Arrangements for quality assurance of Adult and Community Education providers

Closed 29 Nov 2009

Introduction

In early November 2009 a consultation letter (PDF, 12KB) was sent to all Adult and Community Education (ACE) providers. The letter consulted with ACE providers on proposed new arrangements for quality assurance of ACE in the non-university tertiary education sector. The consultation on the proposed arrangements ran for three weeks, the deadline for submissions being 29 November 2009. Three submissions were received. The feedback received was considered in the development of the annual reporting and attestation processes.

Evaluative approach to quality assurance

The evaluative approach to quality assurance implemented by NZQA has three parts: ongoing self-assessment by tertiary education organisations; periodic external evaluation and review of tertiary education organisations by NZQA; and, enabling regulatory arrangements.

The consultation letter proposed that annual reporting and attestation would satisfy ACE providers' self-assessment requirements. Characteristics of self-assessment, particularly questions on the effectiveness of provision, would form the basis of the annual reporting. Alongside this, ACE providers would attest their compliance with criteria adapted from the current Quality Assurance Arrangements for Providers of Adult and Community Education. The letter also stated that if an ACE provider was not also a private training establishment it did not have to undergo external evaluation and review (*). In place of this, NZQA would monitor and regulate ACE providers through the annual reports and attestations the providers submit.

ACE providers were asked to comment on the proposed arrangements as discussed in the letter, in particular:

• annual reporting and attestation processes
• criteria in the current Quality Assurance Arrangements for Providers of Adult and Community Education
• consequences of poor quality
• costs.

Submitters took the opportunity to comment on specific aspects of the proposed arrangements or more generally.

Summary of submissions

Three submissions were received from ACE providers and representative bodies. The submitters were: REAP (Rural Education Activity Programmes) Aotearoa; Federation of Workers' Educational Associations in Aotearoa New Zealand (FWEA); and, Maryke Fordyce, Director, Risingholme Community Centre.

Annual reporting and attestation processes

Submitters indicated its overall support for the proposed arrangements. However, one submitter requested further detail on what information ACE providers could expect to include in an annual report, as well as what processes attestation would involve. They also emphasised the need for any self-assessment process to be fit-for-purpose with the size, capacity and type of ACE provider.

NZQA has developed an attestation process for ACE providers. It is intended that any reporting arrangements would be fit-for-purpose and based on the principles of high trust and high accountability. The attestation model acknowledges the primary quality assurance responsibility of ACE providers, while placing NZQA in an oversight role.

Consequences of poor quality and costs

One submitter commented on the consequences of poor quality and costs. Of primary concern to this organisation were consequences of poor quality that resulted in the suspension or removal of funding to the organisation or its membership bodies.

NZQA's role to support and help build the capability of ACE providers will continue. If concerns are raised through the annual reporting and attestation process, NZQA will endeavour to work with the ACE provider concerned. Where fair and reasonable, this will be undertaken at no additional cost to the ACE provider. This process may involve assistance from one of NZQA's Provider Development and Support or Quality Development business units in meeting the requirements of an action plan.

If an ACE provider does not address the action plan within the agreed timeframe, further investigation may be prompted. This will be undertaken at the expense of the provider. Where an ACE provider continues to not meet the criteria, NZQA may remove the provider's recognition as a quality-assured ACE provider.

Two submitters considered the hourly rate of $150 (excl. GST) for any investigations or external evaluation and reviews of ACE providers to be high. The Quality Assurance Division is a cost recovery group of NZQA, and as a result it must charge for the quality assurance activities it provides to tertiary education organisations. The hourly rate of $150 (excl. GST) is the standard charge out fee.

Additional comments

One submitter stated that professional development should be incorporated into the self-assessment and attestation processes. They viewed this as important for ensuring the processes used are robust and meaningful. At noted above, NZQA will continue to provide assistance with capability building and welcome the active involvement of ACE providers in this.

(*) All tertiary education organisations are able to request an external evaluation and review, at their own expense. These reviews can provide ACE providers with an independent view on how they are doing. This is an optional, value-adding service that providers could request from NZQA.