PROFESSIONAL PROGRAMS
(this is a translation of a document adopted by CREPUQ’s committee of Vice-Recteurs Affaires
Académiques, VRAA) on 1st June 2007 and by CEP on 11th June 2007 entitled Mécanisme et
procédure d’évaluation de pertinence des projets de programmes d’études menant à la
modification éventuelle du Règlement sur les diplômes délivrés par les établissements
d’enseignement désignés qui donnent droit aux permis et aux certificats de spécialistes des ordres
professionnels.)
In keeping with an agreement among the members of the CREPUQ-MELS-OPQ-MSSS Table de
concertation, any new program proposal leading to the possible modification of the Règlement sur les
diplômes délivrés par les établissements d’enseignement désignés qui donnent droit aux permis et aux
certificats de spécialistes des ordres professionnels (Regulation pertaining to degrees from designated
teaching institutions granting access to professional orders’ permits and certificates), is subject to a
procedure for evaluating their pertinence, for which the following conditions apply:
1) a major modification to the Règlement is envisaged, such as a shift to a higher degree level
granting access to a permit or a specialist certificate delivered by a professional order;
2) the proposal reflects a trend in the professional milieu and in institutions that offer a degree
granting access to the profession resulting from new needs or shortcomings in the current
education, with respect to the professional competencies required.
Given the role played in this respect by the Comité de la formation of the relevant professional order, by
virtue of its mandate, that Comité de la formation must express formally its support for the proposal.
If it is not clear whether the procedure should apply, the question will be resolved by means of a
consultative mechanism that will involve the Office des professions (OPQ) and CREPUQ’s VRAA
(committee of Vice-Recteurs Affaires Académiques).
The steps in the evaluation of “pertinence”:
The proposal should be submitted to the Commission d’évaluation des programmes (CEP) of CREPUQ
when it is still at an exploratory stage, i.e. as various opportunité parameters (regarding demand, need,
pertinence) have been explored.
The proposal is brought to CEP by the university or group of universities that is developing the proposal,
with the support from the relevant professional order. CEP carries out a first analysis in light of which it
draws a list of questions for the organisations and experts that it will consult. If deemed necessary, it may
also solicit additional information from the University or group of universities. In consultation with the
OPQ whose knowledge of the various professional milieus constitutes an essential source of information,
CEP also prepares a list of the organisations and experts that should be consulted (for example, MELS,
MSSS, OPQ, professional orders and associations, etc.).
CEP will appoint a number of its members to a small committee whose task will be to hear the selected
organisations and experts, carry out an in-depth analysis of the information gathered regarding the
proposal, highlighting major points and formulating conclusions that could be part of its “Avis de
pertinence” prepared by CREPUQ’s secretariat. Finally, CEP adopts its Avis de pertinence and forwards
it to MELS.
It is the responsibility of MELS to carry out the required consultation of relevant governmental
authorities. CEP’s Avis de pertinence will, in this respect, constitute a source of expertise and
information. MELS will then advise the University or group of universities of the decision taken by the
relevant authorities regarding the proposal.
If the decision is negative, the proposal is cancelled. If the decision is positive, the University or group of
universities further develops the program proposal. The OPQ will have a solid dossier in hand to support
the process leading to the modification of the Règlement. Once developed, the program proposal is
submitted to the usual internal and external evaluation and authorization process for new teaching
programs. Universities initiating proposals that require an evaluation of pertinence must seek the
necessary governmental authorization prior to submitting their proposals to CEP for an evaluation
of its quality, failing which such proposals will be returned to the proposer.
This procedure is in keeping with the consultative status of CEP, while respecting its independence and
the integrity of its recommendations (avis). It also abides by the prerogatives and jurisdictions of
governmental authorities in terms of authorizing funding and services to the public.
Evaluation criteria
By virtue of their core mandate to protect the public, professional orders are required to ensure that
candidates to a regulated profession have acquired a quality education and have the necessary
competencies and qualifications for meeting their professional responsibilities adequately. The
Commission (CEP) will take that basic premise into account in its deliberations and in its analysis of the
motives behind the proposal in particular.
Pertinence will be evaluated according to criteria pertaining to the scientific, systemic and socioeconomic aspects of the proposal:
-
Scientific dimension
Evaluation of scientific pertinence rests on an analysis of the adequacy of the means to meet
program objectives. For the purpose of evaluating pertinence, they have been grouped into two
categories:
1) Objectives of the proposal: structure and evolution of the profession; competencies that
students should acquire by means of the proposed program; value added by the proposed
changes with respect to the education provided by means of the previous program;
correlation between the scientific training being proposed (as described in the broad
objectives) and the new requirements of the profession.
2) The framework (cadre): admission requirements and procedure (general and specific
admission requirements and selection criteria); program structure (including internships if
relevant), and duration.
-
Systemic dimension
Evaluation of the systemic pertinence of a proposal rests on an analysis of the status of the
proposed program in relation to the full range of programs currently offered by Quebec
universities and in terms of its contribution to the orientations and policies of the Quebec
university system. It requires taking into consideration similar or related programs offered by
other universities. The following should be included among the features that will be taken into
account for defining the systemic dimension:
1) position of the proposed program in the Quebec, North-American and international
university network, with respect to professional requirements;
2) the novel contribution made by the proposed program in the Quebec context;
3) the expected impact of the proposed program on the professional training in that particular
discipline in Quebec (consider the possible creation of several such programs within the
Quebec university network; their position with respect to student recruitment in particular;
impact of the implementation of this new program on student enrolments in existing
programs);
4) if relevant, describe foreseeable links with related programs, expected collaboration
between professors in the proposed program and those in related programs, etc.
-
Socio-economic dimension
Evaluation of the socio-economic pertinence of a proposal rests on an analysis of the needs
that the program intends to meet. It includes the capacity of program objectives and content
to meet the societal needs which the university has identified. Elements that should be taken
into consideration for defining the socio-economic pertinence of a proposal include the
following:
1) availability of sufficiently detailed studies regarding need; enrolment projections stemming
from those studies; foreseeable impact of program on recruitment and graduation of future
professionals;
2) evolution of training needs in the field in Quebec in recent years and expected employment
situation;
3) employment opportunities and employability of graduates in Quebec, North America and
elsewhere in the world; mobility of future professionals; their contribution to Quebec society
in general and to meeting the needs that have been identified;
4) degree of priority assigned to the program field by professional associations or orders,
private or public organisations or the ministries;
5) legislative and regulatory framework of professional practice in Quebec, with respect to
this program;
6) incidence of the proposed program on manpower evolution, particularly in Quebec;
7) availability of this type of program elsewhere in the world (in North America in
particular), outcomes of such programs regarding enrolment, academic success, and ability to
meet the needs which they are intended to meet, if relevant, etc.
8) clarity of the degree name and conformity with its overall aims.
Information that should be included in the proposal
In order for CEP to carry out its analysis of the scientific, socio-economic and systemic
dimensions of the proposal, the university or group of universities, submits a program proposal
dossier that should include the following information:
1) program identification: degree level, discipline, degree designation, unit responsible; name of
institution.
2) description of the situation: history, structure and evolution of the profession.
3) rationale for the creation of the program; demonstration of the inadequacy of the current
program with respect to the needs of the profession; other options considered and justification
for the solution selected; value added by the modifications; employment prospects; mobility
of future professionals; expected impact of the proposal on recruitment and graduation of
future professionals; position of the proposed program in the Quebec and North-American
university network; position of the proposed program with respect to similar programs
offered elsewhere.
4) General objectives of the proposed program; description of the major competencies that the
program will allow students to achieve; table comparing program objectives or competencies
with those of the program currently offered.
5) Fields of study within the proposed program: description of the trend reflected in the
program; definition of the field of study (drawing clear distinctions among the components of
the program, if necessary, i.e. specialisations, concentrations, profiles, options, axes, etc.); the
University should pay particular attention to this definition if the proposal aims to cover an
innovative field of study;
6) Framework: admission criteria; program structure (internships, if relevant), and duration.
Expected timeframe
The process leading to the avis de pertinence should not exceed twelve months, from the date of
submission of the proposal to CEP.
Cost sharing
Expenses to cover the costs of consulting the relevant organisations and experts (transportation,
per diem and stipends) will be covered by the university or group of universities and by the
relevant ordre professionnel, according to a distribution formula yet to be determined.
Evaluation of the procedure
After three years from the time of its adoption, the procedure described above will be evaluated.