Recent Developments

4.2. 4. 1 The Register of Quality Assured Qualifications (2003)

The Register is a comprehensive list of all quality assured qualifications in New Zealand. This Register, considered one of the most significant advances in recent years in New Zealand qualifications reform, aims to:

identify clearly all quality assured qualifications in New Zealand; ensure that all qualifications have a purpose and relation to each other that students and the public can understand;

- maintain and enhance learners' ability to transfer credit by the establishment of a common system of credit; and

enhance and build on the international recognition of New Zealand qualifications. (NZQA, 2003, p. 2)

The Register incorporates both qualifications registered on the NQF and other qualifications, based on criteria such as QA of the qualification by a quality approval body and there is also an increase in the number of levels from 8 to 1 0 for classifying qualifications (see Figure 4. 1 ) . The NQF, comprised of unit and achievement standards, continues to be a key subset of the Register (Davies & Burke, 2005; NZQA, 2003, 2007).

In both the NQF and the Register, the levels depend on the complexity of learning and they do not equate with the time (years) spent in learning. The purposes for which the NQF and the Register were developed correspond similarly in terms of classification and thus provide information (creating pathways), regulation (control and compliance) and comparability (both locally and internationally) (Frederick, 2005).

The major difference between the NQF and the Register is that the latter has an expanded set of levels, from 1 to 1 0, whereas 1 is the lowest level and least complex in terms of learning requirements and 1 0 is the highest and most complex in terms of learning requirements (see Figure 4. 1 ) .

Chapter Four: The Study Contexts 1 1 5

4.1 The Ten-Level Framework and

Figure taken from NZQA (2003, p. 2)

Another difference is the building block. Unlike the NQF, where smaller components in the form of unit standards can be registered, the Register requires the registration of whole qualifications only. Therefore, for each qualification there must be a statement of learning outcomes. The registration criteria are intended to ensure that "quality assurance of qualifications is consistently applied; people can compare qualifications; and people can make informed choices about which qualification pathway they will pursue." (NZQA, 2003)

From 200 1 , polytechnics such as ABC College were able to provide learning at all levels of the Framework, including degree level programmes. According to NZQA ( 1 99 1 b), units of learning enable polytechnics to offer more flexibility in choice and career paths for their students.

4.2. 4. 1 A cThird Way ' in higher education quality assurance?

The education reforms, that commenced in the late 1 980s in New Zealand under the influence of neoliberal thinking, continued in the 1 990s, with a strong influence from the discourse of economics (Codd, 2005). During the 1 990s, education became more market oriented and this brought elements of commercialisation and competition to the forefront. In higher education, the system experienced "a policy regime characterised by higher (but subsidised) fees, means-tested student allowances, and a government-funded, income-contingent loans scheme based on the principles of user­ pays and targeted social assistance" (Peters, 1 997, p. 233). According to Peters ( 1 997), this particular policy mix, which was introduced into tertiary education, reflected a fundamental shift from the political philosophy of the early 1 980s: a shift

Chapter Four: The Study Contexts 1 1 6 from social democratic values to one based on the neoliberal view, which emphasised individual responsibility. National economic interests became the central focus in determining education policy. Thus, in the 1 990s, tertiary educational policies were similarly framed in neoliberal terms.

In November 1 998, the then National Government produced a Tertiary White Paper

which proposed a new tertiary education quality regime. However, at the end of 1 999, when the Labour-led coalition government was elected, there was a change in policy direction. The ideas for a new overarching agency [Quality Assurance Authority of New Zealand] (QAANZ Report, 1 999) were dropped and the NZQA's continuation was re-confirmed, albeit with an "overarching role in relation to qualifications and QA in post-compulsory education" (Philips, 2003, p. 296).

More recently, the neoliberal ideological orientation appears to have been moderated. A central concern of the Labour-led Government has been to reform the previous administrations' "competitive model in tertiary education [that] had led to unsatisfactory outcomes in terms of both the quality and the appropriateness of the skills produced" (Office of the Prime Minister, as cited in Strathdee, 2005, p. 6). A 'Third Way' is now in place and education stands prominently in Third Way priorities.

In terms of structural changes that affect QA in the sector, a new single central steering body named the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) was established for the whole tertiary education system (Tertiary Education Commission [TEC], 2007a). This former market model is now juxtaposed with a highly bureaucratised system, in which ' steering instruments' have become forms of micro management, surveillance and control. The two main steering instruments of this new millennium, tertiary education system are the 'charters' and 'profiles' (TEC, 2007b). The TEC requires all publicly funded providers to negotiate a charter that will describe the distinctive characteristics of the provider. This charter also requires that the organisational vision, mission and goals for a medium-to-Iong term period are stated. As in the corporate sector, charters have essentially become instruments of accountability. The TEe also requires providers to present profiles for all recognised tertiary education providers, whether they are publicly or privately funded. This profile provides comprehensive information concerning each provider and is used for monitoring performance and maintaining accountability (Co dd, 2002). A New Zealand education sector review undertaken in 2005, based on feedback from TEIs, observes that whilst the process of

Chapter Four: The Study Contexts 1 1 7 developing charters and profiles had been useful for their own internal planning purposes, they were also regarded as a costly compliance exercise (State Services Commission [SSC], 2005).

Shortly after the election of the Labour-led Government into office in 1 999, a new agency - the Tertiary Education Advisory Commission (TEAC) - was formed as part of the government strategy to commence a comprehensive review of the sector. The Government proposed new reforms in tertiary education, with the overall objective of making the tertiary education sector more flexible and relevant to the needs of the economy. The TEAC subsequently produced four reports strategising the future direction of tertiary education. Following these reports, the Government released the Tertiary Education Strategy (TES) document, which outlines six priority goals for the sector, from 2002 to 2007 (Ministry of Education, 2002). The Government periodically issues Statements of Tertiary Education Priorities (STEP), as part of a wider Tertiary Education Strate

gyl

STEP 2005-2007 continued to balance economic and social priorities, although the balance appears to tilt in favour of the economic (Zepke & Leach, 2006). STEP 2005- 2007 introduced accountability measures, in order that tertiary providers and central QA bodies "sharpen the focus of their QA arrangements on effective teaching and learning . . . prioritising improved learning outcomes as part of quality assurance processes" (Ministry of Education, 2002, p. 1 0). A recent review (Ministry of Education, 2006, p. 1 5) showed that the broad nature of the TES and the STEP makes it difficult to assess the strategic relevance of the provision of tertiary education. The Review also showed that the TEOs have seen the implementation of the TES as "largely mechanistic, through profiles and charters, rather than influencing thinking about change" (Ministry of Education, 2006, p. 1 4).

Lately, the way forward for tertiary education appears to involve the three key policy elements: ( 1 ) defining the 'distinctive contributions' of different types of tertiary education institutions; (2) the introduction of a more centralised funding mechanism; and (3) the development of robust QA and monitoring systems, that focus on outcomes (Cullen, 2006, pp. 2-3). The Government appears to have noted some of the negative effects of reforms during the 1 990s and seeks to rectify these with new policy

initiatives. This is indicative of the fact that the earlier emphasis on an 'across the portfolio' approach has not worked in the New Zealand tertiary education system. One of the effects of the reforms, argues Dr. Michael Cullen, Minister for Tertiary Education and also Deputy Prime Minister, is that organisations pushed their boundaries without sufficient reference to each other and hence the ''understanding of the distinctive contributions of each part of the sector was at risk of being lost" (Cull en, 2006, p. 3). In view of this fact, the Government is expected to set baseline expectations concerning what Tertiary Education Organisations should focus on and what outcomes they should achieve. No doubt, the universities will continue to provide research-led degrees and post-graduate education and to undertake research, disseminate knowledge and promote learning.

In summary, the forgoing discussion has examined the macro education policy making context, within which QA policies and structures emerged in New Zealand. The discussion provided a brief insight, through an historical perspective, of the influences that contributed to the changes in New Zealand. It was demonstrated that policies were influenced by a wider agenda of economic restructuring and public sector reforms. Other factors include the ideological shift to the political Right and the quest for accountability within bureaucracy. Boston ( 1 99 1 ) associates a group of reform­ minded policy analysts, who were familiar with the theoretical literature of the new institutional economics, as an influential factor for these changes. The review also showed how the new qualifications authority came into being, amidst great tensions arising from the wider institutional and national context of public sector reforms. The NQF and its contentious 'unit standard' model were identified as the key elements within the qualifications reform. Quality and QA processes in tertiary education institutions parallel these macro policy developments.

4.3 Current Quality Assurance Systems in New Zealand Tertiary

Education

Under the Education Act 1 989, the NZQA (or in the case of universities, the NZVCC) is the body primarily responsible for QA matters in the tertiary education sector. The NZQA's broad QA functions are outlined in section 253 ( 1 ) of the Act. Appendix M provides a summary of the current QA system in the New Zealand tertiary education sector. The table in this appendix includes QA bodies, together with their respective functions and their corresponding tertiary providers, as they existed in 2006. Given the current qualifications framework, these include: overseeing the setting, monitoring

Chapter Four: The Study Contexts 1 1 9 and review of standards for national qualifications on the NQF and the policies and criteria for the approval of non-national courses; and registration (where relevant), course approval and accreditation of providers to deliver an approved course or award credits on the NQF (SSC, 2005).

All QA functions, in relation to universities, are the responsibility of the NZVCC, and these are perfonned by the Committee on University Academic Programmes (CUAP), which is a standing committee within NZVCC. Under the provisions of the Education Act 1 989, NZQA has delegated responsibility for QA within the Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics (ITPs), up to and including undergraduate degrees, to the Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics (ITPNZ). These delegated powers are operated by the Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics Quality (ITP Quality), which is an independent committee of ITPNZ that has been operating as a Quality Assurance Body (QAB) since January 2003 . The NZQA has also fonnally delegated QA powers, for Colleges of Education (up to sub-degree level), to the Association of Colleges of Education New Zealand (ACENZ), whose powers are operated on its behalf by the (Colleges of Education Accreditation Committee) CEAC.

The NZQA retains responsibility for perfonning QA functions relating to degree programmes outside universities (except for undergraduate degrees delivered in ITPs). This function is undertaken by the Approval, Accreditation and Audit Group (AAA) within NZQA, which effectively operates as NZQA's QAB. The legislation requires the delegated Quality Assurance Bodies (QABs) to comply with the criteria and policies established by NZQA for the exercise of its functions and powers. QABs are audited against their effectiveness with regard to the conditions of the delegation and a set of audit standards.

The QA process consists of three key elements: ( 1 ) registration; (2) course approval and accreditation; and (3) the monitoring and audit of QA standards (SSC, 2005).