Providers and partners

Using the evaluative approach

The decision to approve a programme of study or industry training, or to accredit an education provider, is based on the quality and evidence provided in an application. The application should meet criteria set out in parts 1 and 2 of the NZQF Programme Approval and Accreditation Rules 2018 as well as the NZQF Qualification Listing and Operational Rules 2012.

The evaluative methodology enables decisions about quality, value and importance to be reached on a consistent and reliable basis, and requires NZQA to:

be explicit about the information and evidence on which judgements are made as well as the logic of its interpretation, and

explain the outcome, including key factors and reasons for the final decision, in a clear, concise manner.

Decision to approve a programme

The decision to approve a programme is made by answering the evaluation question:

How well does the programme design match the needs of learners and relevant stakeholders?

Rubric one (below) sets out the expected levels of performance in relation to the evaluation question for the programme. The definition of ‘good evidence’ is evidence that is:

relevant to answering the evaluation question
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 question.

Rubric one: Criteria for rating answers to the evaluation question to approve a programme of study or industry training leading to a Level 7 diploma

Criteria
Programme approved	ALL of the following: Good evidence the programme is designed to achieve the strategic purpose and outcomes of the qualification Good evidence the programme is made up of learning outcomes structured in a coherent way to achieve the qualification outcomes and addresses the relevant needs of learners Good evidence the programme matches the needs of key stakeholders No significant gaps or weaknesses in the programme
Programme not approved	ANY of the following: The nature, quality and integrity of the information and evidence does not convincingly demonstrate that the programme is designed to achieve the strategic purpose and/or outcomes of the qualification Insufficient evidence the programme is structured in a coherent way to achieve the qualification outcomes and match the relevant needs of learners Insufficient evidence the programme matches the needs of key stakeholders Significant gaps or weaknesses in the programme

Criteria

Programme approved

ALL of the following:

Good evidence the programme is designed to achieve the strategic purpose and outcomes of the qualification
Good evidence the programme is made up of learning outcomes structured in a coherent way to achieve the qualification outcomes and addresses the relevant needs of learners
Good evidence the programme matches the needs of key stakeholders
No significant gaps or weaknesses in the programme

Programme not approved

ANY of the following:

The nature, quality and integrity of the information and evidence does not convincingly demonstrate that the programme is designed to achieve the strategic purpose and/or outcomes of the qualification
Insufficient evidence the programme is structured in a coherent way to achieve the qualification outcomes and match the relevant needs of learners
Insufficient evidence the programme matches the needs of key stakeholders
Significant gaps or weaknesses in the programme

Decision to accredit an education provider

The decision to accredit an education organisation is reached by answering the evaluation question:

To what extent does the education provider have the ongoing capability and resources to support sustained delivery of the approved programme?

Rubric two: Criteria for rating the answers to evaluation question to accredit an education provider to provide an approved programme of study leading to a Level 7 diploma

	Criteria
Education organisation accredited	ALL of the following: Good evidence the education organisation has the capability, capacity and resources to provide the programme Good evidence that the education organisation can manage the impacts of any specific programme requirements Good evidence of formal arrangements with the programme owner where this is required No significant gaps or weaknesses in the self-assessment report, and/or the underlying capability and resources of the organisation
Education organisation not accredited	ANY of the following: Insufficient evidence the education organisation has the capability and resources to provide the programme Insufficient evidence that the education organisation can manage the impacts of any specific programme requirements Formal arrangements with the programme owner where these are required are insufficient to manage the provision of the programme Significant gaps or weaknesses in the self-assessment report, and/or the underlying capability and resources of the organisation