Summary

Polytechnics and institutes of technology (in this report, the term polytechnics refers to both) are an important part of the tertiary education sector. More than 214,000 students attend New Zealand’s 20 polytechnics and study for a range of qualifications, including degree level qualifications.

Strong quality assurance systems are an important part of a well-functioning tertiary education system, as they provide assurance that the education being provided is of an acceptable quality. Quality assurance functions include approving courses, accrediting providers to deliver courses, and auditing providers against quality standards (academic audit). The academic audit function underpins the approval and accreditation functions and is a crucial part of the quality assurance process.

The New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) has overall responsibility for the quality assurance of education provided by polytechnics. This function has been delegated to the Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics Quality (ITP Quality) for 19 polytechnics. NZQA’s Approvals, Accreditation and Audit group (AAA group) audits the one polytechnic that is not covered by ITP Quality .

Why and how we did an audit

We did a performance audit to provide assurance to Parliament that NZQA, having delegated its quality assurance functions, has maintained enough oversight of this delegation and ensures that there are processes in place so that the Board is informed of any quality issues in the polytechnic sector.

We looked at the way NZQA monitored the delegation to ITP Quality, and in particular how NZQA reviewed ITP Quality’s academic audit reports of individual polytechnics to ensure that it was aware of any quality issues.

We also reviewed the AAA group’s auditing of one polytechnic.

Our findings

NZQA has set standards that must be met by agencies that carry out delegated quality assurance functions. ITP Quality is audited against these standards about every two to three years. This audit is the main means by which NZQA monitors how effectively ITP Quality is performing its quality assurance functions.

We reviewed the most recent NZQA audit of ITP Quality, which took place in 2004. This audit by NZQA found ITP Quality complied with the standards set by NZQA for the quality assurance functions of course approvals, accreditation, and academic audit. However, in regard to how it operated its delegation, ITP Quality did not comply with one standard in that a subcommittee, instead of the ITP Quality Board, approved courses and accredited providers. As a result of the NZQA audit, ITP Quality made changes to comply with the delegation standard.

ITP Quality has a systematic process for its academic audits of polytechnics. The quality of the education provided at polytechnics is regularly audited against a set of academic audit standards. After each academic audit, ITP Quality prepares a detailed report and sends a copy to NZQA. However, findings in the academic audit reports are neither systematically reviewed within NZQA nor reported to the Board of NZQA. NZQA does not hold regular formal meetings with ITP Quality to discuss issues associated with the academic auditing functions. The lack of reporting by NZQA management to the NZQA Board means that the Board is not aware of quality issues identified in the audit reports.

In our view, the academic audit reports need to state the reasons for selecting the programmes to be audited and also need to contain more evidence to support conclusions that polytechnics have complied with academic standards.

For the one polytechnic audited by the AAA group, programmes for audit were selected on a risk-based approach and the audit report presented clear evidence in support of findings.

In summary, NZQA has processes for monitoring the delegation of quality assurance functions to ITP Quality, and ITP Quality has a well-established system of academic audits. However, there are opportunities for the Board of NZQA to more actively review the academic audits to ensure that it is aware of any quality issues.

Our recommendations

We recommend that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority:

1. formally review all academic audit reports received from Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics Quality;
2. prepare a summary of the audit reports received from Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics Quality and the Approvals, Accreditation and Audit group, and that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority’s management report this summary to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority Board;
3. hold regular formal meetings with Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics Quality to discuss issues associated with the academic auditing functions;
4. require that all audit reports received from Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics Quality contain enough evidence to support audit conclusions that academic standards have been complied with; and
5. require that Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics Quality audit reports clearly state the reasons for selecting the programmes to be audited.