QQI Validation White Paper
Private/independent providers providing
programmes leading to QQI awards
Peter Cullen
QQI, Head of Validation and Delegation
29/01/2016
1
This presentation will:
- outline our thinking concerning validation particularly from
the perspective of private/independent providers providing
programmes leading to QQI awards
- emphasise what is likely to change and why
- note the main implications of the change
- outline the envisaged time scale for implementation
- help you prepare your feedback on the white paper—the
deadline for submissions on validation policy and criteria is
26 February 2016.
29/01/2016
2
Unified Policy and Criteria
• There would be core validation policy and criteria common
to all E&T
• The core policy would be augmented by specialised
validation policy and criteria (e.g. for programmes leading to
CAS awards or for English language proficiency programmes
or for research degree programmes)
• All validation processes would involve
• Self evaluation report by the applicant against the validation criteria
• Independent evaluation
• Publication by QQI of the independent evaluation report following
decision
29/1/2016
3
Some key concepts to note
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Provider
Relevant provider
Programme
Provider’s validated programme
Minimum intended programme learning outcome
Validation
Shared curriculum
Shared programme (concept no longer to be used)
Collaborative programme
Coordinating provider
Differential validation
Devolved responsibility
29/1/2016
4
12 broad validation criteria
• The provider is eligible to apply for validation of the programme
• The programme objectives and outcomes are clear and consistent with the QQI
awards sought
• The programme concept and implementation strategy and its interpretation of
QQI awards standards are well informed and soundly based (considering social,
cultural, educational, professional and employment objectives)
• The programme’s access, transfer and progression arrangements are satisfactory
• The programme’s written curriculum is well structured and fit-for-purpose
• There are sufficient qualified and capable teaching staff available to implement
the programme as planned
• There are sufficient physical resources to implement the programme as planned
• The learning environment is consistent the needs of the programme’s learners
• There are sound teaching and learning strategies
• There are sound assessment strategies
• Learners are well informed, guided and cared-for
• The programme is well managed
29/1/2016
5
Prerequisites
• Before applying for validation a provider must have
• established procedures for quality assurance under section 28 of
the 2012 Act;
• established procedures for access, transfer and progression under
section 56;
• complied with section 65 in respect of arrangements for the
protection of enrolled learners; and
• consulted with the person referred to in section 44 subsection (11),
if that subsection applies to the provider.
29/01/2016
6
Self-evaluation
• Prior to making an application for validation of a
programme, a provider will need to conduct, and prepare a
report on, a critical self-evaluation of the relevant
programme against the applicable validation policy and
criteria.
• Experience shows that the quality and candour of this
evaluation can be an indicator of a provider’s capacity to
provide quality programmes—i.e. providers who cannot do
this well may be challenged to quality assure a programme
of education and training!
29/1/2016
7
Documentation
• The programme-related documentation must include
sufficient information to address the applicable validation
criteria for example:
• An outline of the programme and identification of the QQI awards to which it leads;
• The documented programme (including for example what is taught, how it is taught, by what
means and in which modes it is taught, by whom is it taught, where it is taught, when it is taught,
how it is assessed, to whom it is taught in general terms, who owns the programme, and how the
programme is managed and quality assured and by whom) this should integrate or be supported
by:
•
•
•
The programme’s assessment strategies and procedures;
The programme’s teaching and learning strategy (this covers education and training);
CVs for the programme’s key staff;
•
•
•
Comprehensive listing of the physical facilities and learning resources;
Documented procedures for the operation and management of the programme;
Five-year plan for the programme demonstrating viability
• Samples of the material to be provided to prospective learners;
• Samples of the material to be provided to enrolled learners;
• Samples of assessment tasks, model answers and marking schemes for each award stage.
• Also it must have details on the programme-specific QA and
collaboration agreements with collaborating providers,
awarding bodies and employers where applicable.
29/1/2016
8
Independent evaluation
• Applications would be evaluated by an external group that is
independent of the provider and well matched to the
specific programme to be validated
• In some cases there may be a visit to the provider
• Evaluators will be identified (will not be anonymous)
• Evaluation would involve transparent and proportional
rigour
• The level of scrutiny would adapt to QQI’s uncertainty
concerning the application presented
• All validation reports would be published by QQI
• Allow up to 25 weeks for validation (though often much
quicker)
29/1/2016
9
Changes for all
Approach would provide
• a unified approach informed by VET and HET guidelines including
the “Handbook for VET providers: Supporting internal quality
management and quality culture” and the “Standards and
Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher
Education Area (ESG) ”
• crisper validation criteria
• new approaches to devolving responsibility to providers
• for a risk-based evaluation rather than one-size-fits-all
• clarity about the scope of changes that may be made to validated
programmes
It is compatible with new guidelines on flexible and distributed
learning (e.g. e-learning)
• We recognise that we may need to provide more detailed
guidance for presenting programmes involving FLD for validation.
29/1/2016
10
For FET providers
The approach would, for example:
• expect FET providers to be outward looking when
interpreting needs guided by QQI awards standards
• involve a significant evolutionary step: empowering,
challenging but not unduly disruptive
• lay foundations for more autonomous activity
• facilitate more streamlined online applications
• enable discipline-area approach to evaluation in certain
cases (a special kind of devolved responsibility approach)
17/10/2015
11
Non-CAS QQI FET awards
• Programmes could be validated for non-CAS QQI FET awards
• provides for provider-determination of expected learning
outcomes to meet specific social, cultural and employment
needs guided by broad standards
• QQI’s 2014 Policy for Determining Awards Standards
provides for this and the new validation policy would enable
the implementation of this
• Those with capability and capacity to do so could freely
develop their own programmes using QQI’s generalised
standards and submit these for validation e.g. new
apprenticeships
17/10/2015
12
For HET providers
• The policy and criteria are somewhat similar to the HETAC
2010 policy and criteria but not the same—they are more
focused, probing and comprehensive
• The process is broadly similar to the current one but the
reports will be more focused on the validation criteria than
the current ones are
29/1/2016
13
Slightly altered terminology
• Terminology aligns with new standards and award making policies
• Refer to shared curriculum instead of shared programme— significant
efficiencies would still apply
• each provider application for validation of own programme addressing topics including
customised curriculum, staffing and other resources are specific to them
• Refer to devolved responsibility rather than programme approval
agreements—QQI’s process would be followed
• Compound programmes are modularised integrated programmes
leading to major, special purpose, supplemental, or professional awards.
• Minor programmes, are programmes leading to minor awards where
the provider does not provide a corresponding compound prog. leading
to a CAS award.
• A minor programme MUST BE developed for the purpose of preparing a learner to partially meet
the requirements for a specified non-minor award. This would be tested rigorously by validation.
29/1/2016
14
Implementation plan
• Hope to work with FET sector to develop an implementation
plan as the changes are significant
• Explain the new policy
• Plan the roll out
• Systematically train independent evaluators
• Encourage the development of secondary sources providing
support and guidance for providers on related matters
• Will probably need to produce detailed guidelines on
preparing applications.
• Looking for interested people!
29/1/2016
15
Context: other QQI infrastructure
• The new validation policy and criteria would
• build on 2014 Policy and Criteria for Making Awards and 2014 Policy
for Determining Awards Standards
• be optimised for the forthcoming suite of new QA guidelines
• be compatible with current QA guidelines to allow time for QQI’s
reengagement process to roll out
• Supporting material would include, e.g.
• New assessment conventions and protocols
• New external authenticator guidelines (FET)
• New guidelines on reviewing programmes and presenting them for
revalidation
29/1/2016
16
Aiming for April 2016
• April 2016 target for commencement of the new policy
• White paper published in December 2015 for response by
the end of February 2016
• Adoption of new policy in April 2016
• It is envisaged that applications under the new policy would
be accepted immediately following its adoption in April
2016 e.g. apprenticeship programmes
• We hope to be able to allow a transition period up to
September before rescinding the current FET policies.
• We would like a swift but orderly transition and would be
happy to discuss timing.
• Please don’t accelerate the rate of development to get
validation applications in before the adoption of the new
policy!
29/1/2016
17
Re-validation
• Normally every five years or following a change in award
standard
• The new validation criteria will apply
• The evidence base is enhanced because the programme has
been running
• Opportunity to make significant changes to programmes
(much more than would be the norm during shorter cycle
reviews e.g. annual)
• Similar programmes can be evaluated together provided this
does not compromise the quality of the self-evaluation or
independent evaluation processes
• Shared curricula can be examined collaboratively but
programmes are the provider’s responsibility
• Guidelines on this have to be developed this year!
29/1/2016
18
Suggested topics for discussion
•
•
•
•
•
•
Is the approach clear in terms of the process?
Is it clear in terms of the criteria?
Do you think the criteria are appropriate?
Are there things we have missed?
What do you see as the challenges for you in this approach?
What do you see as the opportunities provided by this
approach?
29/1/2016
19