Guidelines for assuring national consistency of graduate outcomes (Mātauranga Māori)

Te manu ka kai i te miro, nōna te ngahere

Te manu ka kai i te mātauranga, nōna te ao

A key feature of New Zealand qualifications is that the qualification can be obtained through different pathways, programmes, and education organisations.

New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) quality assurance is intended to assure stakeholders that graduates who have completed their qualifications through different programmes are all achieving the graduate outcomes to an equivalent standard.

The quality assurance process used is assuring national consistency of graduate outcomes. It applies to New Zealand qualifications at levels 1-6 that are listed on the New Zealand Qualifications Framework (NZQF).

Assuring national consistency of graduate outcomes is a process developed to maintain trust in New Zealand qualifications and the underlying knowledge, skills and attributes that graduates gain.

These guidelines (PDF, 1.1MB) outline the specific approach for assuring the national consistency of graduate outcomes resulting from Mātauranga Māori qualifications or programmes quality assured through the Te Hono o Te Kahurangi (THoTK) methodology.

Te Taura Here Tohu Mātauranga o Aotearoa

New Zealand Qualifications Framework

The NZQF is designed to optimise the recognition of educational achievement and its contribution to New Zealand’s social, cultural, economic and environmental success.

The NZQF lists qualifications that:

  • convey the skills, knowledge and attributes a graduate has gained through completing a qualification
  • encourage the development of integrated and coherent programmes
  • enable and support the provision of high-quality education pathways
  • enhance confidence in the quality and international comparability of New Zealand qualifications
  • contribute to Māori success in education by recognising and advancing Mātauranga Māori
  • represent value, are sustainable and robust.

NZQA is responsible for ensuring the integrity of New Zealand qualifications listed on the NZQF. To support this, NZQA co-ordinates the overall system and processes for assuring national consistency.

Mātauranga Māori qualifications

The NZQF can list qualifications where the outcomes directly and specifically address the distinctive needs and aspirations of Māori by advancing Mātauranga Māori and the Māori worldview.

Te Hono o Te Kahurangi

A Whare Ako Framework

whare ako

Te Hono o Te Kahurangi (THoTK) is the name of a whare ako framework and methodology NZQA uses to carry out quality assurance in the non-university tertiary sector.
The framework recognises learners choosing to achieve educational success through Mātauranga Māori in a way that reflects their worldview and context. The framework also contains practices that will contribute to learner success by assuring national consistency.

Six dynamic and interconnected kaupapa are at the heart of THoTK. The kaupapa act as a common point of reference for education and evaluators to guide evaluative conversations and decisions about:

  • what quality looks like in the educational context of the organisation
  • how the organisation knows they are meeting the needs of ākonga, whānau, hapū, iwi, hapori Māori and other accountabilities
  • whether the organisation has sufficient capacity and capability to deliver and sustain educational outcomes
  • how well the organisation reflects upon its delivery to improve its overall educational performance.

Each education organisation is expected to demonstrate how their organisational priorities relate to each application type, or review type, through expressions of ngā kaupapa of THoTK.

Each education organisation is expected to demonstrate how their organisational priorities relate to each application type, or review type, through expressions of ngā kaupapa of THoTK.

The six kaupapa are:

  • Rangatiratanga
  • Whanaungatanga
  • Manaakitanga
  • Pūkengatanga
  • Kaitiakitanga
  • Te Reo Māori.

Ngā Kaupapa o Te Hono o Te Kahurangi

The Principles of Te Hono o Te Kahurangi

This table outlines definitions and translations of ngā kaupapa o Te Hono o Te Kahurangi.

Ngā KaupapaWhakamāramatanga
The Principles Definitions Active translation
Rangatiratanga Ka hua te rangatiratanga mā te whakatīnana i tā te Māori titiro ki te ao i te wā e uruparetia ana ngā tūmanako me ngā whakahihiritanga o te ākonga, o te whānau, o te hapū, o te iwi, o te hapori Māori, o te hapori whānui. Autonomy realised through the enactment of a Māori world-view in response to the aspirations and driving motivators of ākonga, whānau, hapū, and where relevant, the Māori community and sector stakeholders.
Whanaungatanga Ka tuia, ka kumanutia hoki ngā whanaungatanga kia mau tonu ai ngā hononga i runga i te kauanuanu, i te pono me te māramatanga, hei painga mō te katoa. Connecting, fostering, and maintaining relationships based on respect, integrity and understanding for the benefit of all.
Manaakitanga Te whakaatu i te hāpaitanga o te mana mā roto i ngā whanonga me ngā mahi manaaki i te ākonga, i te whānau, i te hapū, i te iwi, i te hapori hoki. Manaakitanga realised by mana enhancing behaviour and practises for the care of ākonga, whānau, hapū, iwi, and community.
Pūkengatanga E whakahua ana i te mātauranga me ngā pūkenga e mau tonu ai ngā mātāpono, ngā whakapono, ngā hiahia matua me ngā tūmanako o te iwi. Represents the knowledge and skills to ensure the principles, beliefs, needs and aspirations of the people are sustained.
Kaitiakitanga Te rokirokitanga, te kaitiakitanga, te hāpaitanga hoki o te ao me ōna taonga hei painga mō te katoa. Preservation, guardianship and enhancement of the world and its treasures for the benefit of all.
Te Reo Māori E ora ana, e momoho ana, e matomato ana hoki te tipu o te kākano o te reo Māori. The Māori language is alive, vibrant, and flourishing.

Te Anga Whakaū Kounga

Evaluative Quality Assurance Framework

The Evaluative Quality Assurance Framework uses many different quality assurance activities to reflect the quality of education and education organisations. The cumulative information from all these quality assurance activities contribute to assuring national consistency.

THoTK integrates quality assurance of entry processes, with the ongoing self-reflection activities an education organisation undertakes to assure itself of the quality of graduate outcomes.

THoTK uses an evaluative approach underpinned by its six kaupapa and the following principles:

  • Needs-based
  • Focused on outcomes
  • Quality as a dynamic concept that involves ongoing improvement
  • Flexibility
  • Trust and accountability.

He Tirohanga Whānui

Overview of assuring consistency

NZQA coordinates the quality assurance process for assuring national consistency of graduate outcomes. The purpose is to maintain trust and confidence in the graduates of qualifications listed at levels 1-6 on the NZQF.

Under the NZQF Programme Approval and Accreditation Rules 2018, an education organisation is required to participate in the assuring consistency process to allow education organisations to demonstrate their understanding of qualification outcomes and how well the graduates of their programmes meet those outcomes.

The usual approach to assuring consistency is through a facilitated review involving education organisations with approved programmes and graduates.

This process does not apply to qualifications listed as Legislative Wānanga qualifications.

What is the focus of a consistency review?

The focus is on comparing graduates from different organisations to the qualification graduate outcomes.

A consistency review is not an external moderation of assessment process, although education organisations can use information from moderation to assess how well its graduates are achieving the graduate outcomes of the qualification.

What do education organisations have to do?

The assuring consistency process requires education organisations to demonstrate, with evidence gathered through their self-reflective processes, how they know that their graduates meet the graduate outcomes of the qualification.

Education organisations with graduates from the relevant qualification(s) will attend a review meeting arranged by NZQA. Organisations need to demonstrate their understanding of qualification graduate outcomes and how well the graduates of their programmes meet these outcomes.

How does it happen?

Review meetings are facilitated by a consistency reviewer who is allocated by NZQA. The format and structure of these reviews is flexible, so they can respond to the wide range of qualifications, including those that reflect the distinctive needs and aspirations of Māori.

If an education organisation has delivered an approved and accredited THoTK programme that leads to the relevant qualification, the allocated reviewer will have expertise in te reo Māori, tikanga Māori and applying THoTK evaluative principles.

What happens after the consistency review meeting?

After each meeting the consistency reviewer will make a judgement on whether or not each organisation has met the threshold of evidence. This reviewer will write a report that NZQA will publish on its website.

Assuring national consistency of graduate outcomes contribution to NZQA quality assurance processes

assuring quality context

Ngā Mahinga

The stages of a consistency review

Consistency review schedule

NZQA develops and publishes a schedule of qualifications for consistency review annually in conjunction with the relevant qualification developers.
All organisations that have awarded the New Zealand qualification scheduled for a consistency review are required to participate in the process.

NZQA will allocate appropriate reviewers to conduct the reviews.

Preparing for the consistency review

In preparation for the consistency review, each participating education organisation that have graduates are required to prepare and submit a self-reflective report, by gathering evidence on how they know that graduates have met the qualification graduate outcomes.

An education organisation presents this evidence to NZQA in a self-reflection report. The self-reflection report needs to be sent to NZQA ten days before the scheduled review meeting.

The process involves:

  • reporting on the evidence collected during self-reflection activities to support conclusions and judgements
  • reviewing the self-reflection evidence to enable organisations to answer the evaluation question:

Mā te āta whakaputa i te kaupapa, me pēhea e tutuki pai ai te whakairinga kōrero me ngā taunaki a te whare ako e taurite anō ai te taumata tika o ngā whāinga putanga tauira, ki ōna anō putanga tauira?

The pātai arotake seeks to understand through the expression of kaupapa how well does te whakairinga kōrero (self-reflection) and supporting evidence provided by the education organisation demonstrate that its graduates match the graduate outcomes at the appropriate threshold.

Organisations should:

  • explain why they are convinced that their graduates have met the graduate outcomes
  • justify the nature, quality and integrity of the supporting evidence
  • identify any gaps in the evidence
  • identify areas of possible improvement
  • determine a self-rating.

The review meeting

During the meeting a representative from each education organisation will present a verbal summary of their report.

The consistency reviewer makes an evaluative judgement that rates the quality of the self-reflection and supporting evidence each individual education organisation provides about the consistency of its graduates in relation to the graduate outcomes of the qualification. Each education organisation helps to evaluate this self-reflection and evidence through actively and effectively participating during the consistency review meeting.

Each education organisation will receive a rating of He Pounamu Kahurangi (Sufficient) or He Pounamu (Not Sufficient).

Following the review meeting

It is expected most education organisations will provide a self-reflection report with sufficient supporting evidence during the review meeting and receive a rating of He Pounamu Kahurangi.

Education organisations unable to do so will have an opportunity to submit further evidence or an improvement plan identifying how they will address the issues identified by the reviewer. The final decision on consistency of the qualification will not be made until the additional evidence or improvement plan has been considered.

Te Whakamahi Aromātai

The decisions about the quality and sufficiency of evidence, supplied by each education organisation, and the consistency of the qualification, are made using an evaluative approach. Confidence in the overall standard or level that has been achieved is implicit in this approach.

The evaluative methodology enables conclusions about quality, value and importance to be reached in a transparent and robust way. The evaluative approach requires consistency reviewers to:

  • be explicit about the evidence used to make judgements as well as the logic used to make their interpretation (i.e. the evidence does not speak for itself), and
  • make the outcome available in a written report.

This clarifies how the evaluative conclusions are reached and also allows the results to be understood and verified by stakeholders.

There are two steps in the process of reaching a decision about the consistency of the qualification.

Step One – Conclusions at education organisation level

This first step is about the self-reflection and supporting evidence that the individual education organisation provides to the consistency review to show how well its graduates meet the graduate outcomes of the qualification.

Each education organisation must be able to demonstrate with quality, convincing evidence that their graduates demonstrate the graduate outcomes of the qualification.

Using the pātai arotake

This is determined by answering the pātai arotake (evaluation question):

Mā te āta whakaputa i te kaupapa, me pēhea e tutuki pai ai te whakairinga kōrero me ngā taunaki a te whare ako e taurite anō ai te taumata tika o ngā whāinga putanga tauira, ki ōna anō putanga tauira?

The pātai arotake seeks to understand through the expression of kaupapa how well does te whakairinga kōrero (self-reflection) and supporting evidence provided by the education organisation demonstrate that its graduates match the graduate outcomes at the appropriate threshold.

The pātai arotake applies to each individual education organisation. It will be answered in the context of the graduate outcomes of the individual qualification that is the subject of the consistency review.

The answer to the pātai arotake is informed by the following criteria:

  • the nature, quality and integrity of the self-reflection and supporting evidence presented by the education organisation
  • how well the organisation has analysed, interpreted and validated the self-reflection evidence, and used the understanding gained to achieve actual or improved consistency
  • the extent to which the education organisation can reasonably justify and validate claims and statements relating to the consistency of graduate outcomes, including as appropriate, in relation to other providers of programmes leading to the qualification.

The conclusion, based on the answer to the pātai arotake, is a judgement about the extent and validity of the self-reflection evidence the education organisation uses to demonstrate how well its graduates meet the graduate outcomes.

Rating the answer to the pātai arotake in relation to each education organisation

The following paearu (rubric) sets out the expected levels of performance in relation to the pātai arotake for an individual education organisation. In the context of the paearu - “good evidence” is defined as:

  • relevant to answering the pātai arotake
  • obtained from more than one source (i.e. is corroborated or triangulated)
  • of more than one type (e.g. quantitative and qualitative data)
  • making sense in the context of the qualification and the education organisation programme.

The quality of the answer to the pātai arotake is rated according to the paearu.

Paearu: Performance criteria for rating the answer to the pātai arotake for individual education organisations

Te Whakairinga KōreroPerformance criteria
He Pounamu Kahurangi
(Self-reflection and supporting evidence is sufficient to demonstrate consistency of graduate outcomes)

ALL of the following:
Effective self-reflection is supported by good evidence (as defined above) to show that graduates meet the graduate outcomes of the qualification.

Sufficient self-reflection supporting evidence that the education organisations have taken all reasonable steps to ensure their graduates match the graduate outcomes.

The nature, quality and integrity of the evidence justifies the education organisation’s judgements about graduates meeting the graduate outcomes.

Any areas of weakness in the evidence or judgements are not serious and are being effectively managed or improved.

He Pounamu
When ANY of the above are not met, the self-reflection and supporting evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate consistency of graduate outcomes

The critical outcomes are determined during the assuring consistency process, when the participants develop an accepted “threshold statement” for the qualification. The essential evidence requirements are related to the qualification specific “threshold statement”.

Step Two – Conclusions about the qualification across participating education organisations

A consistency review reaches a conclusion about how well graduates match the graduate outcomes of the qualification, at the appropriate threshold, across all education organisations providing programmes leading to the qualification. This includes the self-reflection evidence that validates the judgment of graduate outcomes by the end user.

The conclusion is based on synthesising the overall evidence available from participating education organisations. It is an overall, well-informed professional judgement of the national consistency of graduate outcomes relating to an individual qualification.

The decision on the national consistency of graduates of the qualification is based on the synthesis of the answers to the pātai arotake answered for each education organisation participating in the consistency review. The performance criteria for reaching a conclusion about the national consistency of the awarding of the qualification are set out in the following paearu.

A decision on the consistency of the awarding of the qualification will be made once:

  • there is confidence in the agreed threshold, and
  • education organisations have had the opportunity to demonstrate the quality and sufficiency of their self-reflection evidence if this wasn’t available at the time of the review.

Paearu: Criteria for judgements about the national consistency of graduate outcomes of qualifications across all education organisations providing relevant programmes

Te Whakairinga Kōrero

Performance criteria

National consistency confirmed
Self-reflection and supporting evidence confirms graduate outcomes are being achieved to a consistent and appropriate threshold

ALL of the following:
Sufficient convincing self-reflection evidence across education organisations that graduates meet the graduate outcomes of the qualification.

Sufficient self-reflection evidence that the education organisations have taken all reasonable steps to ensure their graduates match the graduate outcomes.

The nature, quality and integrity of the evidence justifies confidence in the education organisations judgements about graduates meeting the outcomes of the graduate profile.

Areas of weakness in the evidence are not serious and are effectively managed by relevant education organisations.

National consistency not confirmed
When ANY of the above are not evident, the qualification may be judged “National consistency not confirmed”, the self-reflection or evidence indicates significant questions about the consistency of graduate outcomes

Cost

Travel and other expenses for participating in consistency reviews is the responsibility of the participating education organisations.

NZQA annually collects a fee per graduate from education organisations. The fee is intended to cover the costs of managing the overall system. The fee is published on the NZQA fees page and is periodically reviewed.

Ngā Haepapatanga

Below are the responsibilities in the consistency review process:

Qualification developers

The qualification developer is responsible for:

  • determining, in conjunction with relevant stakeholders, the examples of convincing evidence required for demonstrating consistency for the qualification (this information is included in the listing details of the qualification)
  • advising the consistency reviewer, as a subject matter expert, on the qualification outcomes and contributing to the “threshold statement” discussion
  • assisting with arrangements for consistency reviews
  • collating feedback from the assuring consistency process to inform qualification review.

Education organisations

The education organisation is responsible for:

  • participating in periodic events for assuring national consistency
  • consulting with the qualification developer (the organisation that listed the qualification) about the self-reflection evidence requirements for assuring consistency as their programme is developed
  • ensuring that all the graduates have achieved the graduate outcomes to an equivalent and appropriate standard
  • demonstrating, in a written self-reflection, with supporting evidence, how graduates meet the qualification outcomes
  • in response to the pātai arotake, providing a verbal summary of evidence that supports their self-reflection
  • ensuring that the self-reflection and supporting evidence they provide is sufficiently representative both of the graduates and of the range of knowledge, skills and attributes within the graduate outcome statement
  • responding to and complying with recommendations arising from the consistency reviews.

Consistency reviewers

Consistency reviewers are responsible for:

  • working with the range of qualification developers and programme owners on behalf of NZQA
  • using an appropriate approach when working with qualifications developed to meet the needs and aspirations of Māori learners
  • using a Te Hono o Te Kahurangi kaupapa lens when working with education organisations with programmes approved and accredited through this framework
  • preparing for and facilitating the assuring consistency event
  • identifying good, quality, convincing self-reflection and supporting evidence of graduates meeting the graduate outcomes
  • leading and facilitating the discussion and guiding the participants to develop the “threshold statement” for the qualification
  • using an evaluative approach to decide and report on the extent to which graduates from different programmes are achieving qualification outcomes
  • writing the consistency review report listing the ratings for each education organisation and the reasons for their decision
  • the final judgement on national consistency of the qualification, assisted by subject matter experts, as required
  • making robust decisions and reporting appropriately to NZQA
  • producing clear and credible written reports that clearly state the evidence used to reach their judgement.

NZQA

NZQA is responsible for:

  • oversight of the effectiveness of the processes for assuring national consistency of graduate outcomes
  • oversight and co-ordination of consistency reviewers by contracting, training, supporting and monitoring reviewers
  • publishing an annual schedule of qualifications for ongoing national consistency events in consultation with qualification developers
  • publishing the results of assuring consistency events
  • following up with education organisations where their evidence is judged “He Pounamu” (Not Sufficient).

Te Huihuinga

Assuring consistency review meetings, facilitated by an independent consistency reviewer, are an effective way for education organisations to demonstrate their understanding of qualification graduate outcomes and how well the graduates of their programmes meet those outcomes.

Preparing for the consistency review

Steps for preparation

  1. NZQA publishes a schedule of qualifications to undergo consistency review and allocates a consistency reviewer to each event.
  2. Education organisations who have reported graduates for the qualification involved will be sent details of the review no later than two months before the review.
  3. Each education organisation with graduates prepares and submits a self-reflection report based on evidence from its self-reflection processes. The report will demonstrate why the organisation is confident its graduates have met the graduate outcomes for the qualification.

Scheduling qualifications for assuring consistency review

Qualifications will typically be scheduled for consistency review 12-18 months before the qualification review date.

The schedule will be published on the NZQA website and will be updated as required.

Arranging the consistency review meeting

The following factors are considered in arranging the details of a consistency review:

  • the number of education organisations with graduates of a programme
  • the geographical spread of the education organisations
  • identifying the approach required, in particular, using a specific approach for qualifications designed to meet the distinctive needs and aspirations of Māori (including the selection of a suitable reviewer)
  • identifying the appropriate mechanism for conducting the review (i.e. a cluster meeting at a specific venue, teleconference or videoconference or through suitable electronic media).

Education organisation report

Education organisations that have reported graduates are required to prepare and submit a self-reflection report that addresses how they know that graduates have met the qualification graduate outcomes.

The process involves:

  • reporting on the evidence collected during self-reflection activities to support conclusions and judgements
  • reviewing the self-reflection evidence to enable organisations to answer the pātai arotake:

Mā te āta whakaputa i te kaupapa, me pēhea e tutuki pai ai te whakairinga kōrero me ngā taunaki a te whare ako e taurite anō ai te taumata tika o ngā whāinga putanga tauira, ki ōna anō putanga tauira?

Education organisations should:

  • explain why they are convinced that their graduates have met the graduate outcomes
  • justify the nature, quality and integrity of the supporting evidence
  • identify any gaps in the evidence
  • identify areas of possible improvement
  • determine a self-rating.

The education organisation uses the consistency report template supplied on the NZQA website.

Early consistency reviews

Qualifications may be subject to a consistency review earlier than scheduled, if there are concerns about any of the following factors:

  • the qualification has had a previous judgement of “National consistency not confirmed”
  • an unexpectedly high volume of graduates from the qualification
  • the qualification involves high risk or high-profile activities
  • a request from qualification developer or another key stakeholder
  • an identified risk or issues or concerns about the qualification
  • a diverse range of qualification awarders
  • multiple education organisations are assessing / participating in the same approved programme.

The consistency review meeting

  1. Review meetings will be facilitated by a reviewer allocated by NZQA.
  2. Participants make their own arrangements to attend the consistency review meeting.
  3. Participants verbally present their evidence and summary self-reflection report at the meeting.
  4. The reviewer facilitates the review meeting, assists the participants to develop the threshold statement and reports the results to NZQA.

Who needs to participate?

All education organisations with graduates of the qualification must participate. Each education organisation must be ready to send authorised representatives who have sufficient knowledge of the qualification graduates to present and discuss self-reflection and supporting evidence on behalf of their organisation.

The qualification developer is a mandatory participant in the consistency review. They can provide clarification and guidance on the standard expected by employers and industry.

Expectations from the consistency review

Successful reviews will be conducted in a spirit of co-operation and collaboration – kotahitanga, manaakitanga and whanaungatanga - between the participants.
The discussion is directed to reach an understanding, using the evidence provided, of the answer to the evaluation question.

The consistency review will take an educational and evaluative approach.

Consistency review hui

Each participating education organisation will present a summary of their self-reflection evidence to demonstrate why they are confident that graduates have achieved the graduate outcomes for the qualification.

There are three distinct activities to be undertaken by the review:

a. Present the summary report

The first task is to systematically review, compare and discuss the self-reflection evidence presented by each education organisation. Each participating education organisation will explain how their evidence demonstrates that graduates meet the graduate outcomes.

b. Use the graduate outcomes and the range of evidence to agree the threshold to be achieved

The second task in the review is to develop a “threshold statement” for the qualification under consistency review. The aim is to understand and agree the content of the graduate outcomes all stakeholders can reasonably expect education organisations to have evidence of. The intent of the meeting is to connect the graduate outcome statement with the convincing evidence the education organisations could gather.

The threshold includes a clear definition of the level of skill, knowledge and attributes required. Some parts of the threshold may be very similar to aspects of the graduate outcome statement, but the threshold is focused on the current cohort of graduates and the skills, knowledge and attributes it is reasonable to expect the education organisations to be able to have evidence of.

This part of the meeting requires the participants to consider and agree on statements that describe the outcomes of the qualification and the essential self-reflection evidence related to these. These statements are used by the reviewers when making their judgements on the nature, quality and integrity of education organisations evidence.

Depending on the size of the group this activity could be done with all participants or in small groups.

c. Reflect on their initial decision about the consistency of their graduates

At the end of the review meeting, each participant will be asked to reflect on the quality and sufficiency of their self-reflection and supporting evidence and identify:

  • what they will continue to do
  • what they will change in their self-reflection and supporting evidence in the future
  • any change to their initial rating on the pātai arotake – He Pounamu Kahurangi (Sufficient) / He Pounamu (Not Sufficient)

The consistency reviewer will retain all material provided to NZQA for the review. This material is confidential to NZQA.

Examples of sources of evidence

The individual education organisation’s self-reflection is the primary source of evidence. Conclusions should be supported with multiple sources of convincing evidence: for example, triangulation between what the education organisation knows about their programme, what the graduates say and what the end user says.

Evidence of self-reflection should clearly link to the graduate outcomes and may reference:

  • employer feedback
  • graduate feedback
  • community feedback surveys
  • whānau, hapū, iwi, hapori Māori feedback
  • destination or end user data (including feedback from the providers of the graduate’s next level of study)
  • portfolios of work or capstone event reports
  • external benchmarking activities
  • reports of internal and external moderation of assessments
  • other relevant and reliable evidence.

Methods of validation of the self-reflection may include:

  • comparison with formally established internal or external benchmarks or expectations, or professional, licensing or discipline standards
  • data on employment outcomes or progression to further training over time
  • comparison with similar graduates from other education organisations.

Alternative mechanisms

For some qualifications, an existing panel or other body such as a registration body, has been established for the purposes of moderation or other quality assurance. In these instances, NZQA may, in discussion with the qualification developer, determine the relationship between assuring consistency and existing arrangements. The mechanism will be agreed on a case-by-case basis.

One qualification awarder

When there is only one organisation awarding the qualification, there is still a requirement to assure national consistency of the graduate outcomes.
This independent assurance is important if the qualification is offered, for example, in multiple workplaces.

An arrangement will be made that is appropriate to the context and circumstances that apply to the organisation.

Reporting the results of a consistency review

  1. The consistency reviewer reports to NZQA at the completion of the review meeting(s) for the qualification.
  2. NZQA reviews and accepts the report then publishes either an interim or a final report on the NZQA website.
  3. NZQA follows up with individual education organisations and the qualification developer on specific issues or recommendations identified during the review.

The consistency review report

The report will address the overall quality and sufficiency of self-reflection and supporting evidence provided for the reviewer to reach a judgement of “National Consistency confirmed” or “National consistency not confirmed” on the qualification outcomes.

The decision on the quality and sufficiency of self-reflection and supporting evidence for each education organisation (He Pounamu Kahurangi (Sufficient) / He Pounamu (Not Sufficient)) will be included in the report the reviewer provides to NZQA.

The report produced by the reviewer for NZQA will include education organisations that:

  • have participated in the process and been judged He Pounamu Kahurangi (Sufficient)
  • those not engaged in the process
  • those who have engaged but their self-reflection information or evidence is He Pounamu (Not Sufficient).

The focus for the report is on improving both the qualification and the education organisations’ understanding of the requirements of the qualification.

The report will also include:

  • the threshold developed at the review meeting
  • an overview of the self-reflection and evidence provided by the education organisations
  • examples of the convincing and credible evidence used by the reviewer in their evaluation
  • findings and recommendations on improvements to the qualification: for example, there may be evidence that some outcomes are not fit-for-purpose based on the supplied evidence
  • examples of good practice.

Following the consistency review, NZQA will publish the names of education organisations where the decision is that the self-reflection and evidence was He Pounamu Kahurangi (Sufficient).

The names of education organisations that were not able to present sufficient convincing evidence at the consistency review will not be listed. These organisations will have a defined period after the consistency review meeting to present further evidence, or to demonstrate through an organisational improvement plan how they will address their self-reflection evidence issues in a prompt, agreed timeframe.

Follow-up actions

If the final decision in relation to the qualification is ‘National consistency not confirmed’ then the next consistency review or qualification review may be scheduled.

It is NZQA’s responsibility to follow up with individual education organisations where the decision on the evidence is ‘He Pounamu (Not Sufficient)’ or where education organisations do not engage in the consistency review process.

Possible actions include:

  • initiating and monitoring an improvement action plan for the education organisation
  • requiring a review of the accredited programme
  • NZQA monitoring of the programme with a focus on assessment practice
  • NZQA investigation of the education organisation
  • imposing conditions on education organisation accreditation, or other action, on confirmation that the organisation is not complying with the relevant Act or NZQA Rules.
 
Skip to main page content Accessibility page with list of access keys Home Page Site Map Contact Us newzealand.govt.nz