+ All Categories
Home > Documents > SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy...

SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy...

Date post: 19-Sep-2020
Category:
Upload: others
View: 7 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
100
WHITE PAPERS SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy for Determining Awards Standards WHITE PAPER Policy and Criteria for Making Awards Consultation closed on 14th November 2014. QQI COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME
Transcript
Page 1: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

WHITE PAPERSSUBMISSIONS

WHITE PAPER

Policy on Monitoring

WHITE PAPER

Policy on Quality

Assurance Guidelines

WHITE PAPER

Policy for Determining

Awards Standards

WHITE PAPER

Policy and Criteria for

Making Awards

Consultation closed on

14th November 2014.

QQI COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

Page 2: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

QQI COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

SUBMISSIONS: WHITE PAPERS

SUBMISSIONS

QQI received submissions for each of the White Papers

from each of the following stakeholders:*

POLICY ON MONITORING

» Aontas

» Further Education Support Service

» Chartered Accountants Ireland

» Dublin City University

» Dublin and Dun Laoghaire ETB

» Federation of Irish Complementary Therapy Associations

» Griffith College Dublin

» The Higher Education Colleges Association

» The Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland

» University College Cork

» IADT Dún Laoghaire

» Longford Women’s Link

» Trinity College Dublin

» University College Dublin

POLICY FOR DETERMINING AWARDS STANDARDS

» Further Education Support Service

» Waterford Institute of Technology

» Dublin City University

» Federation of Irish Complementary Therapy Associations

» Dublin and Dun Laoghaire ETB

» Chartered Accountants Ireland

» Griffith College Dublin

» The Higher Education Colleges Association

» IADT Dún Laoghaire

POLICY ON QUALITY ASSURANCE GUIDELINES

» Aontas

» Chartered Accountants Ireland

» Dublin City University

» The Higher Education Colleges Association

» The Irish Universities Association

» Federation of Irish Complementary Therapy Associations

» Griffith College Dublin

» The Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland

» University College Cork

» IADT Dún Laoghaire

» Longford Women’s Link

» Trinity College Dublin

» University College Dublin

POLICY AND CRITERIA FOR MAKING AWARDS

» Waterford Institute of Technology

» Dublin City University

» Federation of Irish Complementary Therapy Associations

» Griffith College Dublin

» IADT Dún Laoghaire

*The submissions have not been altered, except to divide feedback between the specific consultation documents to which they apply.

Page 3: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

QQI COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

SUBMISSIONS: WHITE PAPERS

POLICY ON MONITORING

SUBMISSION BY:

AONTAS

The submissions have not been altered, except to divide feedback

between the specific consultation documents to which they apply.

Page 4: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

WHITE  PAPER:     POLICY  ON  MONITORING  

 

Submission  by:     AONTAS  

With  regard  to  this  paper,  we  would  highlight  the  following  points  for  consideration.    

Page  6  d)  Incidents  or  risk  factors  which  may  affect  learners  (for  example:  financial  Issues,  capacity  

issues  impending  media  disclosures  etc.  that  may  relate  to  academic  quality)  and  constitute  a  cause  

for  concern  and  which  may  trigger  direct  intervention  by  QQI.    

 

We  agree  that  providers  must  ensure  quality  and  continuity  of  education  provision  to  their  learners  

in  line  with  their  quality  assurance  procedures.  In  order  to  meet  this  requirement,  clear  

unambiguous  guidelines  should  be  provided  so  that  providers  can  meet  their  responsibilities.  We  

would  suggest  that  QQI  will  explicitly  state  the  details  which  constitute  a  cause  for  concern  and  to  

outline  in  detail  what  is  meant  by  financial  and  capacity  issues  that  require  disclosure  to  QQI.    

Page  9  3.4  QQI  will  develop  detailed  procedures  and  guidelines  to  guide  QQI  and  providers  in  their  

obligations  under  this  monitoring  policy    

We  welcome  detailed  guidelines  in  this  regard  and  for  their  effective  communication  with  education  

providers.    

 

Conclusion    

The  AONTAS  Community  Education  Network  is  committed  to  continued  engagement  with  the  QQI  

and  welcomes  the  opportunity  to  shape  their  future  policies.  We  would  welcome  clear  

communication  regarding  the  QA  requirements  of  QQI  and  accompanying  guidebook  documentation  

that  would  enable  education  providers  to  engage  efficiently  in  QA  and  monitoring  processes.  

   

Page 5: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

QQI COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

SUBMISSIONS: WHITE PAPERS

POLICY ON MONITORING

SUBMISSION BY:

Further Education Support Service

The submissions have not been altered, except to divide feedback

between the specific consultation documents to which they apply.

Page 6: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

Submission  by:       Further  Education  Support  Service  

FESS  welcome  the  White  Paper:  Policy  on  Monitoring.    There  are  issues  to  be  addressed.      

 

Pages  3  (section  2)  and  4  (section  3.1)  

There  appears  to  be  a  contradiction  between  the  definition  of  Monitoring  in  the  2012  Act  ….(  page  

3)  where  it  states  that  QQI  will  monitor  a  range  of  provider  activities  including  “the  effectiveness  of  

providers’  QA  procedures”  and  the  subsequent  text  on  page  4  stating  that    Monitoring    is  not….  “the  

review  of  the  effectiveness  of  a  providers’  QA  procedures”.    It  may  be  the  interpretation  of  the  

terms  ‘review’  and  ‘monitoring’  that  is  causing  confusion,  as  this  occurs  elsewhere  in  the  text  also.    

The  term  ‘review’  is  used  in  the  White  Paper:  Policy  on  QA  Guidelines  to  explain  a  QQI  function  -­‐  the  

review  of  the  effectiveness  of  a  provider’s  QA  procedures.    Perhaps  monitoring  is  expected  to  have  a  

more  generic  connotation?    

 

Page  5  (section  3.2)  Types  of  Monitoring    

The  proposed  titles  for  the  three  types  of  monitoring  do  not  reflect  fully  the  nature  of  the  activities.    

 

Page  8  (section  3.3)  Consequences  of  Monitoring    

“The  outcomes  of  all  QQI  monitoring  activities  will  be  published”.    It  would  be  beneficial  to  explicitly  

state  that  the  provider  feedback/comments  to  QQI  on  monitoring  will  be  in  included  in  the  final  

published  documents.  

 

An  additional  issue  is  that  it  is  not  clear  if  a  provider  can  appeal  the  findings  of  a  monitoring  exercise  

by  QQI.    Clarification  is  required  here.    

 

   

Page 7: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

QQI COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

SUBMISSIONS: WHITE PAPERS

POLICY ON MONITORING

SUBMISSION BY:

Chartered Accountants Ireland

The submissions have not been altered, except to divide feedback

between the specific consultation documents to which they apply.

Page 8: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

Submission  by:     Chartered  Accountants  Ireland  

We  have  reviewed  the  proposed  document  on  Monitoring  and  wish  to  confirm  that  it  is  clear  and  

have  no  suggestions  for  additions  or  amendment.  

 

   

Page 9: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

QQI COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

SUBMISSIONS: WHITE PAPERS

POLICY ON MONITORING

SUBMISSION BY:

Dublin City University

The submissions have not been altered, except to divide feedback

between the specific consultation documents to which they apply.

Page 10: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

Submission  by:     Dublin  City  University  

Page  3:  -­‐  There  is  no  legal  definition  of  ‘monitoring’  in  the  QQAI  Act  which  might  potentially  lead  to  a  

potential  challenge  to  QQI’s  interpretation  of  this  activity  as  outlined  in  the  white  paper.    

-­‐  Does  the  item  on  ‘re-­‐validation’  apply  to  DABs?    

-­‐  In  reference  to:  ‘QQI  monitoring  works  towards  these  strategic  goals.’  there  is  no  previous  

reference  to  ‘goals’  on  the  page.    

 

Page  4:  The  monitoring  principles  as  outlined  are  appropriate  and  welcome.    

 

Page  7:  It  is  hoped  and  expected  that  data  provided  to  the  HEA  on  a  regular  basis  from  DABs  can  be  

shared  with  QQI  and  that  duplication  of  data  provision  will  not  be  expected.  The  use  of  publicly  

available  information  is  appropriate.    

 

Page  9:  3.4  The  provision  of  detailed  procedures  and  guidelines  to  assist  DABs  in  their  monitoring  

obligations  will  be  very  welcome.    

 

   

Page 11: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

QQI COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

SUBMISSIONS: WHITE PAPERS

POLICY ON MONITORING

SUBMISSION BY:

Dublin and Dún Laoghaire ETB

The submissions have not been altered, except to divide feedback

between the specific consultation documents to which they apply.

Page 12: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

Submission  by:     Dublin  and  Dún  Laoghaire  ETB  

Section  3.3  Consequences  of  Monitoring  

“The  outcomes  of  all  QQI  monitoring  activities  will  be  published”.    It  would  be  our  contention  that  

provider  response  to  the  monitoring  report  should  also  be  published.  

     

It  is  currently  unclear  as  to  whether  providers  can  appeal  the  findings  of  a  monitoring  report,  and  

some  clarification  would  be  appreciated  in  this  regard.  

 

   

Page 13: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

QQI COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

SUBMISSIONS: WHITE PAPERS

POLICY ON MONITORING

SUBMISSION BY:

The Federation of Irish Complementary Therapy Associations

The submissions have not been altered, except to divide feedback

between the specific consultation documents to which they apply.

Page 14: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

Submission  by:     The  Federation  of  Irish  Complementary  Therapy  Associations  

FICTA  (Federation  of  Irish  Complementary  Therapy  Associations)  deems  the  QQI's  overarching  and  

organisational  approach  to  monitoring  the  qualifications  and  QA  landscape,  and  QQI's  strategic  goals  

to  be  satisfactory.  

 

Overarching  principles  that  will  apply  to  the  monitoring  of  all  types  of  provision  and  between  sectors  

are  necessary  to  generate  public  and  learner  confidence  in  QQI's  monitoring  activities  and  services,  

such  as  the  implementation  of  the  NFQ.  

 

The  principles  which  underpin  QQI's  approach  to  monitoring  are  reasonable.  

 

There  seems  however,  to  be  a  disconnect  between  the  White  Papers  assertion  that  monitoring  is  not  

(c  )  "A  means  of  policing  ….  (among  other  things)  poor  quality  provision",  and  the  following  

paragraph  which  says  that  the  outcome  of  monitoring  may  contribute  to  QQI's  assessment  of  the  

quality  of  provision  and,  if  giving  rise  to  causes  for  concern,  the  possible  consequences  are  noted  in  

item  3.3.  

 

With  regard  to  the  possible  consequence  (g)  -­‐  it  hardly  seems  fair  to  learners  to  withhold  

certification  at  some  level  (or  awarding  credits  towards  certification)  as  a  result  of  a  providers  failure  

to  meet  their  obligations  to  them.  The  development  of  detailed  procedures  and  guidelines  to  guide  

the  QQI  and  providers  in  their  obligations  under  this  monitoring  policy  are  highly  recommended.  

 

   

Page 15: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

QQI COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

SUBMISSIONS: WHITE PAPERS

POLICY ON MONITORING

SUBMISSION BY:

Griffith College Dublin

The submissions have not been altered, except to divide feedback

between the specific consultation documents to which they apply.

Page 16: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

Submission  by:     Griffith  College  Dublin  

Overall:   Not  disputing  the  need  for  the  particular  content  included,  the  focus  of  the  policy  is  

very  much  on  compliance  and  quality  control.  This  suggests  conformance  with  

prescriptive  standards  and  an  orientation  that  appears  reactive  rather  than  active.  

Section  3.1:    Possible  inclusion:        

g.       Provides  an  opportunity  for  informed  reflection  and  enhancement  of  quality  

procedures  on  behalf  of  the  institution    

Section  3.2  Possible  inclusion  

  e.g.     Type  4:  Monitoring:    Evidence  of  innovative  Best  Practice    

Is  there  a  case  for  an  upside  in  addition  to  the  downside  of  concern?   Could  

monitoring  reveal  excellent  practices  /  innovative  improvements  worthy  of  

comment  /  blogging  /  dissemination?    

Section  3.3   Consequences  

The  section  currently  conveys  a  largely  negative  tone  outlining  all  the  things  that  can  

go  wrong.  

Monitoring  provided  by  critical  friends  /  peers  /  with  shared  interests  in  the  

development  of  learners  can  be  an  altogether  positive  and  enriching  experience  as  

institutions  address  limitations,  make  corrections  and  advance  their  commitment  to  

excellent  practices.  

 

   

Page 17: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

QQI COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

SUBMISSIONS: WHITE PAPERS

POLICY ON MONITORING

SUBMISSION BY:

The Higher Education Colleges Association

The submissions have not been altered, except to divide feedback

between the specific consultation documents to which they apply.

Page 18: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

Submission  by:     The  Higher  Education  Colleges  Association  

HECA  was  glad  to  see  that  its  feedback  on  the  QQI  Green  Paper  had  been  taken  into  consideration.  

HECA  welcomes  the  rather  broad  brush  statements  in  this  White  paper  which  accommodates  the  

specifics  of  diverse  providers.      However,  there  was  a  concern  that  some  of  the  policy  statement  

were  a  little  too  vague  and  could  pose  the  question  as  to  how  required  minimum  standards  might  be  

understood  by  a  new  provider.      The  statement  that  “Monitoring  is  an  external  QA  process  that  

involves  both  routine  and  once-­‐off  evaluations,  analyses,  observations  and  recording  of  provider  

activities”  would  seem  to  infer  some  “effectiveness  of  providers’  QA  procedures”,  but  the  Policy  

Statement  on  Page  4  states  that  this  is  not  what  is  involved  in  “monitoring”.        

 HECA  felt  that  there  was  a  potential  lack  of  clarity  created  by  some  other  statements  as  follows:  

On  Page  4  it  states  “Equally,  monitoring  is  not”  …..  (c)    A  means  of  policing  the  education  and  

training  landscape  for  corruption,  incompetence  or  poor  quality  provision.        

This  statement  was  questioned  as  it  was  felt  that  the  purpose  of  monitoring  was  indeed  to  do  just  

that.  

 

On  Page  8  under  TYPE  3  –  MONITORING  CAUSES  FOR  CONCERN:  

Reference  is  made  to  “Complaints  made  by  third  parties  or  information  received  in  other  ways  (the  

media,  or  through  whistle-­‐blowers  for  example)”.      HECA  has  a  concern  that  there  is  an  implication  

that  all  complaints  will  automatically  be  deemed  legitimate.  

HECA  would  also  welcome  some  further  clarity  on  the  “provision  of  public  information”  as  stated  on  

Page  4  (d).  

 

   

Page 19: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

QQI COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

SUBMISSIONS: WHITE PAPERS

POLICY ON MONITORING

SUBMISSION BY:

The Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland

The submissions have not been altered, except to divide feedback

between the specific consultation documents to which they apply.

Page 20: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

Submission  by:     The  Royal  College  of  Surgeons  in  Ireland  

RCSI  welcomes  this  document  and  is  in  accord  with  the  measures  proposed.  

 

   

Page 21: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

QQI COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

SUBMISSIONS: WHITE PAPERS

POLICY ON MONITORING

SUBMISSION BY:

University College Cork

The submissions have not been altered, except to divide feedback

between the specific consultation documents to which they apply.

Page 22: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

Submission  by:     University  College  Cork  

UCC  welcomes  the  explicit  statements  in  the  white  paper  that,  "QQI's  approach  to  monitoring  

will...vary  between  sectors  and  types  of  provision"  and  that,  "QQI  will  develop  procedures  and  

guidelines  for  monitoring  activities  for  each  type  of  provider  and  for  different  provider  activities."  In  

particular,  UCC  believes  that  a  one-­‐size-­‐fits-­‐all  approach  to  monitoring  activities  would  not  be  

appropriate.  However,  it  cautions  against  a  proliferation  of  monitoring  activities  for  each  type  of  

provider.  Monitoring  should  be  as  streamlined  as  possible  and  follow,  as  far  as  possible,  the  

institution's  own  monitoring  activities.  

 

More  specifically:  

 

The  last  sentence  of  the  first  para  on  page  2  -­‐  we  would  like  clarification  of  what  is  meant  by  this.  

 

Page  4,  section  3.1  d)  Would  it  be  possible  to  give  an  example  of  a  positive  or  negative  consequence  

of  monitoring?  

 

And  f)  Might  this  be  better  if  it  were  split  in  two?  I.e.  F)  Provides  accountability  and  g)  may  give  rise  

from  time  to  time,  for  investigation  of  a  cause  for  concern.  Doesn't  all  monitoring  provide  for  both  

accountability  and  improvement,  the  former  not  only  when  there  is  a  cause  for  concern?  

 

Page  6:  type  2  routine  information  provision:  would  it  be  possible  to  clarify  which  providers  are  

required  to  provide  which  kinds  of  information?  

 

The  term  'lifecycle  of  engagements'  is  used  throughout  the  document  -­‐  despite  this  term  having  

been  used  by  QQI  before,  UCC  would  welcome  more  clarification  on  what  exactly  it  means.  

 

   

Page 23: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

QQI COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

SUBMISSIONS: WHITE PAPERS

POLICY ON MONITORING

SUBMISSION BY:

IADT

The submissions have not been altered, except to divide feedback

between the specific consultation documents to which they apply.

Page 24: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

Submission  by:     IADT  

General  comment:    

This  document  seems  less  crisp  than  some  of  the  other  draft  policy  documents.  It  seems  in  places  to  

be  more  of  a  discussion  document  (which  may  be  reasonable  in  a  consultation  context).  

Nevertheless  the  document’s  necessary  broadness,  given  the  diversity  of  sector,  makes  it  

challenging  to  have  a  sense  of  the  distinctness  of  “monitoring”  as  a  thing.  Is  this  policy  required  in  

this  format?  Or  would  a  different  word,  other  than  monitoring  (notwithstanding  the  legal  basis),  or  a  

different  policy  context,  better  capture  the  ideas?    

 

Page  4,  3.1  Monitoring    

"QQI's  approach  is  underpinned  by  principles  that  monitoring  …"    

Are  these  principles  or  a  set  of  understandings?    

 

 “Monitoring  will  be  mainly  focussed  on  (but  not  limited  to)  programmes  leading  to  QQI  awards”    

What  does  this  mean  exactly?  Or  what  are  the  implications?    

 

“f.  Provides  accountability  from  time  to  time  where  there  is  a  cause  for  concern.”    

To  whom  or  for  whom?    

 

“Equally,  monitoring  is  not:    

a.  The  review  of  the  effectiveness  of  providers’  QA  procedures”    

Is  this  statement  not  a  direct  contradiction  of  the  statement  of  law  made  at  the  outset  of  the  

document?    

 

“A  means  of  policing  the  education  and  training  landscape  for  corruption,  incompetence  or  poor  

quality  provision.”    

To  an  external  entity,  this  sentence  may  be  concerning  -­‐  e.g.  who  does  'police'  for  corruption?  

Perhaps  its  inclusion  here  is  misleading,  or  misplaced?    

 

“However,  the  outcomes  of  monitoring  may  contribute  to  QQI’s  understanding  of  the  effectiveness  

of  a  provider’s  QA  procedures  and  their  implementation  as  well  as  the  quality  of  their  provision.”    

What  are  the  implications  of  such  an  understanding  by  QQI?  Where  would  such  an  understanding  be  

published  or  how  would  it  influence  practice?    

 

Page 25: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

Page  5,  Top  of  page    

“QQI  will  develop  procedures  and  guidelines  for  monitoring  activities  for  each  type  of  provider  and  

for  b.  different  provider  activities.”    

Is  there  a  definitive  list  of  the  'types'  of  providers?    

 

Page  5,  Paragraph  3.2,  Type  1    

This  seemingly  contradicts  the  statement  at  the  outset  that  'monitoring'  is  an  external  activity.  The  

initial  statement  may  wish  be  more  nuanced?    

Also  is  it  a  'shared'  responsibility?  Is  it  not  rather  a  distinct,  independent  responsibility  of  each  party?    

 

“In  this  way  self-­‐monitoring  guides  providers  in  demonstrating  the  effective  implementation  and  

enhancement  of  their  QA  procedures.  It  also  helps  QQI  to  provide  public  information  on  the  quality  

of  programmes  and  the  awards  they  lead  to.”    

When  this  sentence  refers  to  the  'quality  of  awards'  as  distinct  from  the  quality  of  'programmes'  

what  exactly  is  it  contemplating?    

 

Page  6  DABs  &  DA...    

Last  sentence  of  first  paragraph  is  not  clear    

 

Page  6    

“Annual  Institutional  Quality  Reports  and  Annual  Dialogue  Meetings  provide  information  and  

engagement  on  institutional  activities  to  do  with  quality  assurance,  including  follow-­‐up."    

Should  these  be  defined/limited  mechanisms,  or  should  they  be  followed  by  the  phrase,  “or  other  

engagement  mechanisms”?    

 

Page  6    

“d)  Incidents  or  risk  factors  which  may  affect  learners  (for  example:  financial  Issues,  capacity  issues  

impending  media  disclosures  etc.  that  may  relate  to  academic  quality)  and  constitute  a  cause  for  

concern  and  which  may  trigger  direct  intervention  by  QQI.”    

“or  be  perceived  to  relate  to  or  impinge  upon”  ??    

 

 

 

 

Page 26: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

Page  7    

"Providers’  specific  information  provision  requirements  will  be  explained  in  the  provider’s  lifecycle  of  

engagements.”    

What  does  this  mean?    

 

Page  7    

"If  a  provider  fails  to  provide  routine  information  to  QQI  (or  information  that  may  be    

considered  a  cause  for  concern),  this  may  trigger  an  intervention  by  QQI."    

Such  as  –  maybe  refer  to  Act  or  other  section  of  the  document?    

 

Page  7  -­‐  Provision  of  Public  Information    

“Providers  are  obliged  to  provide  certain  public  information  as  well.  The  outcomes  of  QQI  

monitoring  will  also  be  made  public.  This  information  may  be  used  by  QQI  (and  possibly  in  

collaboration  with  other  bodies)  to  create  system  level  reports  and  analyses  which  will  lead  to  

enhancements  for  the  education  and  training  system.”    

Given  the  lack  of  specificity  about  the  types  of  interventions  and  the  judgements  being  made  or  

understandings  being  gleaned,  what  format  will  these  outcomes  take?    

 

Page  7    

“The  availability  of  good  quality  data  from  providers  is  essential  to  enable  QQI  to  carry  out  its  

monitoring  functions  effectively.”    

This  seems  like  a  principle  worth  stating  at  the  outset.    

 

Page  7,  Sharing  and  Using  Available  information    

“Monitoring  will  share  and  make  use  of  publicly  available  information  coming  from  engagements  

(statutory  and  non-­‐statutory)  that  providers  have  with  other  bodies  (agencies,  funders,  government  

departments  etc.)  as  well  as  with  QQI.”    

This  sentence  may  benefit  from  restructuring.  It  may  be  worth  mentioning  Data  Protection  and  FOI  

legislation  contexts.    

Page 27: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

 

Page  8,  Type  3  Monitoring  Causes  for  Concern    

Should  there  be  a  colon  or  something  between  the  word  'monitoring'  and  'causes'?    

 

Page  8    

Some  of  the  items  on  the  list  of  causes  for  concern  may  need  to  be  prefaced  by  the  word  'alleged'  or  

'reported'.  A  conclusion  cannot  be  reached  before  an  investigation  has  occurred.  Also  there  needs  to  

be  some  indication  that  an  investigation  will  only  take  place  where  there  is  reasonableness  or  

sufficient  seriousness.    

The  language  being  used  here  is  very  'conversational',  and  not  quite  appropriate  for  a  policy  

document,  though  it  is  appreciated  that  it  is  only  an  overview/framework.    

Maybe  some  of  these  statements  should  be  in  the  principles  section.    

 

Page  8,  3.3  CONSEQUENCES  OF  MONITORING    

“The  outcomes  of  all  QQI  monitoring  activities  will  be  published.”    

This  is  repeated  from  earlier  in  the  document.    

 

Page  8    

“It  is  expected  that  monitoring  will,  in  general,  result  in  positive  and  enhancement  oriented  actions  

by  providers  and  QQI,  arising  from  provider  self-­‐monitoring.”    

Expected  or  desired?    

 

Page  9,  3.4  GUIDELINES    

“QQI  will  develop  detailed  procedures  and  guidelines  to  guide  QQI  and  providers  in  their  obligations    

under  this  monitoring  policy.”    

Will  this  be  specific  guidelines  for  each  type  of  provider?  

 

   

Page 28: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

QQI COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

SUBMISSIONS: WHITE PAPERS

POLICY ON MONITORING

SUBMISSION BY:

Longford Women’s Link

The submissions have not been altered, except to divide feedback

between the specific consultation documents to which they apply.

Page 29: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

Submission  by:     Longford  Women's  Link  

With  regard  to  provider  self-­‐monitoring  (section  3.2),  it  is  important  that  clear  guidelines  are  issued  

in   relation   to   this.   QQI   need   to   explicitly   define   the   notion   of   self-­‐monitoring   and   be   aware   that  

community  providers  will  not  have  the  funds  to  engage  the  use  of  external  facilitators  and  therefore  

clear  and  explicit  guidelines  will  ensure  that  this  exercise  is  conducted  to  the  satisfaction  of  both  QQI  

and  the  provider.    

In  terms  of  section  3.2  (d),  we  request  that  QQI  must  be  very  clear  as  to  what  they  regard  as  a  ‘cause  

for  concern’  so  that  there  is  no  ambiguity  as  to  the  obligations  and  responsibilities  of  providers.    

We  welcome  the  commitment  under  section  3.4  to  develop  detailed  procedures  and  guidelines  for  

providers.    

 

   

Page 30: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

QQI COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

SUBMISSIONS: WHITE PAPERS

POLICY ON MONITORING

SUBMISSION BY:

Trinity College Dublin

The submissions have not been altered, except to divide feedback

between the specific consultation documents to which they apply.

Page 31: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

Submission  by:     Trinity  College  Dublin  

TCD  welcomes  QQI’s  statement  that  its  approach  to  monitoring  will  vary  between  sectors  and  types  

of  provision.  We  also  welcome  recognition  that  as  a  Provider  and  a  Delegated  Awarding  Body  (DABs)  

under  the  1997  Universities  Act,  we  are  responsible  for  the  quality  of  our  own  provision,  its  

implementation,  evaluation  and  ongoing  enhancement  of  QA  procedures.    

The  three  types  of  monitoring  outlined  in  the  White  Paper  are  appropriate,  and  it  should  be  noted  

that  the  university  already  conforms  to  the  monitoring  types  described.  

 

   

Page 32: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

QQI COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

SUBMISSIONS: WHITE PAPERS

POLICY ON MONITORING

SUBMISSION BY:

University College Dublin

The submissions have not been altered, except to divide feedback

between the specific consultation documents to which they apply.

Page 33: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

Submission  by:   University  College  Dublin  

UCD  supports  the  development  of  an  appropriate,  proportionate  and  adaptable  framework  to  

monitor  HE  provision  in  institutions.  The  policy  paper,  however,  at  times,  appears  to  drift  into  

guideline/procedural  aspects  e.g.  page  6  under  Type  2  Monitoring:  providers  are  obliged.....to  

provide  information  to  QQI,  including:    details  of  changes  affecting  programmes.....details  of  

arrangements  for  the  protection  of  learners  etc.  

1. Page  3  -­‐  UCD  would  support  a  variable  approach  to  monitoring  between  sectors  and  types  of

provision  as  indicated  in  the  draft  policy

2. Page  4  -­‐  3.1  a  indicates  that  monitoring  helps  to  demonstrate  the  effective  implementation

of  QA  procedures;  however,  the  'second'  3.1  a(!!)  states  that  monitoring  is  not  'the  review  of

the  effectiveness  of  provider's  QA  procedures'    these  two  statements  risk  being  perceived  as

being  in  conflict  -­‐  greater  clarity  would  help.

3. Page  4  -­‐  3.1  d  -­‐  it  is  unclear  how  the  following  statement  stands  as  a  'principle'  -­‐  QQI's

approach  to  monitoring  is  underpinned  by  the  principles  that  monitoring:    '  may  have

positive  or  negative  consequences  for  providers  (some  of  which  may  be  significant).  And

again  under  3.1  f  ;  provides  accountability  from  time  to  time  where  there  is  a  cause  for

concern  -­‐  is  this  a  'principle'?  Are  the  words  'from  time  to  time'  appropriate?

4. Page  5  -­‐  3.2  -­‐While  UCD  welcomes  the  intent  behind  the  statement  that:  monitoring  will  look

at  different  providers  in  different  ways  depending  on  their  sector  and  activity  -­‐  presumably  it

is  not  'monitoring'  itself  that  will  look  at  providers  in  different  ways  -­‐    it  may  be  more

accurate  to  state,  for  example,  that  '  QQI  will    deploy  an  adaptive  approach  to  the

development  of  monitoring  systems  to  reflect  the  diversity  of  institutions  within  the  various

sectors.......'.or  something  similar.  

5. Pages  5-­‐8  -­‐  The  utility  of  the  distinction  between    type  1  and  2  monitoring  is  unclear  -­‐  Type  1:

Provider  self-­‐monitoring;  Type  2:  Routine  information  provision  -­‐  there  appears  to  be

overlap  between  these  two  types  in  that  eg  in  both  types,  routine  information  is  provided;

6. UCD  supports  the  general  principles  of  transparency  and  accountability,  but  not  without

some  qualification,  for  example:  Pages  7  and  8  -­‐  Type  3  -­‐  monitoring  for  causes  for  concern  -­‐

will  this  monitoring  be  published?  Page  7  and  8  state:  '  The  outcomes  of  QQI  monitoring

will    be  made  public  -­‐  there  appears  to  be  no  provision  to  appeal  an  adverse  or  inaccurate

monitoring  outcome    -­‐  this  may  possibly  raise  the  potential  for  eg  legal  challenges,  which

may  compromise  the  explicit  statement:    that  all  monitoring  will  be  made  public.  There  may

also  be  issues  around  commercially  sensitive  or  confidential  material  being  published.  Some

further  discussion  around  this  aspect  of  the  document  would  be  helpful.

Page 34: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

QQI COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

SUBMISSIONS: WHITE PAPERS

POLICY ON QUALITY ASSURANCE GUIDELINES

SUBMISSION BY:

AONTAS

The submissions have not been altered, except to divide feedback

between the specific consultation documents to which they apply.

Page 35: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

WHITE  PAPER:   POLICY  ON  QUALITY  ASSURANCE  GUIDELNES  

Submission  by:   AONTAS  

As  the  QQI  Quality  Assurance  Guidelines  are  not  detailed  in  this  White  Paper  one  cannot  respond  

comprehensively  in  this  regard.  However,  the  following  areas  for  consideration  are  being  proposed:  

QQI  QA  Guidelines:    

Page  5  b)  Communicate  expectations  about  the  quality  of  provision,  assessment  and  the  teaching  

and  learning  experience  in  the  Irish  education  and  training  community    

We  welcome  the  QQI  committing  to  communicating  their  expectations.  In  order  to  ensure  providers  

are  clear  of  their  obligations  we  would  request  that  such  communiqué  are  detailed  and  clearly  

outline  the  requirements  of  the  education  provider.    

One  such  topic  is  ‘capacity’  which  has  been  noted  in  a  number  of  QQI  policy  documents.  The  

concept  of  capacity  needs  to  be  clearly  articulated  so  that  providers  are  empowered  to  meet  the  

requirements  of  QQI.    

Page  5  d)  Are  a  resource  for  providers’  establishment  of  their  own  QA  procedures.  They  help  identify  

and  inspire  areas  for  enhancement,  they  are  not  solely  a  compliance  checklist    

We  would  raise  concern  that  detailed  guidelines  are  not  seen  by  QQI  as  a  checklist  for  providers,  

rather  they  are  the  minimum  standard  expected  for  Quality  Assurance.  Detailed  guidelines  facilitate  

clear,  transparent  direction  for  which  the  provider  can  build  and  shape  their  own  quality  assurance  

processes.  We  would  have  concerns  regarding  the  notion  that  previous  guidelines,  e.g.  for  FETAC  QA  

were  merely  a  checklist,  rather  they  provided  the  basis  for  QA  processes  to  be  developed  and  built  

the  QA  capacity  of  providers.  2  The  need  for  effective  communication  between  QQI  and  education  

providers  features  strongly  within  our  membership.  Therefore,  in  this  regard,  we  call  for  clear,  

unambiguous  QA  guidelines  which  explicitly  state  what  QQI  requires  for  assessing  applications.  In  

order  to  support  effective  engagement  with  QA  processes,  education  providers  require  support  

information.  We  would  call  for  appropriate  accompanying  information  documentation,  e.g.  a  QA  

guidebook,  is  necessary  in  order  to  ensure  a  smooth  transition  from  the  existing  QA  processes,  and  

also  to  ensure  there  is  good  clear  communication  with  providers  using  QQI  services.    

In  Section  3.3:  Key  to  development  is  the  collaboration  and  consultation  with  the  education  and  

training  community  and  stakeholders  in  the  qualifications  system.    

Page 36: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

It  is  unclear  how  this  process  will  take  place.  We  could  call  on  QQI  to  engage  with  community  

education  legacy  providers  who  have  garnered  a  wealth  of  expertise  in  relation  to  QA.  

Page 37: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

QQI COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

SUBMISSIONS: WHITE PAPERS

POLICY ON QUALITY ASSURANCE GUIDELINES

SUBMISSION BY:

Chartered Accountants Ireland

The submissions have not been altered, except to divide feedback

between the specific consultation documents to which they apply.

Page 38: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

Submission  by:   Chartered  Accountants  Ireland  

On  behalf  of  Chartered  Accountants  Ireland  I  wish  to  confirm  that  we  have  reviewed  the  above  

policy  statement  and  consider  it  to  be  clear  and  comprehensive.    We  do  not  have,  at  this  time,  any  

suggestions  for  amendment  or  improvement.  

Page 39: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

QQI COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

SUBMISSIONS: WHITE PAPERS

POLICY ON QUALITY ASSURANCE GUIDELINES

SUBMISSION BY:

Dublin City University

The submissions have not been altered, except to divide feedback

between the specific consultation documents to which they apply.

Page 40: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

Submissions  by:    Dublin  City  University  

Page  4:    

3.1  It  is  not  clear  why  the  following:  ‘(including  teaching  and  research)’,  in  included  after  ‘the  

learning  environment’.    

The  consultation  with  stakeholders  on  the  development  of  QA  procedures  is  welcome.  It  is  

anticipated  that  much  of  the  current  QA  structures  in  DCU  can  be  retained  and  improved  where  

appropriate.  It  will  be  important  to  advise  all  stakeholders  on  the  method  and  frequency  of  any  

proposed  reviews  of  the  effectiveness  of  QA  procedures.    

3.2  The  application  of  the  term  in  the  QQAI  Act  ‘have  regard  to’  in  relation  to  QQI’s  QA  guidelines  

might  be  open  to  interpretation  between  providers.  It  would  be  helpful  if  the  final  policy  could  

address  this.    

Page  5:    

3.2  It  is  unclear  what  is  meant  by  ‘prescribed  mechanisms  for  meeting  criteria’.  Further  explanation  

of  ‘standards’  and  ‘supplementary  and  supporting  documentation’  in  this  context  would  also  be  

welcome.    

QQI  QA  guidelines  (a)  The  word  ‘keystone’  could  be  misinterpreted  –  ‘underpin’  might  be  clearer.    

(f)  It  is  helpful  that  differentiation  between  and  among  providers  is  acknowledged  here.    

Page  6:    

A  different  phrase  to  ‘voluntary  higher  education’  is  suggested  for  clarity.    

3.3  As  well  as  building  on  the  existing  QA  guidelines  it  will  be  important  that  the  new  guidelines  link  

in  with  and  reflect  the  new  institutional  review  model  being  developed.    

For  bullet  point  3,  it  might  be  clearer  to  state  ‘Address  any  gaps  in  the  guidelines  that  may  arise  out  

of…’    

Page  7:    

(a)DCU  already  has  well  established  procedures  for  programme  design,  validation,  accreditation  and  

assurance  that  are  favourably  commented  on  by  external  examiners  and  reviewers.    

3.4.b  Suggest  this  paragraph  be  re-­‐written  for  clarity.  Appears  it  is  addressed  mainly  at  language  

schools.  4    

Page 41: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

QQI COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

SUBMISSIONS: WHITE PAPERS

POLICY ON QUALITY ASSURANCE GUIDELINES

SUBMISSION BY:

The Higher Education Colleges Association

The submissions have not been altered, except to divide feedback

between the specific consultation documents to which they apply.

Page 42: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

Submission  by:   The  Higher  Education  Colleges  Association  

HECA  welcomes   this  White  Paper   clarifying  QQI  policy   on  Quality  Assurance  Guidelines   and  notes  

that   many   of   the   matters   raised   by   HECA   in   response   to   the   Green   Paper   No   4.10   have   been  

addressed  in  the  White  paper.  

3.1:  HECA  agrees  with  the  position  stated  in  the  paper  that  QA  is  the  responsibility  of  the  provider  

with  QQI  providing  an  external  oversight  function.  

3.2:  HECA  welcomes  the  approach  outlined  in  this  section  whereby  QA  guidelines  form  the  keystone  

for   a   variety   of   QA   activity   including   validation,   provider   review,   the   IEM,   award   recognition   etc.  

HECA   is   strongly   of   the   view   that   this   approach   leads   to   efficiency   and   the   development   of   a  

comprehensive  cohesive  approach  to  QA  within  an  institution.  It  also  endorses  the  view  in  the  White  

paper   that   "QA   guidelines   should   relate   to   ongoing   enhancement   and   inspiration"   of   the   QA  

approach  and  not  solely  act  as  a  "checklist  for  compliance".  

HECA  would  welcome  further  clarity  and  description  of  the  approach  described  as  guidelines  being  

issued  in  ''modular''  format  for  different  sectors  or  specific  themes.  

3.3:  HECA  welcomes  the  approach  whereby  the  new  QQI  QA  guidelines  will  be  developed  by  building  

on  the  existing  guidelines,  largely  developed  under  the  previous  HETAC  system,  and  in  which  HECA  

providers  have  invested  considerable  time  and  resources.  

HECA   is   in   agreement   with   the   approach   to   the   development   of   the   QA   guidelines   being  

"collaborative  and  evolutionary  rather  than  revolutionary".  

3.4:  HECA  welcomes  the  provision  of  guidance  where  necessary  and  sees  this  as  a  step  on  the  way  

towards  greater  maturity  on  the  part  of  the  institution  or  sector  in  question.  

3.5:   HECA   agrees   that   QA   guidelines   should   be   continually   redeveloped   and   updated   but   in   a  

considered  manner  that  is  efficient  and  cognisant  of  the  maturity  of  the  institutions  concerned.  

Page 43: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

QQI COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

SUBMISSIONS: WHITE PAPERS

POLICY ON QUALITY ASSURANCE GUIDELINES

SUBMISSION BY:

The Irish Universities Association

The submissions have not been altered, except to divide feedback

between the specific consultation documents to which they apply.

Page 44: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

Submission  by:   The  Irish  Universities  Association  

P2  Introduction  and  Rationale  

This  section  states  that  “The  principles  underpinning  QQI  policy  on  QA  guidelines  are  both  stated  

explicitly  and  embedded  within  this  policy”.  The  IUA  considers  that  all  principles  need  to  be  stated  

explicitly,  rather  than  embedded,  (ie  stated  implicitly).  

P3.  Legal  context  

The  IUA  welcomes  QQIs  intention  to  issue  a  range  of  guidelines  for  different  types  of  providers.  

P4.  QA  Guidelines  

Section  3.2  states  that  guidelines  are  not  QA  procedures  or  criteria.  However,  it  then  refers  to  

protocols  (prescribed  mechanisms  for  meeting  criteria),  criteria,  standards,  etc.  The  universities  will  

need  to  determine  their  own  mechanisms  to  meet  whatever  guidelines  and/or  criteria  are  required,  

not  follow  prescribed  mechanisms  set  by  QQI.  

Section  3.2  also  refers  to  guidelines  which  are  “adapted  and  continuously  evolved”.  See  also  Section  

3.5  which  refers  to  “continual  development”.  When  guidelines  exist,  these  need  to  be  stable  so  that  

HEIs  can  use  them  to  ensure  long-­‐term  quality  enhancement.  It  is  not  possible  to  operate  effective  

QA  in  an  environment  where  guidelines  are  continuously  being  changed.  

P6:    

The  universities  would  welcome  further  explanation  of  the  “modular”  format  concept  proposed  

(“Guidelines  will  be  issued  in  a  ‘modular’  format”).  It  should  be  noted  that  The  QAA  approach  is  

based  on  chapters,  not  modules.  Does  this  imply  that  different  sets  of  guidelines  will  be  issued  at  

different  times,  for  different  sectors,  different  themes?    

There  is  also  a  reference  to  “voluntary  higher  education”.  It  is  not  clear  what  this  terminology  

means.  

3.3  Approaches  to  development  

The  White  Paper  states  that  “QQI  QA  guidelines  will  be  developed  by  building  on  the  existing  QA  

guidelines”.  The  IUA  encourages  QQI  to  take  into  account  the  recent  “Review  of  Reviews”  in  this  

context,  which  indicated  the  need  for  a  broader  discussion  about  a  range  of  possible  new  

approaches  to  QA.  

Page 45: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

There  is  also  a  reference  that  QQI  will  “address  any  gaps  that  may  arise  out  of  the  implementation  of  

the  national  strategies  for  further  and  higher  education  and  training….”.  In  the  opinion  of  the  IUA,  

this  is  an  HEA  matter,  unless  QQI  tightens  this  reference  to  refer  explicitly  to  QA  guidelines.  It  might  

be  preferable  to  rephrase  this  as  “ensure  that  QA  requirements  arising  from  the  2012  Act  are  

considered  in  any  institutional  cluster  arrangements,  mergers  or  alignments,  arising  from  the  

National  HE  strategy”,  or  words  to  that  effect.  

P7,  Section  3.4.b  Prescription  and  Aspiration  

“Where  the  activity  or  sector  being  addressed  warrants  detailed  and  prescriptive  guidance,  this  may  

be  provided  for  within  the  guidelines.  Where  the  area  being  addressed  by  the  guideline  is,  for  

example;  less  mature  or  poses  a  greater  risk  to  learners  or  the  education  and  training  system  in  

general,  the  guidelines  may  be  less  of  an  aspiration  and  more  of  a  statement  of  expectation.  This  

does  not  imply  compliance  oriented  guidelines,  but  that  more  guidance  is  seen  as  necessary.”  

In  the  IUA’s  opinion,  this  entire  paragraph  is  confusing  and  needs  to  be  rewritten.  

Page 46: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

QQI COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

SUBMISSIONS: WHITE PAPERS

POLICY ON QUALITY ASSURANCE GUIDELINES

SUBMISSION BY:

The Federation of Irish Complementary Therapy Associations

The submissions have not been altered, except to divide feedback

between the specific consultation documents to which they apply.

Page 47: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

Submission  by:   The  Federation  of  Irish  Complementary  Therapy  Associations  

The  Federation  of  Irish  Complementary  Therapy  Associations  (FICTA)  welcomes  

QQI's  approach  to  the  development  of  QA  guidelines  which  will  explain  what  QA  guidelines  are  and  

how  they  should  be  used.  The  stated  purpose  of  "guidelines"  and  their  value  to  providers  as  a  

resource  in  developing  their  own  QA  procedures  is  agreeable.  

The  development  of  a  range  of  guidelines  for  different  types  of  providers  and  appropriate  for  

different  purposes  is  welcome.  The  overarching  principles  which  will  apply  to  all  QA  guidelines  

should  result  in  consistency  in  the  quality  of  provision  and  standards  attained  by  learners  across  all  

education  and  training  systems  and  sectors.  

The  development  of  guidelines  for  innovation  in  provision,  which  could  otherwise  result  in  chaos  and  

confusion,  is  noteworthy.  

QQI's  collaborative  and  evolutionary  approach  to  the  development  of  guidelines  is  appropriate  and  

should  result  in  the  empowerment  of  providers,  giving  them  a  sense  of  'ownership'  which  could  

generate  real  commitment  to  deliver  on  their  own  

QA  procedures  to  the  benefit  of  learners  and  the  satisfaction  of  the  QQI.  

FICTA  looks  forward  to  engaging  collaboratively  with  the  QQI  in  the  development  of  

QA  guidelines  for  the  CAM  (Complementary  and  Alternative  Therapy/Medicine)  sector.  

Page 48: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

QQI COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

SUBMISSIONS: WHITE PAPERS

POLICY ON QUALITY ASSURANCE GUIDELINES

SUBMISSION BY:

Griffith College Dublin

The submissions have not been altered, except to divide feedback

between the specific consultation documents to which they apply.

Page 49: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

Submission  by:   Griffith  College  Dublin  

Overall:   Not  disputing  the  need  for  the  particular  content  included,  the  focus  of  the  policy  is  

very  much  on  compliance  and  quality  control.  This  suggests  conformance  with  

prescriptive  standards  and  an  orientation  that  appears  reactive  rather  than  active.  

Section  3.1:       Possible  inclusion:      

The  section  might  include  references  to  expectations  and  responsibilities  for  quality  

enhancement.    This  would  complement  its  existing  focus  on  control  and  assurance.  

Section  3.2     Possible  inclusion  

The  section  might  strengthen  the  quality  enhancement  perspective.    The  welcome  

reference  to  enhancement  (in  (d))  will  serve  to  bring  organisations  up  to  the  

standards  and  practices  of  others  in  the  country.        It  would  be  helpful  if  institutions  

leading  best  practice  could  benefit  from  similar  enhancement  opportunities  

Section  3.3   QQI  can  also  ‘determine’  effective  practice  by  adopting  guidelines  issued  by  other  

providers.  

The  choice  of  the  term  ‘determine’  appears  prescriptive  with  respect  to  guidelines.      

Possible  inclusion:   Encourage,  support  and  disseminate  innovation  and  

enhancement  with  respect  to  quality  standards  

The  section  appears  responsive  and  reactive,  and  while  revolutionary  change  is  not  

sought,  there  might  be  a  case  for  Ireland’s  greater  role  in  contributing  to  and  driving  

such  changes.  

Section  3.4   Possible  inclusion  

QQI’s  QA  guidelines  will  reflect  Ireland’s  commitment  and  contribution  to  

international  best  practice  …    

Section  3.5   This  section  presents  a  strong  compliance  orientation  along  with  a  reactive  stance  of  

‘keeping  up’  with  the  evolution  of  education.  

A  complementary  balance  might  be  achieved  in  the  re-­‐presentation  of  the  last  

sentence  along  the  following  lines:  

Suggestion:     QQI’s  role  in  this  sense  is  to  assess  and  advance  the  effectiveness  of  the  

guidelines  and  to  facilitate  and  support  their  on-­‐going  development  in  collaboration  and  

consultation  with  educational  partners,  both  nationally  and  internationally.      

Page 50: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

QQI COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

SUBMISSIONS: WHITE PAPERS

POLICY ON QUALITY ASSURANCE GUIDELINES

SUBMISSION BY:

The Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland

The submissions have not been altered, except to divide feedback

between the specific consultation documents to which they apply.

Page 51: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

Submission  by:   The  Royal  College  of  Surgeons  in  Ireland  

RCSI  welcomes  this  measured  document,  in  particular  the  emphasis  on  collaboration  and  

consultation  in  the  development  of  guidelines.  

Page 52: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

QQI COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

SUBMISSIONS: WHITE PAPERS

POLICY ON QUALITY ASSURANCE GUIDELINES

SUBMISSION BY:

University College Cork

The submissions have not been altered, except to divide feedback

between the specific consultation documents to which they apply.

Page 53: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

Submission  by:   University  College  Cork  

UCC  welcomes  the  indication  in  the  draft  policy  that  a  'range  of  guidelines  for  different  types  of  

provider'  will  be  issued,  thus  avoiding  the  problems  related  to  one-­‐size-­‐fits-­‐all  documents.  

Overall,  it  is  difficult  to  provide  too  much  detail  on  this  policy  without  having  a  clearer  indication  of  

what  the  Guidelines  themselves  will  look  like.  However,  some  overarching  points:  

What  will  the  impact  of  the  Review  of  Reviews  report  be  on  the  development  of  the  Guidelines?  

Some  of  the  language  used  is  rather  opaque.    

Specific  comments  on  aspects  of  the  policy:  

3.2  states  clearly  that  the  guidelines  are  'intended  to  guide  providers...'  and  that  they  are  not  QA  

procedures  or  criteria.  However,  the  document  then  states  that  they  will  be  borne  in  mind  when  

'determining  protocols  (prescribed  mechanisms  for  meeting  criteria)'  Without  knowing  what  these  

criteria  might  be,  UCC,  as  a  university  that  is  responsible  for  its  own  quality  assurance,  would  query  

the  necessity  of  'prescribed  mechanisms'  believing  that  it  is  responsible  for  determining  its  own  

procedures  for  QA  and  QI.  

3.2  (page  6)  More  definition  of  what  is  meant  by  'modular  format'  would  be  useful  (notwithstanding  

the  footnote).  Under  the  second  bullet,  what  is  meant  by  'voluntary  higher  education?  

3.3  We  would  suggest  making  the  third  bullet  more  specific  by  adding  the  following:  'Address  any  

gaps  IN  THE  GUIDELINES  TO  ENSURE  THAT  QUALITY  ASSURANCE  REQUIREMENTS  ARE  COVERED.'  

Section  3.4b  More  clarity  on  what  is  meant  by  Prescription  and  Aspiration  would  be  useful  -­‐  the  

message  in  this  paragraph  is  confusing.  

3.5  We  agree  that  review  and  development  of  such  guidelines  is  necessary  but  would  suggest  that  

'continual  development'  is  not  helpful-­‐  if  guidelines  are  constantly  being  revised,  then  HEIs  have  no  

solid  basis  on  which  to  develop  their  own  processes.  

Page 54: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

QQI COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

SUBMISSIONS: WHITE PAPERS

POLICY ON QUALITY ASSURANCE GUIDELINES

SUBMISSION BY:

IADT

The submissions have not been altered, except to divide feedback

between the specific consultation documents to which they apply.

Page 55: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

Submission  by:   IADT  

Re  title:    

Given  the  potential  confusion  around  terms,  could  the  word  Policy  appear  on  its  own  line.  This  is  a  

Policy  (not  a  Guideline!)    

Page  2,  Introduction    

“The  aim  of  the  policy  is  to  provide  the  rationale  and  architecture  for  all  QA  guidelines  issued  by  

QQI.  In  summary  it  should  explain:    

»»  What  QA  guidelines  are  and  how  they  should  be  used”    

Perhaps  also  include  by  whom  they  should  be  used?    

Is  the  word  ‘architecture’  the  clearest  one  in  the  context?  Would  ‘structure’  be  more  

straightforward?    

»»  The  overarching  principles  which  will  apply  to  all  QA  guidelines    

»»  The  rationale  for  developing  a  suite  of  guidelines  for  different  sectors  and  themes.    

The  principles  underpinning  QQI  policy  on  QA  guidelines  are  both  stated  explicitly  and  embedded  

within  this  policy.”    

It  is  assumed  the  principles  referred  to  in  bullets  two  and  three  are  principles  for  the  same  thing.    

Whilst  the  distribution  of  principles  throughout  the  document  in  an  implicit,  and  from  time  to  time  

explicit,  way  may  be  a  sophisticated  presentation,  given  the  time  constraints  of  those  reading  this  

type  of  document,  perhaps  a  more  simple  (albeit  simplistic  too)  approach  would  be  to  give  a  section  

with  overarching  principles?  The  number  of  persons  who  engage  with  QA  as  a  ‘discipline’  in  and  of  

itself,  are  very  few;  the  more  sophisticated  approach  suggests  a  more  nuanced  engagement  than  

persons  generally  have  time  for.    

The  last  bullet/sentence  ‘The  rationale  for…’  seems  to  have  missed  the  opportunity  to  simply  state  

that  QQI  wishes  to  develop  different  guidelines  for  different  sectors.    

Page 56: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

Page  4,  3.1    

“3.1  QUALITY  ASSURANCE  IN  EDUCATION  AND  TRAINING    

QA  is  a  term  generally  used  to  describe  the  processes  that  seek  to  ensure  that  the  learning  

environment  (including  teaching  and  research)  reaches  an  acceptable  threshold  of  quality.  QA  is  also  

used  to  describe  the  enhancement  of  education  provision  and  the  standards  attained  by  learners.”    

In  many  jurisdictions  QA  and  Q  enhancement  are  not  synonymous  as  this  suggests.  If  it  is  intended  

that  the  terms  be  viewed  as  meaning  the  same,  this  should  be  made  explicit  as  it  would  not  be  

generally  presumed.    

“QQI  also  has  a  role  in  working  as  an  international  agency  to  ensure  that  European  norms  and  

international  effective  practice  are  communicated  to  the  Irish  education  and  training  community  

and  are  appropriate  to  the  Irish  context.”    

This  sentence  is  a  bit  ambiguous.  The  clause  after  the  'and'  suggests  that  QQI  should  be  lobbying  

European  and  other  international  policy  makers  to  ensure  policies  proposed  are  inclusive  of  the  Irish  

context.  If  this  is  the  intent,  this  is  a  separate  and  distinct  point,  and  one  worth  making.    

Page  4,  3.2  QUALITY  ASSURANCE  GUIDELINES    

QA  guidelines  are  intended  to  guide  providers  through  their  responsibilities  [1]  for  the  quality  of  

education  and  training  and  the  consistency  of  their  awards  with  the  Framework,  so  they  are  

developed  in  collaboration  with  the  education  and  training  sectors.  [2]    

QA  guidelines  are  not  QA  procedures  or  the  criteria  for  assessing  the  effectiveness  of  QA  

procedures.    

The  2012  Act  requires  providers  to  “have  regard  to”  QQI’s  QA  guidelines  (Section  28  (2))  when  

developing  their  QA  procedures.  QQI  will  similarly  have  regard  to  the  guidelines  when  determining    

protocols  (prescribed  mechanisms  for  meeting  criteria1);  criteria  (things  which  must  be  

demonstrated  by  providers  in  order  to  access  services2);  standards  (thresholds  for  educational  

quality  which  must  be  met3);  and  supplementary  and  supporting  documentation  to  inform  

providers4  and  to  provide  further  explanation.  [3]    

1  the  phrase  ‘guide  providers  through  their  responsibilities’  might  be  better  expressed  ‘support  in  

discharging  their  responsibilities’    

2  The  meaning  of  this  sentence  is  not  clear.  Should  the  clause  starting  'so'  be  a  separate  sentence  to  

make  clear  the  meaning?    

3  It  would  be  helpful  if  QQI  produced  a  statement/policy  on  the  status  of  “Policy”,  Procedure,  

Guidelines,  etc.  as  terms  used  by  QQI.  How  or  where  are  they  defined?  If  this  is  already  done,  can  the  

Page 57: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

appropriate  reference  be  inserted?  This  merits  more  than  insertion  in  a  glossary.  This  is  the  language  

of  expectation  and  implementation  and  the  intent  should  be  very  clear.    

Page  5    

“QQI  QA  guidelines:  [1]  

a) Are  a  ‘keystone’  [2]  for  a  variety  of  QQI  functions,  services  and  policies  including:

~~  Validation  of  programmes  (and  re-­‐validation)  [3]    

~~  Review  of  providers    

~~  Certification  of  learners    

~~  Authorising  the  use  of  the  International  Education  Mark  [4]    

~~  Recognition  of  awards  within  the  National  Framework  of  Qualifications  

~~  Recognition  of  prior  learning  (RPL)    

~~  Access,  transfer  and  progression  (ATP)    

~~  Delegation  of  Authority  to  make  awards  (DA).    

b) Communicate  expectations  about  the  quality  of  provision,  assessment  and  the  teaching  and

learning  experience  in  the  Irish  education  and  training  community  [5]  

c) Bring  coherence  into  [6]  and  between  different  parts  of  the  education  and  training  system

d) Are  a  resource  for  providers’  establishment  of  their  own  QA  procedures.  They  help  identify  and

inspire  areas  for  enhancement,  they  are  not  solely  a  compliance  checklist  [7]  

e) Will  be  adapted  [8]  and  continuously  evolve  to  remain  fit-­‐for-­‐purpose  [9]  for  the  needs  of  the

education  and  training  community  and  the  qualifications  system  

f) Can  be  expected  to  have  different  purposes  and  different  impacts  in  each  sector  and  theme  that

they  address.  The  impact  upon  a  provider  of  the  QA  guidelines  will  depend  upon  the  scope  of  their  

provision  and  the  sector  they  operate  in.”    

1  What  about  including  something  on  governance,  whole-­‐organisation  effectiveness,  etc.  e.g.  

Suggest  perspectives  on  provider  governance,  strategic  planning  and  resource  management  for  

providing  effective  education  and  training  programmes  and  associated  learner  supports.    

2  Not  sure  that  the  meaning  of  ‘keystone’  is  clear.    

3  Is  the  word  validation  necessary  -­‐  could  the  more  inclusive  term  of  approval  be  used?    

4  In  the  context  of  this  list,  should  this  item  not  come  last?  It  is  not  of  the  same  order  as  the  other  

items  -­‐  does  it  actually  need  to  be  included  here  since  this  is  only  a  representative  list?    

5  Is  it  the  quality  of  an  experience  that  one  wishes  to  consider  or  the  quality  of  the  environment  for  

that  experience?    

Page 58: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

6  This  phrasing  suggests  there  is  no  coherence.  Would  the  phrase  -­‐  bring  greater  coherence  -­‐  be  

better?    

7  Suggest  that  they  must  not  be  a  ‘compliance  checklist’  at  all.    

8  Would  the  word  ‘change’  be  clearer  and  more  straightforward  than  ‘adapt’?    

9  This  assumes  that  a  model  of  QA  which  is  'fit  for  purpose'  is  being  adopted.  This  is  an  ‘in  principle’  

matter  and  if  it  is  desired  it  should  be  in  the  earlier  section,  and  its  meaning  proposed.    

Page  6,  3.3    

“QQI  QA  guidelines  will  be  developed  by  building  on  the  existing  QA  guidelines.  QQI  can  [1]  also  

determine  effective  practice  by  adopting  guidelines  issued  by  other  bodies.    

Key  to  development  is  collaboration  and  consultation  with  the  education  and  training  community  

and  stakeholders  in  the  qualifications  system.  QQI  will:    

»»  Reconfigure  the  existing  guidelines  to  comply  with  legal  requirements    

»»  Develop  guidelines  that  are  in  line  with  European  and  Irish  policy  on  education  and  training    

»»  Address  any  gaps  [2]  that  may  arise  out  of  the  implementation  of  the  national  strategies  for  

further  and  higher  education  and  training.  For  example:  [3]    

~~  Clusters  and  strategic  alliances  in  higher  education    

~~  Innovations  in  provision  that  require  different  kinds  of  QA  guidelines    

~~  Reviews  of  the  existing  guidelines  by  QQI  and  their  implementation    

»»  Adopt  guidelines  for  its  own  purposes  and  for  the  education  and  training  community  as  and  when  

required.    

1  Would  the  word  'may'  be  better,  and  should  'other  bodies'  be  defined,  e.g.  European  or  other  

international  bodies?    

2  Does  this  mean  any  QA  gaps?    

3  It  would  be  useful  to  include  in  this  list  joint  provision  and  joint  awards    

Page  6,  Footnote    

“This  concept  underpins  the  architecture  of  the  QAA’s  “UK  Quality  Code  for  Higher  Education”  which  

is  organised  into  modules  called  “parts”  and  “chapters”.”    

The  phrasing  of  this  footnote  is  not  clear.  Is  the  point  that  we  are  doing  the  same  as  the  UK  and  that  

that  is  important,  or  that  we  are  doing  the  same  as  other  international  QA  bodies,  such  as  the  QAA?  

Perhaps  the  QAA  documents  should  be  a  natural  reference  point  –  if  so,  this  should  be  stated  clearly.  

Page  7,  3.4a  

Page 59: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

“QQI’s  QA  guidelines  will  reflect  Ireland’s  commitment  to  international  best  practice,  EU  directives  

and  policy  commitments.”    

In  other  parts  of  the  document  or  similar  documents  the  term  ‘effective  practice’  is  used.  ‘Effective  

practice’  seems  a  better  term.    

Page  7,  3.4b    

“Where  the  activity  or  sector  being  addressed  warrants  detailed  and  prescriptive  guidance,  …”  

“prescriptive  guidance”  is  an  oxymoron.    

Page  8,  3.5    

“QQI  will  not  simply  issue  guidelines  and  then  consider  them  completed  (notwithstanding  the  fact  

that  guidelines,  as  issued  are  in  full  effect  until  replacement  guidelines  are  issued).  Guidelines  will  be  

continually  redeveloped  and  updated  in  order  to  keep  up  with  the  evolution  of  the  education  and  

training  landscape.  The  guidelines  will  change  as  public  policy  changes,  providers  innovate  and  QQI’s  

priorities  change.”    

Is  the  first  sentence  necessary  -­‐  it  sounds  awkward?    

Page  9,  Appendix  A    

This  listing  omits  the  2013  IHEQN,  Guidelines  for  the  Approval,  Monitoring  and  Review  of  

Collaborative  and  Transnational  Provision  

Page 60: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

QQI COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

SUBMISSIONS: WHITE PAPERS

POLICY ON QUALITY ASSURANCE GUIDELINES

SUBMISSION BY:

Longford Women’s Link

The submissions have not been altered, except to divide feedback

between the specific consultation documents to which they apply.

Page 61: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

Submission  by:   Longford  Women's  Link  

The   White   Paper   on   Quality   Assurance   Guidelines   does   not   actually   outline   the   guidelines  

themselves,  therefore  comments  are  limited  to  a  number  of  areas:  

Section  3.2  refers  to  the  fact  that  ‘QA  guidelines  are  not  QA  procedures  or  the  criteria  for  assessing  

the   effectiveness   of  QA   procedures.   The   2012   Act   requires   providers   to   ‘have   regard’   to  QQI’s  QA  

guidelines’.  However,  section  3.2  (a)  states  that  QQI  QA  guidelines  are  a  ‘keystone’   for  a  variety  of  

QQI   functions   including   validation   of   programmes   and   review   of   providers   therefore   we   would  

welcome  clarification  on   this  point.  We   feel   that   this   ties   in   very  much  with   section  3.2   (b)  which  

outlines  QQI’s  commitment  to  communication  and  we  therefore  request  that  these  communications  

are  timely  and  outlines  explicitly  the  obligations  and  requirements  of  the  provider.    

Following  on  from  this  point  regarding  communication,  we  welcome  the  proposal  that  guidelines  will  

be  issued  in  a  modular  format  however  we  would  ask  that  all  guidelines  need  to  clearly  set  out  what  

is   expected   by   QQI   and   also   identify   the   criteria   used   by   QQI   in   relation   to   the   assessment   of  

applications.   Section   3.2   (d)   states   that   QQI   QA   guidelines   ‘are   a   resource   for   providers’  

establishment  of  their  own  QA  procedures’.  While  we  accept  that  QQI  QA  guidelines  are  ‘not  solely  a  

compliance  checklist’  we  believe  that  at  the  very  minimum  they  must  be  clear  and  unambiguous  in  

order  to  provide  direction  for  providers  as  they  develop  their  QA  systems.  

Section  3.3  outlines  approaches  to  development.  The  paper  states  that  ‘key  to  development  is  the  

collaboration  and  consultation  with  the  education  and  training  community  and  stakeholders  in  the  

qualifications  system’.  However  the  paper  does  not  propose  how  this  will  be  implemented.  We  

would  urge  QQI  to  ensure  that  the  wealth  of  experience  held  by  community  education  providers  is  

not  discounted  in  relation  to  QA  development.  It  is  essential  that  there  is  sufficient  confidence  in  

Community  Education  providers  who  take  responsibility  for  developing  and  delivering  their  

programmes  in  order  to  deliver  education  and  training  content  at  the  appropriate  level  and  within  

the  required  frameworks  and  standards.  

Page 62: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

QQI COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

SUBMISSIONS: WHITE PAPERS

POLICY ON QUALITY ASSURANCE GUIDELINES

SUBMISSION BY:

Trinity College Dublin

The submissions have not been altered, except to divide feedback

between the specific consultation documents to which they apply.

Page 63: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

Submission  by:   Trinity  College  Dublin  

 TCD  welcomes  the  opportunity  to  comment  on  the  Policy  on  Quality  Assurance  Guidelines,  as  

required  by  the  2012  Act  (s28  .2).  Since  the  implementation  of  the  Policy  will  be  guided  by  ‘modular’  

guidelines,  still  in  development,  our  response  to  the  White  Paper  can  only  be  at  a  high  level.    

We  are  pleased  to  see  that  the  QA  Guidelines  will  be  adapted  as  necessary  to  remain  fit  for  purpose  

and  developments.  This  needs  to  be  balanced,  however,  with  a  commitment  by  QQI  to  ensure  good  

document  control,  and  to  allow  the  guidelines  to  become  embedded  so  that  institutions  have  a  

stable  reference  when  preparing  for  their  Institutional  Review.    

TCD  also  welcomes  QQI  commitment  to  develop  the  Guidelines  in  consultation  with  the  sector  and  

to  take  account  of  the  QQI  Act  2012  and  the  new  ESG  in  section  3.3.  TCD,  along  with  other  Irish  

Universities,  is  concerned  with  a  perception  of  confluence  between  QQI  and  HEA  with  respect  to  

implementation  of  national  strategies.  It  is  important  that  strategic  targets,  which  have  funding  

implications,  are  not  directly  linked  with  the  function  of  QQI.    

Universities  await  the  release  of  the  Framework  on  Doctoral  Education  and  clarity  on  what  the  HEA  

and  QQI  envisage  for  assessment  of  Research  quality.  

Page 64: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

QQI COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

SUBMISSIONS: WHITE PAPERS

POLICY ON QUALITY ASSURANCE GUIDELINES

SUBMISSION BY:

University College Dublin

The submissions have not been altered, except to divide feedback

between the specific consultation documents to which they apply.

Page 65: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

Submission  by:   University  College  Dublin  

The  scope  and  intent  underpinning  this  White  Paper  is  too  broad.  As  a  consequence,  the  White  

paper  lacks  utility.  The  role  of  QQI  as  set  out  in  3.1  does  not  seem  to  be  aligned  appropriately  with  

the  scope  of  the  implied  role  for  QQI  elaborated  upon  in  the  rest  of  the  White  Paper.  

1. Page  2  -­‐  there  is  a  reference  to  the  White  Paper  setting  out,  amongst  other  things,  'The

overarching  principles  which  will  apply  to  all  QA  guidelines'  -­‐  it  is  unclear  to  UCD  what  these

principles  are  -­‐  there  is  no  further  reference  to  'principles'  in  the  rest  of  the  document.

2. Page  3  -­‐  UCD  supports  the  need  to  issue  a  range  of  QA  guidelines  for  different  types  of

provider  (and  also  for  different  purposes)

3. Page  4  -­‐  3.1  -­‐  the  reference  to  -­‐  ....'teaching  and  research.........reaches  an  acceptable

threshold....'  suggests  that  there  is  a  prescribed  standard  against  which  quality  is  assessed  -­‐  

this  implies  an  audit/compliance  approach  to  quality  which  is  unhelpful  as  it  diminishes  the  

enhancement  element  of  the  current  HE    quality  review  system  

4. Page  4  -­‐  3.1  -­‐  there  is  a  reference  to  QQI  having  a  role  as  an  'international  agency'  -­‐  is  this

not  a  function  of  a  'national  agency'  ?  ie  -­‐  to  monitor  international  developments

5. UCD  recognizes  the  difficulty  of  drafting  one  overarching  policy  on  quality  assurance  to

cover  the  significant  volume  and  diversity  of  HE  providers  -­‐  the  document,  however,  suffers

as  a  result,  by  being  disjointed  eg  it  tries  to  cover  too  many  sectors,  policies,  functions  etc.

The  policy,  as  a  consequence,  is  vague  :  eg  page  5  (f)  -­‐  QQI/QA  guidelines  -­‐    "Can  be  expected

to  have  different  purposes  and  different  impacts  in  each  sector  and  theme  that  they  address.

The  impact  upon  a  provider  of  the  QA  guidelines  will  depend  upon  the  scope  of

their    provision  and  the  sector  they  operate  in'

6. Given  point  5  above  -­‐  it  is  difficult  to  assess  how  the  policy  elements  will  be  applied  across

the  different  sectors

7. Page  6  -­‐  what  is  meant  by  'voluntary  higher  education'?

8. Page  8  -­‐  3.5  -­‐  this  section  is  clunky  -­‐  why  not  simply  state  that  'QA  guidelines  will  be  subject

to  periodic  review'?

Page 66: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

QQI COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

SUBMISSIONS: WHITE PAPERS

POLICY FOR DETERMINING AWARD STANDARDS

SUBMISSION BY:

Further Education Support Service

The submissions have not been altered, except to divide feedback

between the specific consultation documents to which they apply.

Page 67: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

WHITE  PAPER:     POLICY  FOR  DETERMINING  AWARD  STANDARDS  

 

Submission  by:     Further  Education  Support  Service  

The  following  are  the  comments  of  the  Further  Education  Support  Service  (FESS)  on  the  QQI  White  

Paper,  Policy  for  Determining  Awards  Standards.  It  may  also  be  useful  to  reference  the  ESCO  

multilingual  classification  of  European  Skills,  Competencies,  Qualifications  and  Occupations  in  this  

policy.    

 

2.1.1  Validation  and  Awards  Standards  (page  4)  

“These  de-­‐facto  awards  standards  are  maintained  by  providers”.  

From  this  phrase  it  is  unclear  if  the  standards  will  be  maintained  via  the  validated  programme  OR  if  

providers  will  actually  maintain  the  award  standards.  

The  precise  definition  of  the  ‘default  awards  standards’,  which  are  referenced  throughout  the  

document,  is  unclear.    

 

3.2  Development  (page  9)  

QQI  may  adopt  external  standards,  criteria,  norms  or  benchmarks  in  determining  its  own  award  

standards.    

The  rationale  for  adopting  “external  standards”  is  not  clear.  Is  this  to  be  seen  as  an  alternative  to  

aligning  these  existing  external  standards  to  the  framework?        Perhaps  there  are  instances  where  

adopting  external  standards  would  be  more  appropriate,  but  these  are  not  clear.  

 

3.1  Changes  to  the  CAS  introduced  by  this  policy  (pages  14/15/16)  

3.1.1  Assessment    

The  approach  to  assessment  cited  in  this  paper  is  problematic,  i.e.”  a  learner  must  have  acquired  

and  where  appropriate  demonstrated  all  the  expected  LOs  specified  for  the  award.  For  the  avoidance  

of  doubt,  it  is  not  sufficient  that  all  the  LOs  have  been  assessed”.  

While  existing  programmes  ensure  that  learners  will  be  taught  content  reflecting  all  LOs,  assessment  

should  not  be  a  tick  box  exercise  for  each  LO.  A  broad  range  of  LOs  should  be  incorporated  into  

assessment  tasks/activities  -­‐  indicated  in  the  validated  programme.    

SEC  awards  will  be  treated  differently  and  in  the  third  level  sector  a  learner  does  not  have  to  

demonstrate  (via  assessment)  that  they  have  achieved  all  the  LOs.    Why  is  the  FE  sector  being  

treated  differently?  

 

Page 68: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

3.1.2  Capstone  component  award  specifications  (page  14)  

A  capstone  component  award  is  uniquely  associated  with  a  particular  compound  award.  

Clarification  is  required.  It  is  not  evident  how  this  concept  will  work.  The  text  in  the  White  Paper  

explains  that  the  purpose  of  the  capstone  component  is  to  “facilitate  the  demonstration  by  the  

learner  of  the  compound  award’s  overarching  expected  learning  outcomes  –  where  this  cannot  be  

assured  through  achievement  of  other  kinds  of  component  awards”.    

 

The  capstone  component  is  going  to  be  unique  to  a  particular  compound  award,  but  it  is  possible  

that  the  identification  of  the  learning  outcomes  from  the  compound  award  which  are  not  achieved  

through  the  component  awards  will  differ  from  programme  to  programme,  depending  on  the  

components  that  are  offered  to  a  learner  

 

3.1.3  Provider  Developed  Awards  Specifications  

This  is  an  area  where  several  issues  arise.    Is  this  activity  for  providers  with  Delegated  Authority  

only?    The  concept  may  bring  the  FE  sector  back  to  the  NCVA  Locally  Developed  Modules,  where  

many  different  standards  existed  for  the  same  field  area.    This  will  be  a  complete  reversal  of  FETAC  

CAS  policy.    This  may  also  have  implications  for  the  HELS,  and  regress  back  to  private  links  between  

FE  centres/ETBs  and  third  level  colleges  depending  on  the  awards  being  offered  to  learners  by  

particular  providers.  

 

3.1.3  (page  15)  

Bullet  point  number  4:  Belong  to  the  provider  concerned  and  may  not  be  used  by  other  providers  

without  agreement  of  that  provider  and  QQI.  

This  phrase  contradicts  the  “common”  awards  system  as  the  award  will  not  be  “common”  but  

instead,  individual  to  a  provider.  

 

3.1.4  Major,  Special  Purpose  or  Supplemental  Award  Specifications  without  Prescribed  Minor  Awards  

The  format  of  a  major  award  being  determined  without  prescribing  any  components  is  unclear.  

 

3.1.5  Major,  Special  Purpose  or  Supplemental  Award  Specifications  with  Residual  Credit  

It  is  unclear  why  FET  credits  are  being  introduced.  A  credit  system  where  all  credits  are  similar  across  

the  framework  levels  would  be  beneficial.      

Page 69: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

The  issue  of  residual  credit  not  being  a  ‘wild  card’  to  enable  the  arbitrary  use  of  minors  is  cited.  But  

is  this  not  a  programme  validation  issue,  where  providers  state  the  possible  components  that  will  

make  up  the  residue  credit  value,  where  appropriate?  

 

3.1.5  (Page  16)  

Not  all  of  a  certificate’s  credit  needs  to  be  allocated  to  component  awards.    

The  paper  does  not  clarify  how  the  outstanding  credit  will  then  be  allocated.  

 

3.1.6  Alternatives  to  Transferrable  Skills  Pools  for  New  Compound  Award  Specifications  

Is  it  appropriate  to  no  longer  include  transferrable  skills  as  individual  components  for  the  FE  sector?  

Will  the  provider  use  the  ‘provider-­‐developed’  awards,  as  referenced  in  3.1.5  (page  16)  to  develop  a  

component  award  to  include  the  learning  outcomes  from  the  compound  award,  including  the  

transferrable  skills  that  are  not  otherwise  dealt  with  in  the  component  awards  that  the  provider  is  

offering  the  learner?  

It  is  important  not  to  devalue  the  transferrable  skills.    If  our  aim,  as  a  sector,  is  to  produce  learners  

with  skills  that  will  take  then  through  multiple  career  changes,  the  transferrable  skills  are  key  to  their  

ability  to  adapt.    Referencing  the  inclusion  of  “transferrable  skills”,  without  specifying  what  exactly  

they  are,  to  the  programme  developer  will  result  in  confusion  and  a  lack  of  consistency  across  

provision.      

 

4.1  The  CAS’s  Certificate  /  Component  Specification  Syntax  (page  18)  

Certificate  and  component  specifications  normally  address  the  following  headings….  

It  would  be  helpful  for  those  reading  and  interpreting  specifications  if  all  certificate  /  component  

specifications  used  the  same  set  of  headings.    

The  notion  of  “Expected  Learning  Outcomes”  may  be  problematic  as  the  use  of  the  term  expected  

implies  that  while  these  are  what  is  expected,  they  may,  in  fact,  be  quite  different.  It  is  important  

that  some  familiarity  remains.    

 

4.1  (pages  19-­‐22)  

Clarification  is  needed  in  relation  to  the  calculation  of  the  grade  and  how  that  will  happen.    The  

notion  of  ‘other  contributions’  is  not  clear.    

It  is  stated  that  new  award  specifications  may  require  that  all  component  grades  contribute  to  the  

grading  classification  along  with  other  contributions.    This  is  welcome  only  if  the  exempt  grade  is  

taken  on  board  and  considered  in  the  overall  calculation.    

Page 70: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

 

4.2  Title  section  

It  appears  that  the  (CAS)  award  title  structure  will  not  be  changed,  and  thus  there  is  unnecessary  

detail  in  this  section.  

 

4.4  FET  credit  associated  with  a  CAS  award  at  a  given  Framework  level  assumes  (unless  otherwise  

stated)  as  a  baseline  that  the  learner  has  already  achieved  the  requirements  for  the  previous  

Framework  level  in  the  discipline-­‐area  concerned.  (Page  20)  

Does  this  mean  that  a  learner  can  claim  an  exemption  for  a  component  where  the  learner  has  

achieved  certification  in  the  same  component’s  discipline  area  at  the  level  above  that  of  the  

compound  award?  

 

4.8  Assessment  requirements    

It  is  surprising  that,  in  an  award  specification,  this  section  can  be  left  blank.  

 

   

Page 71: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

QQI COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

SUBMISSIONS: WHITE PAPERS

POLICY FOR DETERMINING AWARD STANDARDS

SUBMISSION BY:

Waterford Institute of Technology

The submissions have not been altered, except to divide feedback

between the specific consultation documents to which they apply.

Page 72: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

Submission  by:     Waterford  Institute  of  Technology  

3.6  

Will  each  provider  receive  notification  when  minor  changes  are  made  to  awards  standards  both  

within  and  outside  the  review  cycle?  

 

   

Page 73: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

QQI COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

SUBMISSIONS: WHITE PAPERS

POLICY FOR DETERMINING AWARD STANDARDS

SUBMISSION BY:

Dublin City University

The submissions have not been altered, except to divide feedback

between the specific consultation documents to which they apply.

Page 74: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

Submission  by:     Dublin  City  University  

No  comments  

 

   

Page 75: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

QQI COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

SUBMISSIONS: WHITE PAPERS

POLICY FOR DETERMINING AWARD STANDARDS

SUBMISSION BY:

Federation of Irish Complementary Therapy Associations

The submissions have not been altered, except to divide feedback

between the specific consultation documents to which they apply.

Page 76: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

Submission  by:     Federation  of  Irish  Complementary  Therapy  Associations  

The  policy  proposed  in  this  White  Paper  for  the  range  of  approaches  used  by  QQI  in  the  

development  and  determination  of  awards  standards  is  broadly  acceptable  to  

FICTA.  

Would  it  not  be  in  the  best  interests  of  learners  access  to  transfer  or  progression,  to  the  public  and  

to  potential  employers,  that  the  awards  made  by  DAs  (1.1.2.)  are  consistent  with  or  referenced  to  

the  appropriate  level  within  the  Framework?  

 

FICTA  welcomes  the  inclusion  of  "Occupational  Standards"  (2.1.2),  the  purpose  of  which  is  to  qualify  

a  person  to  practice  a  specific  profession  where  practical  skills  and  competencies  are  a  fundamental  

requirement  and  not  to  be  confused  with  or  aligned  to  apprenticeship  awards.  

 

FICTA  agrees  that  such  an  award  is  not  of  itself  an  indication  of  fitness  to  practice,  nor  a  licence  to  

practice  and  expects  that  the  CAM  sector  in  Ireland  will  be  actively  involved  in  developing  

occupational  standards  for  its  own  disciplines.  

 

The  White  Paper  states  that  "It  is  important  to  avoid  dead-­‐end  qualification"  (2.5),  but  in  Appendix  1  

(3.1.2),  refers  to  a  "Capstone"  component  award.  As  'capstone'  means  topping-­‐off  or  finishing,  this  

seems  to  conflict  with  the  statement  referred  to  above.  An  more  detailed  explanation  on  the  benefit  

of  a  'Capstone  Award'  would  be  appreciated.  

 

Furthermore,  the  introduction  of  such  terms  as  "the  stem  title"  in  place  of  NFQ  Type  and  Class,  and  

subject  "string"  is  quite  irritating  and  far  from  helpful.  

 

In  service  to  the  quality  of  the  consultation  process,  the  development  and  publication  of  terms  to  be  

used  consistently  by  QQI  should  be  prioritised.  

 

   

Page 77: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

QQI COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

SUBMISSIONS: WHITE PAPERS

POLICY FOR DETERMINING AWARD STANDARDS

SUBMISSION BY:

Dublin and Dún Laoghaire ETB

The submissions have not been altered, except to divide feedback

between the specific consultation documents to which they apply.

Page 78: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

Submission  by:     Dublin  and  Dún  Laoghaire  ETB  

Section  2.1  Approach  to  Standards  Determination  

Reference  is  made  such  that  "QQI’s  FET  awards  standards  tend  to  be  more  specific  than  its  HET  

awards  standards  and  specific  standards  have  been  determined  for  all  of  QQI’s  named  FET  

awards."    While  a  rationale  is  outlined  for  the  specificity  of  awards  at  HET  in  the  previous  paragraph,  

there  is  no  rationale  outlined  as  to  the  reason  why  FET  awards  standards  are  more  specific.    Such  a  

rationale  would  be  welcome.    

 

Section  2.6  Common  European  Framework  of  Reference  for  Languages  (CEFRL)  

It  would  lead  to  greater  clarity  and  transparency  if  component  specifications  for  QQI  awards  in  the  

field  of  languages  (foreign  languages  and  ESOL)  were  referenced  against  the  CEFRL  on  awards  

specifications.  

 

Appendix  3.1.1  Assessment  

Referencing  section  3.1.1,  to  successfully  achieve  an  award/component  "a  learner  must  have  

acquired  and  where  appropriate  demonstrated  all  the  expected  LOs  specified  for  the  award.  For  the  

avoidance  of  doubt,  it  is  not  sufficient  that  all  the  LOs  have  been  assessed".  

 

It  is  unclear  what  outcome  is  intended  from  the  above.    If  it  is  intended  that  each  of  the  LOs  are  

separately  assessed,  and  that  a  shortfall  in  the  acquisition  of  any  one  LO  will  result  in  failing  an  

award,  the  problems  for  devising  assessments  will  be  numerous.    As  the  assessment  of  LOs  are  only  

placed  within  appropriate  assessment  instruments  during  the  programme/module  writing  stage,  and  

bearing  in  mind  that  this  is  determined  by  the  local  programme/module  writer,  it  will  be  incumbent  

on  writers  to  devise  instruments  that  assess  proficiency  at  a  granular  level.    While  there  may  be  a  

case  for  the  successful  acquisition  of  core  LOs  (mandatory  LOs  perhaps?),  to  require  success  in  all  

LOs  is  both  at  variance  with  other  assessment  systems  in  HE  and  post-­‐primary  State  exams,  will  also  

cause  great  difficulty  in  design  and  delivery  of  assessments,  and  put  pressure  on  the  design  of  future  

standards  to  keep  LOs  to  a  minimum  core  set  of  mandatory  outcomes.  

 

Appendix  3.1.2    Capstone  Component  Award  Specifications  

The  Capstone  concept  (presumably  an  award  project)  is  a  welcome  one.    However,  cognisance  must  

be  given  to  credit  value  and  progression/transfer  implications  to  higher  levels  of  learning,  

particularly  where  RPL  is  concerned  when  transferring  from  a  FET  to  HET  programme  through  

advanced  progression  routes.  

Page 79: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

 

Appendix  3.1.3  Provider  Developed  Awards  Specifications  

The  process  whereby  providers  can  develop  their  own  standards  is  welcome.    However,  two  points  

stand  out  as  requiring  clarification:  

• Must  always  include  a  capstone  component  as  described  in  the  previous  sub  section.  

-­‐  A  suggestion  to  amend  this  to  "May  include  a  capstone  component...",  to  remain  

consistent  with  the  previous  section,  i.e.  "A  compound  award’s  certificate  requirements  may  

include  a  mandatory  capstone  component  award...—where  [overarching  expected  LOs]  

cannot  be  assured  through  achievement  of  other  kinds  of  component  awards."(3.1.2)  

• Must  be  approved  (and  periodically  reviewed)  in  the  context  of  a  programme  validation  (and  

revalidation)  process  involving  an  expert  panel  who  can  make  national  and  international  

comparisons.  

-­‐How  is  this  Expert  Panel  devised?    Who  selects  the  panel?    If  DA  for  FET  providers  is  to  

provide  parity  of  esteem  with  HET  providers,  there  should  be  an  appropriate  and  fair  policy  

around  engaging  with  Expert  Panels  in  line  with  HET  processes.      

   

Table  1  credits  make  no  mention  of  the  potential  for  Capstone  credit.  

 

Section  3.2  Standards  Development  and  Determination  Process  

It  would  be  our  opinion  that  a  five  year  duration  for  some,  if  not  all,  awards  may  be  too  long  if  they  

are  to  remain  ‘fit  for  purpose’.  

 

Section  4.4  FET  CREDIT  

In  rationalising  NFQ,  progression  and  access  from  FET  to  HET,  some  clarity  or  reflection  around  the  

relationship  of  FET  credits  and  and  HET  ECTS  credits  would  be  welcome.  

 

Section  4.8  ASSESSMENT  REQUIREMENTS  

 "An  award  specification  may  apportion  the  determination  of  the  overall  grade  to  a  combination  of  

assessment  techniques:  e.g.  Project  20%  Examination-­‐Theory  80%."  

-­‐  It  would  be  useful  if  the  combination  of  assessment  techniques  were  programme  specific,  i.e.  a  

more  flexible  approach  to  determining  appropriate  assessment  of  learners  reaching  expected  LOs.  

 

   

Page 80: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

QQI COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

SUBMISSIONS: WHITE PAPERS

POLICY FOR DETERMINING AWARD STANDARDS

SUBMISSION BY:

Chartered Accountants Ireland

The submissions have not been altered, except to divide feedback

between the specific consultation documents to which they apply.

Page 81: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

Submission  by:     Chartered  Accountants  Ireland  

On  behalf  of  Chartered  Accountants  Ireland  I  wish  to  confirm  that  we  have  reviewed  the  above  

policy  statement  and  consider  it  to  be  clear  and  comprehensive.    We  do  not  have,  at  this  time,  any  

suggestions  for  amendment  or  improvement.  

 

   

Page 82: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

QQI COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

SUBMISSIONS: WHITE PAPERS

POLICY FOR DETERMINING AWARD STANDARDS

SUBMISSION BY:

Griffith College Dublin

The submissions have not been altered, except to divide feedback

between the specific consultation documents to which they apply.

Page 83: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

Submission  by:     Griffith  College  Dublin  

Recommendation:   That  QQI  actively  considers  the  inclusion  on  the  NFQ  of  a  Postgraduate  

Certificate  award  at  NFQ  level  9  with  30  ECTS.      

Rationale:    Candidates  who  hold  an  undergraduate  honours  degree  at  NFQ  level  8  often  wish  to  

advance  their  education.    Some  of  this  education  can  be  appropriately  provided  in  narrow  specialist  

areas.    The  title  Certificate  does  not  adequately  reflect  the  post-­‐graduate  nature  of  the  educational  

challenge.    Equally  the  duration  and  breadth  of  the  programme  do  not  warrant  a  postgraduate  

diploma.  

Familiar  examples  in  the  UK  include  the  PGCE  (Postgraduate  Certificate  in  Education)  

 

Some  typographical  queries  /  suggestions:  

Section  2.8:   Credit  

Awards  are  made  on  the  basis  of  the  achievement  of  prescribed  standards  of  knowledge,  

skill  and  competence.  

Section  2.9   …  and  providers  with  DA  are  required  to  establish  procedures  

The  assessment,  classification  and  grading  of  education  and  training  awards  are  discussed  in  

QQI’s  …  

 

   

Page 84: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

QQI COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

SUBMISSIONS: WHITE PAPERS

POLICY FOR DETERMINING AWARD STANDARDS

SUBMISSION BY:

The Higher Education Colleges Association

The submissions have not been altered, except to divide feedback

between the specific consultation documents to which they apply.

Page 85: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

Submission  by:     The  Higher  Education  Colleges  Association  

Having  considered  this  White  Paper,  HECA’s  response  is  as  follows:  

Page  4:    2.1:    Reference  is  made  to  “(repurposed)  Framework  award-­‐type  descriptors”.      HECA  is  

unsure  what  is  meant  by  this  and  would  welcome  clarification.  

Page  9:    3.2:    It  is  stated  that  “QQI  may  manage  the  development  of  an  award  standard  itself  or  

enter  into  an  arrangement  with  another  body”.      HECA  would  appreciate  further  clarification  as  to  

how  such  a  body  would  be  selected;  what  criteria  would  be  used  whether  

statutory/professional/regulatory  etc.  

Page  10:  3.6:    Under  the  heading  “Review”  it  is  stated  that  “Minor  changes  may  be  made  by  the  QQI  

executive  outside  the  review  cycle  where  necessary”.      Further  information  would  be  welcome  to  

explain  what  is  meant  by  “minor  changes”;  how  would  these  be  communicated;  would  providers  

have  the  opportunity  to  comment  or  to  suggest  other  changes?  

 

   

Page 86: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

QQI COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

SUBMISSIONS: WHITE PAPERS

POLICY FOR DETERMINING AWARD STANDARDS

SUBMISSION BY:

IADT

The submissions have not been altered, except to divide feedback

between the specific consultation documents to which they apply.

Page 87: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

Submission  by:     IADT  

Page  2,  1.1.2  Providers  with  DA    

DA  should  be  spelt  out.    

“These  providers  make  awards  in  respect  of  programmes  of  education  and  training  that  they  

validate  against  QQI  awards  standards.”    

 

It  would  be  important,  particularly  for  an  international  audience,  to  insert  the  word  ‘autonomously’  

before  the  word  ‘validate’.    

 

Page  2,  1.1.3,  Designated  Awarding  Bodies....    

Given  that  this  is  a  limited  group  and  that  this  document  may  have  international  readership,  perhaps  

they  could  be  listed  in  a  footnote,  to  ensure  completeness  of  information?    

 

Page  3,  1.1.4    

It  would  be  useful  to  state  that  this  can  include  international  bodies  and  professional  bodies.    

 

Page  4,  2.1.  Approach  to  Standards  Determination    

"The  least  specific  award  standards  are  the  (repurposed)  Framework  award-­‐type  descriptors."    

It  would  be  useful  to  insert  a  reference  to  where  these  can  be  accessed.    

 

“QQI’s  higher  education  and  training  (HET)  awards  standards  tend  to  be  less  specific  than  its  further  

education  and  training  (FET)  awards  standards.”    

Why?  Why  does  level  of  award  require  a  different  specificity?  Is  there  another/different  

determinant  other  than  'level'?    

 

Page  4,  2.1.1  Validation  and  Awards  Standards    

"The  de  facto  award  standard  for  a  particular  named  award  as  issued  is  the  statement  of  

minimum..."    

Perhaps  give  example  of  a  named  award  so  that  this  sentence  is  clearly  understood.    

 

Page  4,  2.1.1  Validation  &  Awards  Standards    

"While  QQI  awards  standards  and  corresponding  awards  specifications  are  more  or  less  specific,  the  

intended  programme  learning  outcomes  to  be  acquired,  and  where  appropriate  demonstrated,"    

What  is  the  purpose  of  this  clause?  Is  it  unnecessarily  introducing  a  concept  of  assessment  here?    

Page 88: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

 

Page  4,  Page  5    

Last  paragraph/sentence    

Perhaps  this  paragraph  can  be  broken  into  two  sentences,  or  in  the  final  document  perhaps  it  can  be  

on  a  single  page.    

 

Page  6,  2.2    

What  does  this  sentence  imply  about  FET  validation  and  awards  standards?    

How  about  something  like  this  instead?    

Specific  awards  standards  will  not  routinely  be  determined  for  HET  awards.  The  culture  of  autonomy  

within  HE,  combined  with  staff  participation  and  leadership  in  communities  of  knowledge  and  

practice,  means  that  HET  providers  are  normally  best  placed  to  determine  minimum  intended  

programme  learning  outcomes.    

 

Page  7,  2.4  APPRENTICESHIP  AWARDS  STANDARDS    

“Where  required,  QQI  will  determine  awards  standards  for  FET  and  HET  apprenticeship  awards.  The    

approach  will  be  consistent  with  the  principles  outlined  in  this  policy  and  the  implementation  plan.”    

It  may  be  useful  to  extract  those  principles  into  a  dedicated  section.    

 

Page  9    

"QQI  may  manage  the  development  of  an  award  standard  itself  or  enter  into  an  arrangement  with  

another  body."    

Such  as...    

 

Page  14,  3  -­‐  The  CAS    

This  seems  very  complex.  Is  it  necessary  in  its  present  form?  

   

Page 89: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

QQI COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

SUBMISSIONS: WHITE PAPERS

POLICY AND CRITERIA FOR MAKING AWARDS

SUBMISSION BY:

Waterford Institute of Technology

The submissions have not been altered, except to divide feedback

between the specific consultation documents to which they apply.

Page 90: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

WHITE  PAPER:   POLICY  AND  CRITERIA  FOR  MAKING  AWARDS  

 

Submission  by:     Waterford  Institute  of  Technology  

2.1.1b.  Special  Purpose:  Level  N  Specific  Purpose  Certificate  

Seeing  as  the  title  of  the  award  is  “Special  Purpose”  should  the  parchment  also  say  “Special  Purpose”  

rather  than  “Specific  Purpose”  for  consistency  (or  vice  versa?).    

 

2.1.1  and  2.1.2  (d)  

It  is  not  clear  where  the  title  of  the  major  award  appears  on  the  parchment.  

 

2.1.2  

Will  Level  9  and  Level  10  research  awards  also  have  the  format:  [Named  Award  Stem]  in  

[Specialisation]?  

 

2.6  

In  what  way  is  an  award  withdrawn?  Can  a  graduate  rescind  an  award?  

 

Appendix  1  

We  request  that  Ed.  D  Doctor  of  Education  be  added  to  the  appendix.  

 

   

Page 91: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

QQI COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

SUBMISSIONS: WHITE PAPERS

POLICY AND CRITERIA FOR MAKING AWARDS

SUBMISSION BY:

Dublin City University

The submissions have not been altered, except to divide feedback

between the specific consultation documents to which they apply.

Page 92: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

Submission  by:     Dublin  City  University  

Page  8:    

The  following  sentence  needs  amendment:  ‘Awards  are  made  on  the  basis  of  the  achievement  of  a  

prescribed  standards  knowledge,  skill  and  competence.’    

Page  10:    

Is  it  certain  that  all  major  awards  from  DABs  are  included  here?  E.g.  UCD  has  a  Masters  of  

Engineering  Science.      

 

   

Page 93: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

QQI COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

SUBMISSIONS: WHITE PAPERS

POLICY AND CRITERIA FOR MAKING AWARDS

SUBMISSION BY:

The Federation of Irish Complementary Therapy Associations

The submissions have not been altered, except to divide feedback

between the specific consultation documents to which they apply.

Page 94: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

Submission  by:     The  Federation  of  Irish  Complementary  Therapy  Associations  

QQI's  policy  and  criteria  for  making  awards  are  generally  agreeable  to  FICTA.  

We  are  curious  to  know  what  an  "unclassified  award"  would  be?  

 

   

Page 95: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

QQI COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

SUBMISSIONS: WHITE PAPERS

POLICY AND CRITERIA FOR MAKING AWARDS

SUBMISSION BY:

Griffith College Dublin

The submissions have not been altered, except to divide feedback

between the specific consultation documents to which they apply.

Page 96: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

Submission  by:     Griffith  College  Dublin  

Section  2.1.2:   The  distinction  made  between  training  awards  and  licences  to  practise  is  welcome.  

Section  2.5   The  choice  of  the  term  ‘dead-­‐end  qualification’  seems  harsh.    Not  all  qualification  

paths  need  to  terminate  at  NFQ  level  10.    For  example  training  in  manual  handling  

and  SAFE  Pass  may  be  sufficient  for  most  candidates  in  a  sector  with  respect  to  one  

aspect  of  their  employment.    There  may  not  be  a  need  for  follow-­‐on  cognate  

training.    These  candidates  may  seek  alternative  paths  on  the  framework  for  

progression  by  following  other  areas  of  development.  

Section  3.3   The  use  of  the  word  ‘normally’  suggests  that  consultation  may  not  always  be  

provided.    Is  there  not  a  case  for  ensuring  that  such  a  consultation  process  exists?    In  its  absence,  a  

standard  developed  by  QQI  or  another  body  (3.2)  could  be  approved  by  QQI  Policies  and  Standards  

Committee  without  the  safeguards  of  such  input.  

 

   

Page 97: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

QQI COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

SUBMISSIONS: WHITE PAPERS

POLICY AND CRITERIA FOR MAKING AWARDS

SUBMISSION BY:

IADT

The submissions have not been altered, except to divide feedback

between the specific consultation documents to which they apply.

Page 98: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

Submission  by:     IADT  

Page  2,  1.1.3    

Should  the  title  of  this  section  be  reversed,  i.e.  “QQI  entering  into  Joint  Awarding  Agreements  with  

other  Awarding  Bodies”    

 

“Under  section  51  of  the  2012  Act,  QQI  may,  for  the  purposes  of  making  a  joint  award  to  an  enrolled  

learner  in  respect  of  a  programme  of  education  and  training  that  it  has  validated,  enter  into  a  joint  

awarding  arrangement  with”    

This  implies  that  it  is  not  relevant  to  providers  to  whom  authority  has  been  delegated.  It  would  be  

useful  to  state  this  explicitly,  even  in  a  footnote.    

 

Page  3,  1.3    

The  2012  Act  is  already  quite  detailed  and  this  policy  need  not  necessarily  repeat  what  is  contained  

in  the  Act.    

Suggest  deleting  ‘already’    

 

Page  4,  2.1.1    

“[Named  award  stem]  in  [Specialisation]”  –  Is  the  word  ‘stem’  necessary?  What  does  it  contribute?    

 

Page  5    

“c.  No  minor,  special  purpose  or  supplemental  award  classes  are  currently  available  at  Framework  

Level  10.”    

Why  is  this  statement  here?  What  is  the  precise  point?  It  is  supplementary  information,  rather  than  a  

policy  statement?    

 

“Award  names  for  the  professional  award  class  shall  be  agreed  in  writing  with  QQI  on  a  case-­‐by-­‐case  

basis.”    

Does  this  include  institutions  with  DA?  If  so,  surely  it  is  an  unnecessary  control?    

 

“Single  subject  certificates  issued  by  providers  are  not  Framework  awards.”    

Would  there  be  value  in  including  the  fact  that  they  may  be  recognised  as  learning  leading  to  a  

Framework  award.    

 

Page  6,  2.2    

Page 99: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

“Education  and  training  awards  may  be  made  under  this  policy  by  QQI  (subject  to  payment  of  the  

applicable  fee  by  the  provider  concerned)  and  by  providers  to  which,  under  section  51(3),  authority  

to  make  an  award  has  been  delegated.”    

Is  this  an  appropriate  clause  in  a  policy  document  on  criteria  for  making  awards?  Its  exclusion  from  

this  document  does  not  remove  the  requirement.    

 

2.3  MAKING  EDUCATION  AND  TRAINING  AWARDS  UNDER  SECTION  50(3)    

QQI  provides  an  award  making  service  that  is  available  to  the  general  public.  Details  of  the  service  

will  be  provided  separately  when  available.    

Should  this  not  be  at  the  outset  of  the  document,  in  the  section  which  addresses  purpose/scope.  It  

seems  to  have  misplaced  prominence  here.    

 

2.4  CONFERRING  EDUCATION  AND  TRAINING  AWARDS    

“An  education  and  training  award  signifies  a  significant  achievement  and  it  is  fitting  that  there  be  a  

formal  public  announcement  of  all  awards  made.    

A  formal  public  conferring  ceremony  should  normally  be  arranged  for  each  cohort  of  higher  

education  and  training  graduands.  Guidelines  on  academicals  (caps,  academic  gowns,  hoods  and  

epitogues)  and  the  conduct  of  conferring  ceremonies  are  available  from  QQI.”    

It  would  be  helpful  if  the  name  of  the  document  in  which  these  Guidelines  appear  was  given.    

 

2.5  RECORDS    

QQI  collects,  and  requires  providers  with  DA  to  collect  specified  data  about  each  named  award  made  

and  the  learner  to  whom  the  award  is  made.  This  data  must  be  made  available  to  QQI  on  request.  

Such  providers  are  also  required  to  keep  informed  of  the  current  QQI  specifications  with  respect  to  

the  collection  and  maintenance  of  award  records.    

What  is  QQI's  role  re  providing  information  to  providers?    

 

Page  7    

“All  providers  to  whom  this  policy  applies  shall  ensure  that  they  implement  [1]  procedures  for  the  

withdrawal  of  an  award  from  a  learner  (or  for  the  recommendation  of  withdrawal  of  an  award  by  

QQI)  including  learner  appeals  procedures  [2].  The  procedures  for  the  recommendation  of  

withdrawal  of  an  award  shall  be  the  responsibility  of  the  provider  concerned  when  the  award  was  

made  by  QQI  unless  the  provider  concerned  has  ceased  being  relevant  provider  under  the  2012  

Act.[3]”    

Page 100: SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS - QQI Paper Submission… · SUBMISSIONS WHITE PAPERS WHITE PAPER Policy on Monitoring WHITE PAPER Policy on Quality Assurance Guidelines WHITE PAPER Policy

1  Perhaps  “have  procedures  and  implement  as  appropriate”  might  be  better?    

2  It  is  not  clear  what  the  relevance  of  the  last  clause  is.    

3  The  meaning  of  the  last  sentence  is  not  clear.    

 

Page  8,  2.8    

“Accordingly,  credit  can  only  be  attached  to  a  named  award  when  the  learner’s  baseline  knowledge,  

skill  and  competence  are  specified.”    

What  does  this  mean?  It  seems  to  imply  something  about  entry  requirements?  Is  there  some  

implication  of  this  sentence  that  is  meant  to  be  understood,  if  so  it  may  be  useful  to  make  it  explicit?    

“Averages  are  to  be  taken  over  learners  studying  at  similar  NFQ  levels  in  the  same  broad  field  of  

learning.”    

What  does  this  mean?  Who  is  taking  averages  of  what  and  for  what  purpose?    

 

Page  8,  2.9    

“The  assessment,  classification  and  grading  of  education  and  training  awards  is  discussed  in  QQI’s  

published  guidelines  on  assessment.”    

It  would  be  useful  to  insert  the  name  of  this  document.    

 

Page  8,  Footnote    

“HET  credit  has  up  to  now  been  affiliated  to  the  European  Credit  Transfer  System;  QQI  is  examining  

the  future  feasibility  of  this  affiliation.”    

Presumably  such  an  ‘examination’  will  be  taking  place  in  transparent  consultation  with  the  QQI  

providers  and  other  HE  providers  in  Ireland  and  no  unilateral  decision  will  be  taken  on  such  a  matter?    

 

Page  9,  2.12    

PROCEDURES  FOR  AWARD  CERTIFICATION  BY  QQI    

“QQI  makes  awards  based  on  quality  assured  results  received  from  providers  whose  programmes  

have  been  validated.    

Providers  are  invoiced  for  certificates  generated  according  to  a  published  fee  schedule.”    

Is  this  appropriate  or  necessary  in  a  policy  document?  Is  it  not  superfluous  here?  


Recommended