, the US regional accreditors owned by HEIs demonstrate their quality by seeking
recognition either by the Council on Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) or by the US
Department of Education. Although seeking recognition by these bodies is voluntary, federal
funds such as student aid is are allocated only to institutions that are accredited by the US
Department of Education. Accrediting bodies that seek recognition by the CHEA must
demonstrate that they meet the CHEA recognition standards. Accrediting organisations are
expected to advance academic quality, demonstrate accountability, encourage improvement,
employ appropriate procedures, continually reassess accreditation practices and possess
sufficient resources. The recognition review has an evaluation procedure similar to the
accreditation exercise of the HEIs with self-study and external review. In that process (of
every six years), there are even sessions that are open to the public.
In Australia, AUQA is responsible for conducting quality audits of State and Territory
Government higher education accreditation authorities on a five-yearly cycle. Action taken in
response to audit reports is the responsibility of the relevant Department and Minister. Audit
by the AUQA serves as an accountability check for the State and Territory Government higher
education accreditation authorities.
In Mexico, COPAES has a similar function. Established as a civic association, it has been
recognised by the Public Education Ministry of Mexico to confer official recognition to qualified
program accreditation agencies in México. Agencies recognised by COPAES grant program
accreditation at specific subject areas and/or disciplines, at undergraduate and graduate
level. COPAES has conferred recognition to ten program accrediting agencies. It uses the
general framework of self evaluation and external review with on-site visit. It has developed
statistical data/performance indicators to guide its assessment. It also considers inputs from
student surveys. The specific areas considered by COPAES for its assessment are given in
Appendix 2. COPAES publishes the names of those that merited recognition and the names
of the programs accredited by them, in newspapers and Internet, mentioning the valid period
for this recognition
There is a growing awareness among the QA agencies and their networks about the benefits
of meta-evaluation or ‘evaluating the evaluation itself’ as a critical measure to ensure quality
of quality assurance.
8.2 Effective Quality Practices
QA bodies judge the effectiveness of their quality practices in different ways and depending
on their perception, what they consider as ‘effective quality practices’ varies. Some QA
systems consider the salient features of the QA framework as effective quality practices;
some pay attention to the success towards intended change in the higher education sector;
some look at the immediate impact and a few others see the long term benefits. The following
30