Re Re-Engagement wit ith QQI Provider Perspective 30 th October - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Re Re-Engagement wit ith QQI Provider Perspective 30 th October 2019 Overview 1. Quality Assurance at National College of Ireland (NCI) 2. Development of NCIs Quality Assurance and Enhancement System (QAES) 3. Applying for Re-Engagement
Enhancement System (QAES)
NCI currently has approximately 5,500 learners enrolled on 120 QQI accredited programmes across NFQ Levels 6-9 . The Quality Assurance Office, consisting of the Director of Quality Assurance and a Quality Assurance Officer, is responsible for:
2019/20 academic year)
Analysis of Statutory Guidelines and Good Practice Guidelines 1) QQI’s Statutory Quality Assurance Guidelines (Core, Sector and Topic Specific) 2) QQI’s Policies and Criteria for the Validation of Programmes of Education and Training (2017) 3) QQI’s Assessment and Standards (2013) 4) ENQA’s Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (2015) 5) Publications by National Forum for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning on Student Success, Professional Development of All Those Who Teach and Teaching and Learning in a Digital World
Review of Existing Quality Assurance Practices at NCI 1) Is there a documented policy and procedure for each of QQI’s statutory QA guidelines? 2) Do policies and procedures accurately reflect current practices at NCI? 3) What is the Corporate & Academic Governance and QA Management structures at NCI? 4) Are policies and procedures easy to access by relevant stakeholders? 5) What are the greatest risks facing NCI from a QA perspective?
Provider Capacity and QA Procedures – Gap Analysis Tool and Action Plan
Gap Analysis Tool and Action Plan allows for:
QA policies and procedures
engage with particular QA policies and procedures
existing QA system
QQI publishes the reports outlining the outcomes of all Re-Engagement applications by HET and FET providers. An analysis of the reports published between June 2018 and July 2019 reveals the following recurrences:
Mandatory Changes
academic considerations, and sufficient externality in unit(s) of governance).
concise ToRs for all committees and key roles in management of QA, and clear procedures for all policies, in particular programme development and learner assessment). Specific Advice
current practices)
Feedback Loop)
and reporting on programme and student information data)
All updated QA policies and procedures should be compiled into Draft Quality Assurance Manual. This document should be:
i.e. Chapter 1: Governance and Management of Quality, Chapter 4: Staff Recruitment, Management and Development, Chapter 9: Public Information and Communication, etc.
title, authority and application of policy, scope of policy, operational date, etc.
directive rather than descriptive tone.
Draft Quality Assurance Manual SHOULD BE:
Draft Quality Assurance Manual SHOULD NOT BE:
Visualistions should be used to explain the following:
Governance Structure
relationships between units of governance
System
and Review
QQI’s Statutory QA Guidelines (Primary Criteria and Sub-Criteria) Outcome of Gap Analysis: Satisfactory (Y/N) and Actions to be Taken Succinct overview of evidence documented in Draft Quality Assurance Manual Reference to appropriate policy and/or procedure in Draft Quality Assurance Manual
The Re-Engagement Panel is tasked with reviewing a provider’s QA policies and procedures in terms of them being: 1. Proportionate to Scope of Provision 2. Practical in Application 3. Informed by Best Practice The Re-Engagement Panel bases its recommendation on the provider’s capacity to satisfy QQI’s Core Statutory Quality Assurance Guidelines as a minimum. As such, it is looking for re-assurance for the future rather than retrospective explanations.
The panel requires evidence of the following:
academic decision-making, and externality on units of governance)
with explicit delegation of authority for particular QA responsibilities
and maintenance of QA policies and procedures
Use the presentation at the beginning of the panel visit to:
the changes made based on the gap analysis
procedures are proportionate to scope of provision
and the steps taken to reduce these
mitigate these
In preparation for the re-engagement panel visit, the provider should:
documentation following initial screening of application by panel
panel
variety of staff as possible
relevant QA policies and procedures
recommendations of the panel
There are three recommendations that the re-engagement panel can make to QQI:
quality enhancement purposes
act upon mandatory changes recommended by panel within 6 months
immediate review
Successful re-engagement should not be seen as an end in itself but the first stage in an iterative process that also includes:
The objective of this process is the development of an evidence-base that can be readily drawn upon for institutional review of HET and FET providers.
As a process, re-engagement with QQI poses a number of challenges and
Challenges
system
successful re-engagement Opportunities
assurance
issues
Implementation Monitoring Review
What does your organisation hope to gain from this process?
It is very easy to get trapped in the lifecycle of individual policies. As a forward-looking process, re- engagement with QQI provides a rare
what they want to achieve from their QA policies at an operational level and propose procedures for achieving this.