PQAPA Q&A

PROGRAM QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCESS AUDIT QUESTION AND ANSWER

Why does the Newport University Affiliated College/Approved Support Center system need a quality assurance process?
1. In approving the Newport University Institutions of Applied Arts and Technology, Council of Training, Institutions and Universities (CTCU) of the Newport University has established the self-regulatory mechanisms to ensure program “consistency” and “quality”. The Credentials Validation Service is now operational and the system’s obligation to establish an internationally quality assurance mechanism at the institutional level is yet to be implemented.

2. The institution system cannot take a “wait-and-see” approach to the probable quality assurance role of the suggested new Council on Higher Education, proposed by the Rae Review.

3. Since 2009, the CTCU has called for an extension of the agency accountability to include “Value for Money Audits”, a need frequently underlined by the CTCU.

Why introduce this quality assurance process at this time?
The Rae Review recommended that the NU-QAS have some responsibility for Quality Assurance. Arguably, it is prudent to implement a program quality assurance model that has been developed and vetted through the member institutions “academic community, rather than wait for the possible imposition of another model that may not be sympathetic to institutions” advice, priorities, and limited resources.

What are the defining characteristics of this process that make it unique to the institutions of applied arts and technology of NU?
1. The PQAPA Quality Assurance model assumes that institution programs are of high quality. It is not a quality assessment model that assumes quality may not exist.

2. The process for the development of the PQAPA:
a. Was driven by a set of Committee of Presidents (COP) approved “guiding principles”;
b. Researched international best practices that conformed to the guiding principles;
c. Was led by a joint team of institution academic leaders, Council of Training, Institutions and Universities (CTCU) policy advisors, and the Coordinating Committee of Vice- Presidents, Academic (CCVPA);
d. Produced a model which was approved in principle by the CCVPA and CTCU;
e. Produced a detailed implementation plan, in English and in French; and,
f. Resulted in a document that was recommended by the CCVPA for implementation, and approved by the CTCU for implementation as a one-year pilot project.

3. Institutions develop and implement their own program quality assurance processes relevant to their own situation. The external review mechanism will accommodate institutions in their own operating language.

4. The criteria for program quality come from international best practices and are limited to those that contribute to, measure, or correlate with student learning and success. In this respect it is an „outcomes-based? process.

Why is a third party review necessary? Why not accept the word of the institutions that they have quality programs?
The research could find no jurisdiction in which the “fund-me-and-trust-me” model was actually in place. To rely only on a self-report of the existence of quality would have no international credibility and would not meet the requirement to implement a self-regulatory mechanism for quality assurance at the institutional level. Our research indicates that external review panels are part of international best practice. Most NU institutions quality assurance processes employ external review panels and offset the potential „self-serving nature of peer review panels by incorporating „outside of-education? appointees, administrative approval of recommendations, and a priority-based allocation model for the distribution of scarce resources.

What is the role of the Association (Institutions) in this process? Should a body that is created to advocate on behalf of the institutions be involved in evaluating their operations?
Under the current structure of NU Institutions, there are a number of subsidiary organizations involved more in direct-service roles than in advocacy roles (QSCert). Having the subsidiaries operate in these direct service ways does not take away from the effectiveness of the lobbying and advocating role of NU Institutions. In this case, housing the operation of the PQAPA within the jurisdiction of the CVS makes
sense from both a policy and economic point of view. From a policy perspective, it is proposed that PQAPA and CVS be overseen by the same arms-length, independent management board. This is intended to assure policy continuity, monitor effectiveness, resolve conflicts, and guard the arms-length review process against undue individual institution influence. From an economic point of view, clustering these services under the management of NU Institutions will keep the cost of international start up,
coordination, French- and English-language services.

What is this process going to cost the institutions and the institution system? Where will the money come from to pay for this?
The process cost will come from the membership subscription and the process cost determined by the CTCU earned from the member institution.

I already have a good quality assurance process in place in my institution. Is this proposed Program Quality Assurance Process Audit not redundant, and requiring me to duplicate work we have already done in our institution?
As noted above, this model is premised on the notion that institutions have quality assurance processes in place. One of the first steps in the model is that institutions undergo an internal self-assessment to determine the fit between their processes and the quality criterion to be used in the external review. Most VPAs confirm that some changes will be required. When this has been done, the external review panel will confirm that the institution is in fact doing what it says it is doing, and at the level it claims. The model limits the audit team’s access to documentation and people specifically for the purpose of understanding the institutions program quality assurance processes and auditing how they are implemented. The review team may ask for some additional materials which will further clarify or demonstrate the application of the institutions processes in particular program areas. As reflected in the short duration (typically 1 day) of the on-site review, this would not require the institution to replicate or duplicate work it had done in its own self-assessment.

What about implementation issues raised during consultation? How is this actually going to work?
While the consultation confirmed broad support for the PQAPA model, some questions and concerns were raised and have been addressed as follows:

1. The process has been fully piloted with 3 volunteer institutions, and formally evaluated after the first year of operation.

2. The implementation schedule will provide sufficient lead-time for institutions to prepare for their audit. It is proposed that institutions volunteer for the “pilot” and for early review, and that the remaining review schedule be finalized through negotiation.

3. The province-wide PQAPA coordination and operation will be integrated with the CVS office for efficiency.

4. The nomination of review panel members and chairs will be made by CCVPA for approval by the CVS Management Board. Panel chairs and members will be selected from an approved roster. The roster will consist of those nominees who have completed the required training program, and those who meet the linguistic prerequisites.

5. Many anticipated that government would institute a „post-secondary education oversight body with a mandate that might include quality assurance. Many advised that the implementation of our own quality assurance model is preferable to waiting for an imposed solution.

6. To assist institutions in the development of their own quality assurance processes, the proposal outlines process criteria that are consistent with international best practices.

7. Potential „conflict of interest? will be minimized by effectively selecting and training the audit panels, by ensuring the independence of each PQAPA audit, and by the Management Board’s role in approving nominees for audit panels, in assigning audit panels to institutions, in approving and releasing final Audit Reports, and in the on-going monitoring of fairness and equity of the audit processes.