Ensuring Quality and Mobility for all Canada s Baccalaureate Students

Transcription

1 Joint Conference of the Canadian Institutional Research and Planning Association and the Rocky Mountain Association for Institutional Research Edmonton, Alberta October 23 25, 2005 Ensuring Quality and Mobility for all Canada s Baccalaureate Students A Panel Presentation Abstract: Over the past years a number of new kinds of postsecondary institutions have been developed across the country to meet emerging needs for post-secondary education. In the absence of any other mechanism, membership in AUCC has become accepted as a proxy for national accreditation. Yet not all new degree providers are eligible for membership in AUCC. Does membership in AUCC ensure quality? How can the best interests of students, postsecondary institutions and governments be better served? Do we need a national accrediting process for postsecondary institutions in Canada? If so, what form should it take? Who should manage it and how? Panelists: Paul Byrne, PhD., President and CEO, Grant MacEwan College, Edmonton. Paul chaired the taskforce group that developed the Pan- Canadian Protocol for Student Mobility. MacEwan is one of the first colleges in Canada to offer a B.A. Bill Gibson, PhD., Vice-President Academic Affairs, Capilano College, North Vancouver. Bill finds himself responsible for 5 programs for which the degrees were awarded by the Open University, although they were delivered by Capilano, until OU ceased operation this spring. Now that the degrees are awarded by Capilano, which is not an AUCC member, the students face roadblocks they didn t six months ago. Virginia Hatchette, PhD., Senior Policy Advisor, Universities Branch, Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities, Toronto. Until very recently, Virginia worked at the Postsecondary Education Quality Assessment Board for Ontario. Marilyn Patton, Director, Campus Alberta Quality Council Secretariat, Advanced Education, Edmonton. Marilyn chairs the Pan-Canadian Committee on Quality Assurance of Degree Programming which submitted its report to CMEC earlier this month. It should soon be on CMEC s website October 2005 page 1 of 12

2 Michael Skolnik, PhD., Professor and W.G. Davis Chair in Community College Leadership, Ontario institute for Studies in Education, Toronto. Michael has written extensively on the subject of the community college baccalaureate as well as other topics in higher education. Moderator: Kathleen Bigsby, Director, Institutional Analysis and Planning, Kwantlen University College Following are the panelists presentations: Post-Secondary Institution Accreditation Paul J Byrne, PhD., President and CEO, Grant MacEwan College, Edmonton. Quality and Accreditation are key components of post secondary education and fundamental to the public s perception of an institution s reputation. It is important that public post secondary institutions are able to demonstrate the quality of their programs and services, and that their accreditation is based on a process that reflects academic rigour. However we need to be mindful of creating barriers to access in the name of quality and/or accreditation. Today my purpose is not to provide answers to the quality and accreditation questions but rather to posit three observations that need to be considered when addressing these topics. First, how do products actually get a reputation for quality and what if any relationship does that have on determining the quality of post secondary institutions? Second, changes in the world economy and the mobility of businesses and workers are factors influencing quality assurance and accreditation models for post secondary institutions. Third, the Canadian political structure creates numerous quality assurance and accreditation challenges with respect to the mobility of our work force throughout Canada. The Perception of Quality Have you ever noticed how there tends to be a shared perception that certain goods and services offer quality without most of us ever knowing or asking why the quality label is given. For example if I were to ask you give me the names of two quality watches or two quality-built cars, most would be able to list several labels like Rolex and Tag or Lexus and Rolls Royce might come to mind. We tend to connect quality to names of products based this factors such as customer satisfaction, and/or price, and/or limited supply. Arguably there are often generous amounts of advertising and marketing to help us and to create the right image. Does any of this apply to determining the quality of post secondary institutions? If I were ask you if your institution was a quality institution or if it offered quality programs I would venture to say that most would respond with a yes. However it would be interesting to ask what you would base your respond on, and perhaps of greater importance, how can you convince others that your institution has October 2005 page 2 of 12

3 quality? Institutions like Harvard, Oxford, and Cambridge are often touted as among the best quality post secondary institutions and yet it may be interesting to probe the reasons why. Why is it that these institutions are perceived to be of high quality? Perhaps it is that they have a heritage, distinguished graduates, and/or they have and abundance of traditional trappings. This might be akin to the socalled rear view mirror approach looking to the past. Metrics such as the size and depth of the library collection, the number faculty or research dollars may play a role in determining quality. Other matters such as how they are governed or the role of faculty in new program approval may influence a quality label being awarded. Or perhaps it is that the name goes on before the quality goes in. It could be argued that in post secondary education, quality it is often established by the fraternity of academics who create the criteria for quality. This is not necessarily a bad thing. However is does raise questions around the openness to explore change in the models. Does the current approach reflect more of a gatekeeper mentality than one of probing the question of how quality is measured and assured? I would posit that it may be time to look at what indicators will we need for the next century. Global Economic Factors In his recent book The World is Flat, Thomas Friedman outlines ten forces that he claims have contributed to the world being flat at least in terms of trade and economics. Included in his list of Ten Forces are - opensourcing, outsourcing, and off shoring. Each of these terms means little in the world of academia; however they are becoming more common place factors in business and may begin to influence accreditation and recognition of quality post secondary education. Friedman argues that we are now competing on a world stage for economic development and each country or economic union needs to look carefully at what it can do best in order to maintain its standard of living. Richard Florida in his book, The Flight of the Creative Class, states that in the Creative Age real economic growth requires more than a degree. He goes on to state that for the future the need is for new business models, new ideas, and a new cultural focus. Florida argues that there is a movement from the focus on standard education level measurement to an occupationally based model of measurement for economic development. Statistics Canada data suggests that literacy is a better predictor of economic growth than number of years in school a 1% rise in literacy (relates) to 2.5% rise in labour productivity and a 1.5% rise in per capita GDP. In the end both authors are suggesting that economic development and success are undergoing change and that human capital, intellectual property and creativity are very portable commodities. Furthermore, the rate of exchange and mobility is increasing. What does this mean for the questions pertaining to quality and accreditation within post secondary institutions? I would suggest that among other things, we need to think October 2005 page 3 of 12

4 globally when looking at indicators of quality. It also means that some of the current indicators may not be as relevant in the future. This also is an opportunity to think pan Canadian when we examine such topics that relate to cross border movement of goods, services, people, and in the case of post secondary credentials and degrees. Canadian Quality Assurance The British North America Act (since replaced) created a political landscape for Canada that gave the provinces control over public education and myriad licensing matters without any federal/national role. For example only a Provincial government can approve degrees. This creates a local or regional focus and does little to assist the Canadian position on a world stage. The need is not for recognition and acceptance at the urban or even provinces/territories, it is for recognition and acceptance in global terms. This I would suggest is becoming increasingly important given Canada s need to attract immigrants for a range of occupations and to be able to assess their education in terms of Canadian standards. Interestingly, one of the challenges for Canadian institutions is that the majority are part of the public system. We are very proud of our public system and claim it is among the best in the world. However for many jurisdictions in the world, the public system is viewed as second class an option for those who can not get into private institutions. Second, we do not have any national accreditation standards for institutions, although there are numerous credentialing bodies and associations for everything from apprentices to nurses and doctors. (E.g. Red Seal, RN etc) If we are to develop such a national system then who would do it and under what authority? In the end we need to ensure that whatever we do in post secondary education enhances access for participation in a learning journey that is devoid of major barriers and gate keeper thinking, while assuring the world that the learning experience has academic rigour that meets or exceeds world bench marks/standards in post secondary education. * * * * * * * Bill Gibson, PhD., Vice-President Academic Affairs, Capilano College, North Vancouver Dr. Gibson s presentation is not available in electronic form * * * * * * * Virginia Hatchette, PhD., Senior Policy Advisor, Universities Branch, Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities, Toronto POWER POINT PRESENTATION separate file October 2005 page 4 of 12

5 * * * * * * * Pan-Canadian Committee on Quality Assurance of Degree Programming Marilyn Patton, Director, Campus Alberta Quality Council Secretariat, Advanced Education, Edmonton How it got started? Feb 2004 workshop Alberta, BC and Ontario to share best practices and discuss current issues Outcome three provinces to come up with recommendations re mutual recognition Discussion paper and recommendations of Working Group presented to Deputy Ministers of Education in August 2004 Outcome o Establish broader, pan-canadian committee o Draft degree qualifications framework o Draft program and institutional assessment standards and process o Consult with stakeholders o Also recommend a pan-canadian approach to external validation of quality of programs based on the framework and assessment standards and process. Some had thought that would be a national accreditation body Committee thought it was premature and didn t have enough time to do this. What is a degree qualifications framework? Simplistically it can be summed up as a document that clarifies the purposes, aims and relationships among different degree levels (bachelor, master s and doctoral) and describes the generic competencies of graduates of each level. These shared degree-level standards are used when assessing new degrees to determine the appropriate level of the degree. Drafted a common consultation document - each province identified participants of consultation. Subcommittee of Committee met with AUCC and ACCC in separate meetings. Following consultation redrafted framework and assessment standards and processes. Government standards ought to be when making decisions about new degree providers and new degrees. Consultation overall tenor of responses was positive. Took comments and revised documents Prepared report to ACDME and CMEC recommending o endorsement of Ministerial Statement which contained a preamble about the use of the Statement, a Canadian Degree Qualifications Framework and program and institutional assessment standards and procedures. October 2005 page 5 of 12

6 o Committee to continue the dialogue involve AUCC and ACCC and degree providers; maintain the standards and process, share best practices, monitor what is happening re QA in rest of world. Report was received by CMEC in early October. I understand that a few provinces have asked for more time to complete their consultations Why is this initiative timely? Quality assurance of degree programs is a concern both within Canada and internationally. Within our country, in the absence of a national accreditation system, public universities and other bodies are using membership in AUCC as a proxy. Yet not all degree providers are eligible for AUCC membership, and even AUCC openly declares it is not an accreditation body and has no role in assessment of the quality of member institutions degree programs. It is a lobbying group that does advocacy nationally and internationally for its 90+ member institutions. Interestingly, those universities that don t allow degrees from non-aucc members, accept degrees from US accredited institutions and yet the regionals do institutional accreditation not program accreditation. The armslength bodies in BC, AB and Ontario assess the institution in many of the same areas as AUCC does re membership to ensure organization has the capacity to mount and sustain the degrees they are proposing (faculty, resources, governance, etc). In addition, go one step further and assess the quality of the proposed degree program, as well. Landscape of degree-granting institutions has changed over last years. At one time, those who were members in AUCC and those who had authority to offer degrees at the provincial level were one and the same. With the increased demand for access to degree programs, provincial governments have changed that landscape. They ve allowed: o Hybrid institutions (offering some degrees and certificates/diplomas) o New universities with specific mandates o Private institutions (both not-for profit and for-profit) o University Transfer programs at colleges Students, parents, employers and post-secondary institutions are seeking assurances that the degrees offered by non-aucc members are of comparable quality to degrees offered by public universities. We need to find a way to fit these new degrees and new degree providers into the framework of existing degrees and degree providers. Demands for quality have increased internationally hard to communicate Canadian higher education because each province has jurisdiction over postsecondary institutions not as common in the world as those where the national government typically has authority. An increasing number of countries have adopted national qualifications frameworks and quality assurance mechanisms. I understand that a recent OECD report indicated that a national quality assurance system is essential October 2005 page 6 of 12

7 for the credibility of a country s higher education system. Yet Canada has neither a national qualifications framework, nor a national quality assurance system. Given the increased emphasis on qualifications frameworks and published external assessment standards and procedures in other countries, the absence of similar documents in Canada may put our graduates who wish to study and work outside Canada, and our institutions who wish to recruit international students or provide educational services internationally at a disadvantage as they try to compete in a global market. This is not to suggest that quality degree programs are not offered in Canada. As the Committee s report indicates, there is a variety of approaches to QA in Canada. These vary o from having direct gov t involvement using arms-length QA agencies such as the Campus Alberta Quality Council here in this province, o to having a regional agency with responsibility for reviewing and approving new degree programs such as exists in the Maritime provinces, o to what happens in Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador where government has a limited, or no role in approving new degree programs as that responsibility lies within the institution itself. So the committee asked itself, how can we assure collectively that students know what they are getting and that other institutions, employers and professional and licensing bodies know that the programs are of acceptable quality? The committee felt a good start would be to describe level of degrees and identify acceptable assessment standards and processes. It seemed to the committee that the only defensible basis for recognition of credentials is demonstrated assessment standards and practices. This is why the Committee felt that a good first step to provide confidence in the quality of these degrees was to have the Ministers collectively endorse the Ministerial Statement and use the standards and procedures when making decisions about new degree programs and new degree-granting institutions. The statement does not undermine the responsibility of universities to make admission and transfer decisions. Instead it can help universities understand and have confidence in the credentials of graduates of new degrees, rather than dismiss these graduates from being considered for graduate studies or professional programs. Conclusion The consultation has created a pan-canadian dialogue and raised the awareness around the issues of quality assurance for degree programs. By accepting its recommendations, the Committee felt that Ministers could help move the discussion of consideration of graduates of new degrees and new degree providers away from whether or not the program was offered by an October 2005 page 7 of 12

8 AUCC member institution, to what is more appropriate, consideration of the academic merits and quality of the programs and their graduates. This is not just a problem for BC, Alberta and Ontario where a wider variation in types of institutions offering degrees is seen. With increasing numbers of graduates from these new degree providers and greater mobility of students generally, more graduates are seeking admission and transfer credit for further study beyond the province in which they earned the credential. Therefore demand for appropriate recognition will intensify. This issue is truly of pan-canadian importance. With respect to the international aspect of the issue, the committee felt that the Ministerial Statement was a first step to describing the levels of degrees offered in Canada and how their quality is assured. It has the potential to assist Canadian institutions as they compete to provide education services in other countries and as they recruit international students. Whether we build a national seal of approval or national accrediting or auditing body is unknown. It should be the basis for further dialogue Eventually it could even lead to some kind of national external validation of the quality assurance procedures already existing in each province. For example, I ve been reading about the Australian Universities Quality Agency which is an independent, not-for-profit national agency that will promote, audit and report on quality assurance in Australian higher education. Personally, I think that were Canada to adopt some form of national external validation of QA, it would have to be a cooperative venture of the provinces, through CMEC and such bodies as AUCC and ACCC. By publishing and using the Canadian Degree Qualifications Framework and the assessment standards and procedures, confidence in the degrees offered in each jurisdiction in Canada can be understood and enhanced. Students would ultimately benefit. * * * * * * * Is There a Need for a New National System of Accreditation in Canadian Higher Education? Michael Skolnik, PhD., Professor and W.G. Davis Chair in Community College Leadership, Ontario institute for Studies in Education, Toronto. Higher education policy-making invariably involves finding a balance between competing values. Two kinds of values are particularly relevant to the issues that are of concern for this panel. One is responsiveness to societal needs. October 2005 page 8 of 12

9 The other is ensuring that all programs are of acceptable quality. These two values may often conflict with one another. If a system is to be truly responsive to societal needs, it must have a substantial capacity to expand and innovate when existing needs are not adequately addressed or when new needs are identified. But unless there are some controls on expansion and innovation, some of the new institutions and programs that come into existence to meet these needs may not be of acceptable quality. On the other hand, it is easily possible to stifle expansion and innovation out of fear that some program of unacceptable quality might slip through the net. As the degree-granting sector of higher education developed in the Twentieth Century in Canada, policy-makers demonstrated a clear tendency to place a higher value on protection of quality than on innovation or expansion of the number of degree-granting institutions. They opted for a paradigm in which the authority to deliver degree programs was stringently restricted by provincial legislatures to a limited number of provincially chartered and provincially funded universities, most of them comprehensive institutions in the sense of offering graduate and professional programs as well as undergraduate programs, and as well, most aspired to be full-fledged research universities. However, with few exceptions, there was no external assessment of the quality of the programs in these institutions. It was simply assumed that the combination of limiting the numbers of such institutions and providing public funding for them would ensure that all their programs were of sufficient quality. A possible downside of such a paradigm is that, like institutions in other sectors that enjoy a protected monopoly, the public universities would provide a less than innovative response to societal needs. That this has sometimes been the case has been acknowledged on occasion even by the university community itself. For example, a 1980 report of the Council of Ontario Universities Committee on Long Planning concluded that there was October 2005 page 9 of 12

10 much duplication and little imagination in undergraduate program offerings of the provincial universities. 1 As provincial governments became concerned about this situation, some introduced policies intended to make their higher education systems more responsive to societal needs for degree level education. A central feature of these policies was enabling other institutions besides the provincially funded universities to confer degrees. These new providers of degree programs have included particularly community colleges and, to a much lesser extent, private degree-granting institutions. The result is that we now have two sets institutions offering degree programs in Canada. Since the provincial universities are all members of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada indeed, they created that organization I will refer to them as the AUCC Institutions; and the other set I will refer to as the New Providers. In simplest terms, the issue that gave rise to this panel is that some AUCC Institutions have threatened not to recognize the degrees awarded by the New Providers, ostensibly because of uncertainly about the quality of the new degrees. If it turns out that only a few AUCC Institutions take this position, then there may be no problem of recognition of the new degrees. However, if many take this position, then recognition of the new degrees could be a serious problem. Some have suggested that the solution to this problem to the extent that it does exist - is to establish a national system of accreditation. My response to that is that we already have provincial systems of accreditation that could together constitute a national system, if the provincial accreditation bodies were to give mutual recognition of one another s assessments. After all, the national system of accreditation in the United States consists of regional accreditation bodies. An intriguing feature of our emerging system of regional accreditation is that only one set of degree-granting institutions, the New Providers, is fully subject to this accreditation process. The extent to which the AUCC 1 Cited in E.J. Monahan, Collective Autonomy: A History of the Council of Ontario Universities, (Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2004), p October 2005 page 10 of 12

11 Institutions are subject to the provincial review processes varies among the three provinces that have such a process. In Ontario, the AUCC Institutions are completely excluded. Thus, in Ontario we have the bizarre situation in which institutions whose baccalaureate programs do not undergo any external review are questioning the academic standards of institutions whose baccalaureate programs are required to go through a rigorous accreditation process. Moreover, frequently the discipline experts who conduct the assessments of the programs of the New Providers are faculty members of the AUCC institutions! If any institutions have grounds for questioning the standards of others, it is the New Providers that should be questioning the quality of the AUCC Institutions, not the other way round.. Two obvious solutions come to mind for dealing with this situation. One would be for the provincial governments of those provinces that have degree accreditation bodies to require all degree programs in their jurisdiction to be accredited by those bodies, thus assuring that all met common standards. If this were to be the case, it would be difficult for any institution to justify not recognizing a degree program of any other institution that had gone through an identical assessment process. My understanding is that, unlike Ontario, this would be possible under the legislation in Alberta and BC. But whether, and the extent to which, the same treatment will be given to both sets of institutions by boards in these provinces is another matter. Another option would be for the provincial governments to require any institution that has been given approval to operate a degree program in the province to recognize the degree programs of other institutions that have also been given that authority by the province, regardless of whether the form of that authority is a statute or ministerial approval following an accreditation-type review. If provincial governments are not prepared to do this, then they are not willing to stand behind the authorization of degreegranting status that they give out. The type of regulation that I am suggesting could be a condition of obtaining degree-granting authority for New Providers or of obtaining public funding for those that have statutory October 2005 page 11 of 12

12 authority to confer degrees. This requirement would not be an infringement on academic autonomy, as institutions would still decide admissions on their own on a case-by-case basis. Institutions would just be prohibited from rejecting applicants out-of-hand merely on the arbitrary grounds of the form of provincial degree granting authority of the institution that the applicant attended previously. If such a policy were to be adopted within each of the provinces that has a degree accreditation process, and if at the same time, progress were made toward mutual recognition of degree approvals among the three provincial degree accreditation bodies, the result would be a de facto national system of accreditation without the expense or the political problems that would be involved in creating a new national educational agency. 2 In summary, the problem is not the absence of accreditation in Canada; it is the apparent refusal of at least some AUCC Institutions to recognize the accreditation processes that already exist. As there is no evidence that such AUCC Institutions have made any attempt to assess the existing provincial accreditation processes, it would appear that their position on the matter is based entirely on political rather than on technical considerations, that is, the desire to maintain their monopoly on degree-granting. As such, the appropriate response to their position is political rather than technical. * * * * * * * 2 Thus far, the New Providers of baccalaureate programs in Canada are mainly in the three provinces that have established provincial accreditation-type boards. To the extent that this need arises for institutions in other provinces, those provinces have the option of creating their own accreditation boards. However for a small province with few such institutions, it may be more economical to contract with one of the existing boards in another province to conduct an accreditation review. Some Canadian institutions have recently sought accreditation by regional accrediting bodies in the United States. This may be useful for a Canadian institution, particularly if it recruits students from outside Canada, or to enhance the international mobility of its graduates. However, it would not be appropriate for Canadian higher education as a whole to rely on accreditation in the United States as a way of addressing its own needs for accreditation. October 2005 page 12 of 12