SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES IN ACCREDITATION:
ESTABLISHING A BLUEPRINT FOR THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION

Delivered by:

Dr. Alcestis M. Guiang
Former Director General,
TESDA, Philippines

INTRODUCTION

The lowering of state barriers in trade and commerce has constrained proximate countries to cluster together for greater competitiveness.  It is natural that whenever there is a glut of products on the market, those products which have the seal of QUALITY would be the first to be favorably considered.  This is the similar concept of quality in the provision of technical human resources.  Hence those countries in a surplus economy are concerned to agree to a common set of competency standards of productivity against which the quality of their technical human resources can be fairly judged.

External Forces impinge on the quality of TVET thereby making a Quality orientation more urgently important.  These forces are: (1) a massive change in work content of most occupations arising from the shift from labor-intensive knowledge to knowledge-intensive industries; (2) a lessening of work and employment opportunities, termed as the “de-industrialization of the West;” (3) workers have become unqualified because of new jobs created with the advent of high technology and service industries; (4) the exodus of skilled people to countries where they are able to earn higher wages; and (5) unemployment is inversely proportional to the people’s state of education and training.  Primarily because of the foregoing, the workplace has changed character.  Consequently, the workforce must conform thereby demanding that the new workforce should have characteristic of the new workplace, such as the ability for analytical and higher order thinking, ability to work in teams, ability to learn, high flexibility and be self-adjusting.  The training providers must then revise their programs to produce the new workforce.

The TVET systems in the Asia-Pacific Region have been developed out of the need for technical human resources and the volume of resources committed to this important endeavor.  The infrastructure differs in terms of length of each level of education, the streaming of students, and the precision of standards set for certification of competencies acquired, as well as the accreditation of programs allowed to produce the technical human resources. However, although the system of preparation differs, the systems are all geared towards producing graduates who are capable to raise production in the world of work.

The movement of Quality Assurance began with judging the quality of products from the production lines.  Recently, however, these concepts of competency standards and accreditation of competencies against accepted standards have been imported into the educational system.  Government and non-governmental organizations have organized consortiums to recognize qualifications, and international organizations have established Councils as the bodies authorized to judge the quality of human resources.  The rationale for such conglomerations is for greater support for a tedious process of setting competency standards and getting these accepted widely.  In any event, the support of the state government lends a strong impetus for the speedy acceptance of competency standards set and the utilization of such in employment procedures.

The Rationale for a Regional Accreditation and Certification Facilitation Body

The process of developing competency standards and establishing a process of accreditation is long and expensive.  There is a need for an organization to facilitate and support the quality improvement efforts of those who provide technical education.  The end goal is the achievement of the accreditation of a training program or an institution by a relevant accreditation body.  For example, Quality New York (QNY) an Accreditation Facilitation Project supports each program by providing the following services:

• Specially trained consultants, called Quality Advisors, are provided to offer on-site technical assistance.
  
  
• A program improvement plan is developed by the director and their Quality Advisor to guide the institution in reaching their accreditation goal.
  
  
• Directors and teaching staff are offered the opportunity to participate in professional development workshops specifically designed to address the needs of programs working towards quality improvement, facilitated by the consortium 
  
  
• Directors participate in a Director’s Support Group through the consortium

In the Philippines, the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority has led in the organization of Quality Assurance working parties to provide assistance to training providers who are interested to be accredited.

   
Widespread Models of Accreditation

It is logical when we embark on this discussion, that we must first define the meaning of Accreditation.  Accreditation is usually defined in the law governing Higher Education in each country.  But a common definition would be “the granting of a quality mark indicating that certain standards are met.”  Accreditation is concerned with taking a formal, independent decision on whether or not certain requirements are met.  However, a difficulty is the benchmarking of the quality that is to be measured.  How minimum is minimum?

In order to make mutual recognition across states possible, it is important to establish the similarities between and among various accreditation frameworks. In a comparison of Accreditation Frameworks, it was possible to identify specific aspects that are common across the countries surveyed.  These aspects are:

1. The object of accreditation. May be a program or course, or institution or a
   unit of an   institution. Another approach is that the evaluation would be at both levels of the institution and the course.  A particular example is the institutional award, but considers the possibility that large institutions may not find it possible to apply, hence units or program managers are allowed to apply for accreditation. 
2. The benchmarks set.  The descriptors of the program are utilized in the self-assessment of the object of accreditation.  The self-assessment process is “benchmarking” practice.  It identifies the gaps in the institution performance against the assessment criteria of the system of measurement.
3. The system of measurement (accreditation criteria). Malcolm-Baldridge or ISO.  For example, the Philippine TVET Quality Awards is under the aegis of the Philippine Quality Awards (PQA) usinga seven-point framework of the Quality Management System as its assessment criteria.  The seven points evaluated are: (1) Leadership, (2) Strategy, policy and planning, (3) information and analysis, (4) people, (5) customer focus, (6) quality of processes, products and services, and (7) organizational performance. (Please see Appendix A-1)
4. The internal quality assurance.  In the accreditation of programs or
   courses,the factors examined are the objectives of the course, the course design, staff quality, quality of instructional facilities dedicated, and internal quality assurance procedures such as gathering opinions on quality from staff, students, alumni, the end-users, and the community in general.
   
   
   
   
5. The external committee of assessors.  To validate the self-assessment of the applicant for accreditation, there is a committee of assessors who visit the site.  The qualifications of the assessors themselves have to be assured, and a continuous program to produce assessors-in-training need to be in place as a support mechanism.
   
   
6. Levels of Accreditation awards. The Philippine TVET Quality Awards has four (4) levels.  The first three levels are an effort to facilitate implementation of the improvement program of the applicant towards the fourth level which is actually the Philippine Quality Award, an internationally accepted certification award. (Please see Appendix A-1)
   

The aspects that are assessed are generally the same as the above.  Let us take the above-listed six (6) aspects as a starting point when looking for similarities in the accreditation systems of those countries which have established them.

The International Dimension: The Role of CPSC

The national organizations for accreditation strive for international recognition.  Since the information highway, the hall mark of the 21st century, knows no national boundaries, there is a need for internationally accepted standards.  The international dimension will allow higher mobility of providers, and their graduates. The national level procedures, in turn, are strengthened by the new mechanisms and frameworks at a regional and international level.
  
The Colombo Plan Staff College for Technician Education is in a unique position to provide facilitation services for accreditation to member countries and other organizations interested to promote accreditation.  Beginning with the member countries which have already well-developed Accreditation Systems, their technical expertise may be broadcast to those member countries which have not yet established their own systems through the existing networks of CPSC.  CPSC can house the institutional memory banks and also lead in the refinement and up-dating of a system to which the entire Asia-Pacific can commit to.  CPSC can organize small working groups to “backstop” those countries which have not yet begun the development of their accreditation systems. The training systems have to be put in place to produce a continuing pool of assessors and evaluation experts in each of the various fields which are dominant in the region. Finally, CPSC can coordinate all the activities relating to Accreditation in the region.  All these can be the Terms of Reference of the Asia-Pacific Accreditation and Certification Commission (APACC) hosted by CPSC.

REFERENCES

1. Program Accreditation Procedures Manual of the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority,  Republic of the Philippines, May 2003.
   
   
2. Public Sector Criteria for Performance Excellence and Application Guidelines, Philippine Quality Award, 2002.
   
   
3. Technical Vocational Education Accrediting Association of the Philippines (TVEAAP) Accreditation Instruments, Part I, II and III, December 2004
   
   
4. Montefrio, Horacio, “Maintaining Quality in Technical and Vocational Education: Benchmarking Standard – The Philippine System,” October 2004
   
   
5. Quality New York, National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC).
   
   
6. European Quality Improvement System, “Management Education:New Forms of Regulation” 2001.
   
   
7.  Park, Man-Gon, “CPSC as a Catalyst for Regional Accreditation and Certification of TEVT Institutions”  CPSC Quarterly Vol. 30, December 2004.

__________________________________________________________

 View Presentation
__________________________________________________________