DRAFT FRAMEWORK

FOR

INSTITUTIONAL ACCREDITATION

AND

MONITORING

(JANUARY 2006)

Discussion document

2

CONTENT Acronyms 3 Preamble 4 1. Introduction 6 2. Quality assurance in general and further education and training 7

2.1 Legislative context 7 2.2 General and further education and training landscape 8

3. Umalusi’s institutional accreditation and monitoring system 9

3.1 Scope - Constituent providers 9 3.2 Underpinning principles 11 3.3 Umalusi’s approach 12 3.4 Relationships between key components 13 3.5 Umalusi and other ETQAs 15 3.6 Use of criteria 15 3.7 Accreditation and monitoring process 16 3.8 Internal structures and roles 20 3.9 Reporting 21

4. Resourcing of the accreditation and monitoring system 21 5. Transitional arrangements 21 APPENDIX A: Accreditation process flow diagram 22 APPENDIX B: Accreditation decisions 23

Discussion document

3

ACRONYMS CHE Council for Higher Education DoE Department of Education ETQA Education and Training Quality Assurer FET Further Education and Training FETC Further Education and Training Certificate GET General Education and Training GETC General Education and Training Certificate IQMS Integrated Quality Management System NLRD National Learner Record Database NQF National Qualifications Framework PALC Public adult learning centre PDE Provincial Department of Education SAC Sector Accreditation Committee SAQA South African Qualifications Authority SETA Sector Education and Training Authority

Discussion document

4

Preamble Purpose The purpose of this document is to outline a coherent and integrated approach to quality assurance of provider institutions and, more specifically, to indicate Umalusi’s approach to institutional accreditation and monitoring in the general and further education and training bands of the National Qualifications Framework (NQF). The Framework for Institutional Evaluation, Accreditation and Monitoring serves as an overarching expression of Umalusi’s approach to the quality assurance of provider institutions. It should be seen as part of a set of documents that govern the accreditation and monitoring of education and training institutions in general and further education and training. This document addresses general accreditation and monitoring issues across the three provider sectors for which Umalusi is responsible, namely,

• schools; • further education and training colleges; and • adult education and training centres.

It further describes the approach, values, principles and aims that support accreditation and monitoring. In addition, it clarifies the relationships between key components of the system and captures the various phases in the accreditation and monitoring process from initial application through to full accreditation, the attendant decisions, appeals procedures and re-accreditation. Additional documents The framework is informed and supported by additional documents that set out the accreditation and monitoring criteria and explain how the sectors are organized and the quality assurance processes resourced. Firstly, § criteria for institutional accreditation and monitoring are captured in three

separate documents, one for each of the provider sectors, namely independent schools, further education and training colleges and adult education and training providers. These are:

− Criteria for the Accreditation and Monitoring of Independent Schools − Criteria for the Accreditation and Monitoring of Further Education

and Training Colleges − Criteria for the Accreditation and Monitoring of Adult Education and

Training Centres The criteria documents set out the legislative context, the context of the specific provider sector, the scope of the criteria, the criteria, and indicators for full accreditation.

5

Secondly, § Organizing and Resourcing the Accreditation and Monitoring System

describes the internal and external structures and systems that Umalusi has in place to manage the evaluation and accreditation system as well as a funding model, transitional arrangements and implementation plans.

The set of documents intend to inform not only provider institutions seeking accreditation but also the broader stakeholder community, which includes:

• Department of Education; • Provincial Departments of Education; • South African Qualifications Authority; • Council for Higher Education; • Public schools, FET Colleges and Adult Learning Centres; • Independent schools, Private FET colleges and Adult Education and Training

providers; • Provider associations; • Sector Education and Training Authorities.

During the first cycle of implementation, Umalusi will closely monitor all processes and appropriate adjustments will be made where necessary. Umalusi will also take into account the evolving policy and legislative requirements in general and further education training.

6

1. Introduction The General and Further Education and Training Quality Assurance Act (No 58 of 2001) assigns responsibility for quality assurance of general and further education and training in South Africa to Umalusi, Council for Quality Assurance in General and Further Education and Training. The Council was established with the express purpose of maintaining and improving norms and standards in general and further education and training and as such its mandate includes the following: § monitoring and reporting on the adequacy and suitability of qualifications and

standards; § quality assurance of all exit point assessments; § certification of learner achievements; § quality promotion amongst providers; and § accreditation of private providers.

The system developed for the accreditation and monitoring of institutions in general and further education and training, which is the focus of this document, has been shaped by the complex challenges facing the sector. The challenges have included defining “quality” in an ever shifting and fluid education landscape; the absence of a coherent framework and common understanding of issues pertaining to qualifications development and quality assurance in the FET band; and identifying critical levers that impact sufficiently to ensure improvement in each provider sector and the band as a whole. An ongoing challenge is encouraging participation, academic debate and critical commentary in sectors that have been discouraged from engagement in the past and establishing sufficient expertise in the sectors to ensure evaluations are conducted professionally. Umalusi has also had to consider that much of the provision in the GET and FET bands has been largely unregulated. Therefore to ensure quality provision Umalusi must commence by establishing current levels of quality in the system (benchmarks) and ascertaining the type of intervention required in each sector. A further consideration has been the financial implications of a compulsory institutional accreditation and monitoring system for such a large, diverse, and relatively poorly resourced constituency. Umalusi has therefore developed a system that,

• includes all providers in a coherent national quality assurance system that (through inspection of compliance with minimum standards) ensures that areas of poor quality provision are addressed and improved without exception or, where necessary, that institutions that continue to offer sub-standard provision are sanctioned. This approach is supported and enhanced by enabling providers to develop reliable indicators that assure stakeholders, learners and the public at large that their provision is reliable and effective, and the qualifications and programmes they offer are credible and lead to continued learning and/or employment.

7

• focuses primarily on assuring the quality of teaching and learning, and the

institution’s capacity to support and manage the qualifications, programmes or standards it offers.

• enables Umalusi to obtain information in respect of good practice, which can be disseminated for the benefit of the various sectors; identifies areas for capacity building and improvement; and reports on the quality of provision in general and further education and training.

2. Quality assurance in general and further education and training 2.1 Legislative context The nature, purpose and scope of Umalusi’s work is informed by the following range of legislation and policy documents that regulate the provision of general and further education and training in South Africa:

• The Constitution of South Africa (Act No 108 of 1996): The constitution makes provision for the establishment of private education and training institutions with the proviso that private provision is of the same or higher standard than that of comparable public provision. Public provision is therefore set as the benchmark for provision in the sector and private providers must meet the same standards as prescribed for their public counterparts;

• The National Education Policy Act (No 27 of 1996): allows the Minister of Education to determine education policy for all provision in respect of planning, provision, financing, management, governance, curriculum and programmes, monitoring and evaluation and many other more related matters. It also indicates directive principles for national education policy in accordance with the Constitution and continues to address procedures for consultation and publishing of policy and monitoring and evaluation. The Act establishes the Council of Education Ministers and the Heads of Education Departments Committee;

• General and Further Education and Training Quality Assurance Act No 58 of 2001. The Act lays out Umalusi’s constitution and quality assurance mandate and is the basis on which Umalusi has developed its quality assurance frameworks and strategies;

• Further Education and Training Act No 98 of 1998 provides for the establishment, governance and funding of public further education and training colleges, the registration of private further education and training institutions, and quality assurance and quality promotion in further education and training;

• The Adult Basic Education and Training Act 52 of 2000 provides for the establishment, governance and funding of public adult learning centres, the registration of private adult learning centres, and quality assurance in adult education and training;

• The South African Schools Act (Act no. 84 of 1996) provides for the governance, organisation and funding of public schools. It also provides for

8

the establishment and registration of independent schools with provincial departments of education;

• Framework for Quality Assurance in the General and Further Education and Training Band (May 2004) addresses Umalusi’s overall approach to quality assurance of providers; and

• The regulations and/or policies issued by the Department of Education and provincial departments of education related to the registration of private providers.

2.2 The general and further education and training landscape General and further education and training is populated by a large and diverse number of providers, stakeholders and role players with different imperatives each with varying levels of interest and impact on the education and training system. The range includes private providers in the schooling, FET colleges and AET sectors; provider associations; public and private assessment bodies that operate nationally; provincial departments and their learning sites i.e. public schools, FET colleges and public adult learning centres, that deliver education nationally against a legislated mandate; SETAs that are concerned with industry specific occupational training; industry and government agencies whose mandate is the training of adults for the work force; policy making bodies such as the Department of Labour (DOL), the Department of Education (DOE) and the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) as well as other interested parties. The providers who are major role players in the system can be divided into two categories; public and private providers.

• Public provision comprises of the nine provincial departments of education and all their learning sites, which consist of:

− approximately 27,000 public primary and high schools; − 50 merged FET colleges; and − approximately 1,000 adult learning centres.

• Private provision consists of:

− between 1,200 – 2,000 independent schools - some represented by a number of associations and organizing bodies;

− an unknown number of private FET colleges and service providers offering a large range of vocational qualifications and off-site skills programmes and short courses (estimated between 800 – 6,000); and

− approximately 150 private adult education and training providers which consist of adult learning centres and service providers that offer either a full GETC: ABET or components of the GETC at centres or off site in industries and government departments.

9

3. Umalusi’s institutional accreditation and monitoring system 3.1 Scope The scope of Umalusi’s accreditation and monitoring process is extended to public and private education and training institutions with the following characteristics: The provider offers… § institutionally based delivery § general and further education and training qualifications § national examinations which Umalusi quality assures (not applicable to primary

schools); § learning programmes (as part of the mix) that lead to the qualifications Umalusi

certifies; In addition the private provider is… § registered in terms of the relevant legislation § constituted as a juristic person Umalusi’s key concern is ensuring the integrity of the qualifications it certificates. It will therefore prioritise quality assurance of these qualifications specifically those that represent band exit points and access learners to further or higher learning. These include: § the General Education and Training Certificate: for Adults (GETC: Adult

education); § the National Senior Certificate (NSC); § the Further Education and Training Certificate: Vocational (FETC: Vocational);

and § any other qualifications certified by Umalusi It is important to note that institutions and centres that offer these qualifications are therefore prioritized for accreditation. Accreditation of private institutions/centres These include: § Independent schools:

− Secondary schools: administering the Grade 9 common assessment as required by the DoE and offering the National Senior Certificate.

− Primary schools: providing against the national curriculum statements as issued by the DoE.

§ Private FET colleges:

− offering the FETC: Vocational as part of the qualification mix; and − any other qualifications Umalusi certifies.

10

§ Private adult learning centres: − offering the full GETC: ABET; or − standards that lead to the qualification through credit accumulation; or − an alternative secondary education curriculum for adults, leading to a

qualification equivalent to the senior certificate in schools; or − FETC vocational as offered in public FET colleges; and − any other qualifications certified by Umalusi.

The nature of general and further education and training demands that providers develop a mix of formal and non-formal qualifications to meet educational, market and community demands. In particular Umalusi encourages adult learning centres to provide a vibrant and diverse menu of non-formal offerings as part of their programme mix. However, Umalusi does not accredit private service providers who offer exclusively non-formal qualifications or programmes or short courses. The quality of such programmes when offered exclusively or as part of the programme mix of a provider is the responsibility of the institution where they are offered. This also applies to providers of supplementary or additional instruction e.g. extra Maths etc. Private institutions offering qualifications certificated by foreign agencies or who are accredited by foreign accreditation agencies do not fall within Umalusi’s scope. However, over time Umalusi may forge cooperation agreements with foreign accreditation agencies and assessment/awarding bodies. Monitoring of public providers Umalusi promotes quality in public provision through the monitoring of provincial departments in respect of the quality management of their learning sites. These include:

− Public primary and secondary schools; − Public FET colleges; and − Public adult learning centres.

In order to ensure that public learning sites offer provision of a high standard and have the capacity to deliver the qualification and programmes they offer, Umalusi monitors provincial quality promotion initiatives and the implementation of monitoring processes for these sectors. In the case of schools this refers to Integrated Quality Management Systems (IQMS), the monitoring of curriculum development and implementation as well as the monitoring and moderation of internal and external assessments amongst other things, while in PALCs the provincial departments of education must still develop and implement similar systems. To assist this process Umalusi has developed accreditation and monitoring criteria for adult learning centres. As FET colleges have been identified as the delivery hubs for national skills development, they are regarded as deserving special and specific attention in the process of quality assurance. Umalusi’s certification mandate makes the credibility of

11

the certificates issued for FET college qualifications a particular concern and as such Umalusi has a direct interest in the quality assurance of these colleges. FET colleges must meet the Umalusi criteria for accreditation and monitoring in order to demonstrate their “deemed accredited” status. Using the processes described in this document Umalusi monitors the provision of public FET colleges in collaboration with the PDEs. 3.2 Underpinning principles The following principles guide Umalusi’s accreditation and monitoring system: Differentiation: Umalusi has adopted a differentiated approach to provider sectors as reflected in the contextualized evaluation and accreditation criteria documents. Not only does this mean that sectors are dealt with differently in respect of sectoral peculiarities and quality assurance priorities but also in respect of the implementation of quality assurance interventions. Rigor: The rigour of Umalusi’s accreditation process is such that it can confidently accredit providers once it has established that they can be relied upon to offer quality education and training and manage the quality of their provision well for the period of the accreditation. The process will not only reflect developmental values but also apply the value of compliance strictly while institutions are required to uphold the integrity of the process in providing honest and reliable information. Development: As Umalusi moves forward in its process of system and criteria development it will raise the quality bar incrementally to ensure that providers share and benefit from development. However, Umalusi considers quality the responsibility of providers and in this respect they must take initiatives in terms of their own development. Participation: It is Umalusi’s intention that all stakeholders, providers and role players in the GET and FET bands of the NQF should appropriately participate in the development and implementation of the system so that it becomes largely self-regulating. It is only in harnessing the concerted efforts of all interested parties in this band that coherence can be established in such complex and diverse constituencies. Promotion of best practice: Umalusi has identified key focus areas, criteria and indicators in each sector. These are informed by provider contexts, pertinent legislation and international best practice. Quality will not be measured in terms of compliance with minimum standards alone but will also focus on the value added during teaching and learning, as well as the use of institutional results in ongoing quality improvement. Affordability: In striving to develop an accreditation system that ensures access for all providers, Umalusi has considered not only its resource limitations but also the resource disparities within its various provider sectors.

12

3.3 Umalusi’s Approach Umalusi’s approach has been informed by international best practice and, where useful, appropriate aspects have been used in the development of the South African system.

• Umalusi places great importance on its responsibility for ensuring norms and standards of qualifications and the credibility of certificates issued in general and further education and training. This imperative underpins its model for provider institutions which is a dual process of national examinations supported by an institutional accreditation system.

• The system consists of a combination of quality assurance practices including

inspection to ensure compliance, self-evaluation to support development and improvement and external validation and monitoring to verify and ensure continued quality provision. For provisional accreditation Umalusi focuses on compliance and inspects private provider institutions against minimum criteria related to the functionality of the institution. Later, for full accreditation, the focus moves to the quality of teaching and learning and institutional performance. This is supported by self-evaluation, external validation and monitoring.

• Umalusi pursues a single coherent quality assurance system, in which there is

a common set of standards for both public and private provision within the distinct context of each sector – these are governed by the common framework and discrete criteria for each sector.

• In accrediting providers, Umalusi focuses on two critical areas, the provider’s

capacity to manage the delivery and quality of its provision and the quality of the teaching and learning. The system focuses on inputs, processes and outputs ensuring that the quality of teaching and learning is the focal point. However Umalusi is also concerned with the results or performance of providers which include user satisfaction levels, learner success rates and “value for money” and how the provider uses these indicators to manage and improve the quality of provision. Performance rates also play a significant role in provider monitoring subsequent to accreditation.

• The system derives from a spirit of self-regulation. Accreditation submissions

are validated by a team of peers and experts who conduct an independent evaluation of the institution through a site-visit and come to an independent decision on the effectiveness of the institutional management and the quality of the teaching and learning. Provider self-regulation is further entrenched through the formation of an appropriate accreditation committee(s) appointed by Umalusi Council. Such a committee(s) has delegated decision making powers to appoint peer validation teams and make accreditation

13

decisions. This approach will foster growth of professional quality in each sector of delivery.

• Where necessary, Umalusi will cooperate with other quality assurers or

professional bodies, to manage overlapping roles and quality assurance functions in order to ensure a coherent quality assurance system.

3.4 Relationships between key components of the system Institutional accreditation is a greatly desired status not only as a result of legislative obligation and market pressure but as a status that raises the profile of an institution. As such the decision to grant institutional accreditation is central to the quality assurance process. Umalusi sees the accreditation process as having four legs:

• Inspection for compliance; • Self-evaluation; • Validation of institutional quality; and • Monitoring of institutional performance.

It is important to understand the relationship between accreditation and these four elements. 3.4.1 Provider accreditation and inspection for compliance Umalusi views the quality of teaching and learning and in the case of FET colleges training, as the focal point of its quality assurance process. It is therefore concerned with the quality of the educational and other inputs required to facilitate quality teaching and learning. Consequently institutions seeking accreditation are required to comply with minimum standards. Umalusi inspects institutions for compliance against these standards before they are invited to apply for full accreditation. 3.4.2 Provider accreditation and self-evaluation In establishing a culture of self- regulated quality improvement Umalusi requires provider institutions to conduct regular self-evaluation. Before accrediting a provider Umalusi must be assured that the provider is able to manage its own quality improvement processes with minimum supervision from Umalusi. Accreditation will only be granted to providers who can clearly demonstrate this. 3.4.3 Provider accreditation and validation of institutional quality Provider self-evaluation is followed by a peer validation site visit. The site-visit focuses on validating the institution’s overall capacity to offer and manage the qualifications and programmes it offers, the quality of the teaching and learning it provides and how it uses institutional performance to inform improvement. The accreditation criteria have been developed around three or four focus areas. These include:

14

• Leadership and management Leadership and management is evaluated in terms of its attainment of the objectives of the institution and national objectives through strategic leadership and effective governance structures, which includes the effectiveness with which provision is planned, managed, monitored and improved. In addition it considers how efficiently resources are allocated and used to ensure that the institution is viable and sustainable and gives value for money. It also includes the extent to which the institution uses institutional performance results to inform planning and quality improvement.

• Teaching and learning Included in the evaluation of the quality of teaching and learning is the design and development of learning programmes and materials, the delivery and teaching, assessment practices and institutional management of the qualifications mix, learning programmes, staff development and learner support. These are viewed as integrated and yet distinct aspects of teaching and learning and are captured in the accreditation and monitoring criteria.

− Learning programmes Umalusi will not necessarily evaluate each individual programme, but through sampling will check the quality of various design, development and delivery aspects. Supplementary programmes offered beyond the formal curriculum may also be sampled. Learning programmes developed for qualifications certified by Umalusi are quality assured through a curriculum evaluation process and through a national examinations system administered by accredited assessment bodies and quality assured by Umalusi.

− Delivery and teaching In respect of the delivery of teaching Umalusi samples lessons or training sessions to ensure that the quality of the teaching and training is sufficient. It evaluates amongst other things the standard and appropriateness of teaching, qualifications of staff, adequacy of premises / learning sites, equipment and staff, and the efficiency of delivery.

− Assessment of learning Assessment of learning is quality assured at two levels – at site level during the evaluation and accreditation process and at provincial and national levels at band exit points. During the accreditation process the focus is on the institution’s capacity to develop and manage an internal assessment system. This includes looking at internal quality management of assessments, (including performance assessments of practical work) with reference to monitoring and review, moderation of instruments and marking, administration of assessments, resource management, assessment policies and guidelines, assessment plans, capacity of educators to implement new assessment approaches, assessment instruments, results and adherence to regulations and directives of the relevant examination body and Umalusi.

15

The quality of premises, learning sites, staff development and learners support services is also evaluated. 3.4.3 Provider accreditation and monitoring of institutional results Umalusi considers institutional performance a critical element in determining institutional quality. While the granting of accreditation does not depend on institutional performance results it does to some extent depend upon whether the institution views the results as key performance indicators of the effectiveness of the management; and as such uses it to make strategic decisions and improve all aspects of provision. However, subsequent to accreditation Umalusi requires providers to submit three-yearly monitoring reports that report on improvements and the achievement of institutional and national objectives and annual reports that reflect institutional performance results related to learner success, user satisfaction and “best value” for money”. Performance results are used to statistically monitor provider quality levels. Site visits are also a feature of the monitoring process with institutions receiving a short monitoring site visit after submission of their first three-yearly report. Post-accreditation monitoring also includes periodic thematic inspections in identified subject areas to ensure that accredited providers continue to maintain standards of teaching and learning during the accreditation period. 3.5 Umalusi and other Quality Assurers Articulation with the quality assurance processes of other quality assurers is also of concern to Umalusi in particular where institutions within Umalusi’s scope offer programmes based on qualifications that lie within the quality assurance mandate of other quality assurers e.g. CHE. Where required, Umalusi establishes cooperative relationships with such bodies so as to minimize efforts. However, in the case of public providers Umalusi expects provincial departments of education to establish relationships with such bodies to perform quality assurance functions in relation to their learning sites. 3.6 Use of criteria In developing the accreditation and monitoring criteria Umalusi took cognizance of national policies and regulatory frameworks, the institutional landscape, the qualification profiles, and international trends with respect to general and further education and training. Umalusi identified critical focus areas, and based on these developed a set of evaluation criteria and indicators for each of its provider sectors. The criteria collectively establish the level of quality expected of accredited institutions. The criteria cover aspects of input processes as well as outputs and go beyond compliance requirements by asking for qualitative evidence. In keeping with

16

the developmental spirit of the system, the indicators are not exhaustive but allow for differences and adjustments over time as the quality bar is raised. The criteria function as evaluation instruments that focus Umalusi Council and education and training institutions on important signals or indicators of quality. They enable Umalusi to provide an independent account of the quality of education and training, the extent to which institutions are meeting their own and national objectives and to report on the sufficiency of institutional results within sectors and in the NQF band. In addition they highlight the strengths, weaknesses and good practices in each sector. These observations create the foundations for improving quality. In respect of institutions, the criteria serve as a benchmark and guideline for institutional quality management. They are intended to encourage and enable institutions to analyse and reflect on the quality of their provision and management and to guide the development of self-evaluation reports and improvements. 3.7 Accreditation and monitoring process The accreditation process is divided into two stages, namely

• Provisional accreditation; and • Full accreditation.

Both stages contain aspects of monitoring to ensure maintenance of standards and continued improvement. 3.7.1 Provisional accreditation Provisional accreditation applies only to private provider institutions, as public providers are statutorily “deemed” to be accredited.

Provisional accreditation means that the provider institution meets minimum compliance criteria. It attests that the institution is functional and has the capacity to fulfil its current education and training obligations. It does not guarantee the quality of the programmes or their status. Provisional accreditation is viewed as a developmental phase during which the institution builds capacity and quality within its provision – this includes reviewing qualifications and ensuring alignment with Umalusi qualifications or standards where possible.

Provisional accreditation status is initially granted for a maximum of 3 years during which the institution must qualify for full accreditation. Umalusi however, reserves the right to extend such a period should it be deemed necessary.

3.7.2 Full accreditation Accreditation certifies that the institution has the capacity to manage its qualifications, learning programmes and learner assessments effectively, provides teaching and learning of sufficient quality, and that its results can credibly be certified and entered

17

on the National Learner Record Database (NLRD). It also certifies to the general public that the provider has appropriate objectives, the resources needed to accomplish its objectives, can demonstrate that it is accomplishing its objectives, and gives reason to believe that it will continue to accomplish them. Accreditation status applies to both private and public providers. Private institutions are required to undergo a full accreditation process which is based on a common set of criteria for both public and private providers in all three sectors. Legislation requires public providers to demonstrate their “deemed” status by meeting the same full accreditation criteria as private providers and have this acknowledged by Umalusi. Private institutions moving through the two stages (provisional accreditation and full accreditation) complete five (5) steps in the process. Public AET centres and FET colleges, due to their deemed status, enter the process at the third (3) step. (See APPENDIX A for process flowchart). Public schools are subject to IQMS. Accreditation is granted in stages to a maximum of 10 years based on monitoring reports and institutional consistency in maintaining and improving the quality of provision. 3.7.3 Accreditation process The process is as follows: Prerequisite: Umalusi Scope Provider institutions are initially screened to determine whether they fall within Umalusi’s scope. This is done through the submission of a letter of intent in a prescribed format. STEP 1: Self-evaluation (Part A) and Inspection Umalusi views quality as the responsibility of the institution and believes that institutional self-evaluation is an intrinsic part of the quality assurance process. This means that institutions inspect and evaluate their own levels of compliance and quality against minimum criteria set by Umalusi. Initially the institution is required to conduct self-evaluation (Part A) for provisional accreditation. The criteria are designed to determine compliance in respect of legislative obligations and the sufficiency and quality of educational inputs. After submission of a self-evaluation report accompanied by a portfolio of evidence, an inspection (short site visit) takes place to verify the level of institutional compliance. On the basis of a desktop evaluation of the self-evaluation report and the inspection report one of three decisions is made: § Six months provisional accreditation with conditions: providers needing

considerable support and development, those with low compliance levels or

18

emerging providers would fall in this category. These are closely monitored for progress against the conditions.

§ Three-year provisional accreditation with conditions: Providers in this category meet most of the compliance criteria but still need to improve compliance levels to meet all criteria. Monitoring of improving compliance will form part of the conditions.

§ Three-year provisional accreditation as accreditation candidate : This means that the provider has met all the compliance requirements and is ready to begin with the self-evaluation (Part B) leading to full accreditation.

STEP 2: Monitoring Providers in the first two categories are monitored against their improvement plans or conditions dur ing the specified period of provisional accreditation until they reach the required levels of compliance to move to the next step. The monitoring occurs through the annual submission of a progress report against an improvement plan or specified conditions. STEP 3: Self-evaluation (Part B) Institutions with very high levels of compliance are invited to commence with self-evaluation (Part B) for full accreditation. The resultant report and evidence along with the results of the peer validation visit are used to measure the effectiveness of the institution’s quality management and the quality of its teaching and learning against the evaluation criteria. For Umalusi to conduct a site-visit institutions must meet certain pre-conditions, one of which is the submission of a self-evaluation report reflecting satisfactory indicators of quality for each of the accreditation criteria to motivate such a visit.

STEP 4: Peer validation and accreditation Site-visit: The institution’s self-evaluation report and portfo lio for full accreditation is validated through a site visit by a team of peers and/or experts, appointed by Umalusi Council. The teams are comprised of peers from provider sectors in GET and FET and are identified or nominated by institutions from each sector. Nominations are screened against selection criteria before being appointed. In the approach adopted by Umalusi validation is understood as the process of confirming through observation that the evidence presented and demonstrated shows that the institution meets the criteria for accreditation as set by Umalusi. The validation should confirm that the institution offers quality provision and has the capacity to manage and improve the quality of provision in such a way that it will accomplish its stated aims consistently over time. Accreditation decision: The team has to arrive at an independent judgment of the effectiveness of the institution’s quality management and the quality of its teaching and learning. Based on the recommendations in the report the sector accreditation committee will make a final decision and seek Council endorsement. The institution

19

will be informed of the decision and may appeal against the decision to the Umalusi Council through a specified appeals procedure. Accreditation will run in cycles of ten years. When accreditation is granted it is for an initial three-year period. The submission of the first three-yearly progress report is followed by a short verification site visit. If this is concluded successfully Umalusi may extend the accreditation period by seven years. However, Umalusi reserves the right to extend accreditation by a lesser period if in its estimation the institution requires closer monitoring or to revoke accreditation as appropriate See APPENDIX B for accreditation decisions. Reporting: Umalusi will in turn generate an institutional report informed by the findings of the peer validation team and the institutional self-evaluation that, a) highlights strengths, b) identifies areas for improvement, and c) provides recommendations for action. STEP 5: Post-accreditation monitoring Monitoring is conducted in two ways namely, through reporting and periodic inspection. Reporting: During monitoring Umalusi requires providers to submit two kinds of reports: § Progress reports: Progress reports are submitted at three-year intervals. The

reports are informed by an institutional self-evaluation and the development of an improvement plan. This means that during the ten-year period of accreditation the institution will provide three reports before applying for re-accreditation.

Directly after accreditation institutions are required to address identified areas for improvement and act on the recommendations, and report on progress in the first monitoring report. If an institution has been granted accreditation with conditions to be met within a specified timeframe Umalusi will monitor the institution’s progress closely.

§ Institutional performance reports: In addition, the Council requires the

institution to report annually on specific institutional performance information and statistics during the accreditation period.

§ After each annual monitoring cycle and more substantially after each three-

year cycle Umalusi will generate an institutional report which the institution can use for self-evaluation and improvement.

§ Umalusi also generates national sector reports for submission to the Umalusi

Council and the Minister of Education.

20

Inspection: During the accreditation period Umalusi conducts monitoring site visits after the submission of the first three-yearly report to establish whether the institution has been consistent in its management of the quality of its provision. It may also when deemed necessary conduct an inspection of a site such as in the following circumstances:

§ Declining performance results § Change of ownership § Change of premises § Substantial change in programme offerings or staffing § On complaint

Findings may lead to the revocation of accreditation. In addition Umalusi periodically undertakes thematic inspections. These consist of subject/ learning area/learning field specific inspections which focus on the quality of the teaching and learning in the identified theme area and will involve a national sample of institutions. STEP 6: Application for re-accreditation Institutions are required to apply for re-accreditation in the ninth year of the 10 year cycle. The rigour of Umalusi’s re-accreditation process will be determined by institutional monitoring reports and the levels of consistency in managing the quality of provision over the accreditation period. 3.7.4 Request for Review There are a number of points in the accreditation process where institutions have the option of requesting the review of a decision. The directives that govern the circumstances under which an institution may request a review are captured in Umalusi’s Guidelines for Institutional Accreditation and Monitoring. 3.8 Internal structures and roles The accreditation system requires various internal structures to support implementation of the system. Therefore Umalusi has established internal structures to manage the accreditation process. These consist of the following:

21

3.8.1 Accreditation Committee(s)

§ The Council may appoint one or more committees to which the necessary decision-making powers are delegated to approve and appoint peer validation teams and make accreditation decisions. .

§ Council may appoint an advisory committee to oversee monitoring and

reporting on public provision. 3.8.2 Peer Validation Teams

Peer validation teams are selected from the applicable sectors and consist of groups of peers or experts. They are appointed by the Accreditation Committee(s) to validate provider self-evaluations and evidence for full accreditation. The validation teams report and make accreditation recommendations to the Accreditation Committee(s).

3.8.3 Umalusi Council

Umalusi Council is the policy making body that reports directly to the Minister of Education. The Council has delegated such powers as deemed necessary to the Accreditation Committee(s) in order for it to carry out its functions. The Council approves the appointment of members of the Accreditation Committee(s) and endorses accreditation decisions (positive or negative) or declines endorsement if the motivation is not sufficient. The Council also makes the final decisions on institutional requests for review. 3.8.4 Umalusi Staff

Umalusi staff members are employed to develop, implement, support and coordinate all quality assurance functions of the Council as described in its mandate. This includes the activities of the Accreditation Committee(s) and the validation teams. 3.9 Reporting The General and Further Education and Training Act No 58 of 2001 requires Umalusi to report on a number of matters. Therefore, besides reports generated for provider institutions at various stages in the accreditation process, Umalusi also submits the following reports to the Minister of Education: 3.9.1 Private provision:

− Consolidated annual monitoring report: At the end of each financial year, based on the accreditation and monitoring reports generated during that year, a consolidated annual monitoring report on the quality of private provision.

22

3.9.2 Public provision:

− Consolidated validation report : After a validation site-visit to provincial departments of education, a consolidated report and recommendations for improvement in public provision in respect of meeting Umalusi’s accreditation criteria

− Annual monitoring report: After receipt and evaluation of annual monitoring reports from provincial departments of education on progress made in respect of quality improvement in public provision.

4. Resourcing of the accreditation and monitoring system Details regarding the resourcing of the accreditation and monitoring system are the subject of a separate document. Broadly stated, Umalusi has designed a resourcing system that is a combination of state resourcing and provider contributions that allows access to all providers seeking accreditation provided they fall within Umalusi’s scope. 5. Transitional arrangements Having stated its priorities, Umalusi will nevertheless cater for existing providers who are provisionally accredited but fall outside Umalusi’s current scope in a number of ways:

• Private providers that clearly do not fall within Umalusi’s scope for accreditation and are unlikely to do so in the near future (such as providers accredited by international accreditation agencies or those whose qualifications are certified by foreign awarding bodies), have the option of continuing with provisional accreditation until the term of 3 years has lapsed, or withdrawing from the process. Should they elect to remain in the process they are required to participate in the annual self-evaluation and monitoring exercise. Once they have withdrawn or the 3 year provisional accreditation period has lapsed Umalusi will no longer quality assure such providers.

• Some provisionally accredited providers fall outside Umalusi’s current scope

due to a lack of policy direction and clarity. These include providers that exclusively offer qualifications other than those certificated by Umalusi. In this case Umalusi may extend the provisional accreditation period subject to the meeting of certain conditions. Alternatively such providers may seek accreditation with other ETQAs.

• Where a provider does not fit the institutional requirement of Umalusi’s

accreditation system, Umalusi may also consider extension of the provisional accreditation subject to the meeting of certain conditions.

23

APPENDIX A: Accreditation process flowchart

PROVIDER: Sends letter of intent and sworn declaration

UMALUSI: Screens for scope – if accepted then…..

STEP 1: Self-evaluation (part A) and Inspection Provider submits: § Application form § Self-evaluation report part

A (Compliance) § Portfolio of evidence § Application for or

evidence of programme approval

§ 6 months provisional accreditation with conditions

One of three decisions made:

Site inspected for compliance and report submitted to Umalusi.

Desktop evaluation conducted & one of two decisions made – to inspect the site/s or turn provider away

§ 3 years provisional accreditation with conditions

§ 3 years provisional accreditation as accreditation candidate

STEP 2: Monitoring Monitoring for compliance against improvement programmes

STEP 3: Self-evaluation (Part B) Conduct and submit self evaluation part B for full accreditation – if qualifying for site visit then…….if not

STEP 4: Peer validation and accreditation Accreditation site visit – recommendations to Council – if positive accreditation follows …if negative provider returns to Step 2

STEP 5: Post-accreditation monitoring If site visit results in a positive decision approved by Council - annual monitoring follows

24

APPENDIX B: Accreditation decisions The Sector Accreditation Committee will render one of the following decisions:

§ Accreditation. The accreditation decision indicates that the institution meets each of the criteria for accreditation. Areas for improvement may be cited, indicating problems warranting the institution’s attention. In its subsequent annual reports, the institution must describe progress made in addressing the areas for improvement cited in the letter accompanying the Accreditation Committee’s report. The monitoring on-site visit is scheduled for three years following the date when accreditation was granted. Accreditation may be granted for ten years in total. This means an initial three years followed by an extension of an additional period dependent on the institution’s consistency in managing the quality of its provision..

§ Accreditation with conditions . This accreditation decision indicates that the institution has not yet met one or more of the

accreditation criteria in full. When the Accreditation Committee renders this decision, the institution receives its accredited status but must satisfy conditions by meeting the unmet criteria within a specified time frame. The Accreditation Committee can require another site visit after submission of the evidence within one year after receiving the evidence. After the evidence has been checked, the Accreditation Committee will decide to fully accredit or revoke conditional accreditation.

§ Denial or revocation of accreditation: This accreditation decision indicates that the institution does not meet one or more of

the accreditation criteria under the following circumstances: (1) following an on-site visit by the validation team initiated by the Complaint Review Committee acting on behalf of the Accreditation Committee; (2) following an on-site visit by a validation team initiated by the Accreditation Committee at the recommendation of its Annual Reports Evaluation Committee; (3) following a motion from Umalusi Council to revoke accreditation on grounds that an accredited institution (a) no longer meets preconditions for accreditation, including but not limited to loss of state registration and/or provider accreditation, major changes in staffing etc; (b) refuses to pay the fees required; (c) misrepresents its accreditation status to the public; (d) has falsely reported data and/or plagiarized information submitted for accreditation purposes; or (e) fails to submit annual reports or other documents required for accreditation.

25