The implementation of the proposed New Academic Policy will demand improved professional capacity across the higher education system, particularly with respect to academic planning, curriculum design, assessment and evaluation practice and quality assurance. The proposed policy shifts the unit of curriculum planning and design from the individual course, to the programme and its respective qualifications. This in turn demands greater coordination and cooperation between the academics teaching on a particular programme, and thus places demands on senior and middle management to ensure that ‘programme teams’ function. Given that the traditional unit of organization in higher education institutions is the academic department, created to research and teach a single discipline, this is not an easy organizational task, particularly as inter-disciplinary or Mode 2 programmes continue to develop in response to the market. Furthermore, the outcomes-based approach to curriculum design demands a more professional and rigorous approach to the assessment of students (see Chapter 7, 7.6). Providers of higher education are now expected to verify that their graduates have indeed demonstrated the learning outcomes specified for particular qualifications. Quality promotion and assurance measures are likely to scrutinize assessment practices to ensure that they are valid, fair, transparent and accountable. The development of integrated assessments across the modules of programmes will be particularly demanding with respect to both assessment practice and academic teamwork.
Credit-based, modular systems that are designed for greater learner convenience and to allow greater flexibility in delivery modes and entry and exit points, will also require the professionalisation of academic management and support services, procedures and systems. This form of curriculum structure and organisation has implications for academic planning and management, management information systems, selection, admission and registration procedures, time-tabling and financial systems.
The proposed policy also shifts the dominant perspective from which the curriculum is determined, from that of the academy and the disciplines, to that of the learner and the needs of the broader society; meaning that the higher education curriculum is increasingly driven more by extrinsic than intrinsic concerns and interests. Whilst many, in the universities in particular, may resist this shift, an effort has been made in this report to maintain a balance between these competing interests.
Overall, the New Academic Policy, in combination with the National Plan, the three-year rolling plans, the new Funding Framework, the HEQC’s requirements for institutional audit and programme evaluation and accreditation and SAQA’s requirements for the registration of qualifications will demand that higher education institutions develop a far greater planning and monitoring capacity than hitherto. Senior managers of higher education institutions face an enormous intellectual and practical challenge to develop this capacity in their institutions in such a way that it facilitates, rather than detracts from, the core higher education business of teaching, learning and research. A final version of this report will be distributed in March 2002. The implementation of the New Academic Policy will proceed within a reasonable time-frame, and keep step with the DoE’s three-year rolling plans and with SAQA’s procedures for the full registration of qualifications. This means that providers will have 2002 and 2003 to plan, re-design and re-format their offerings in accordance with the specifications laid down in the finalized New Academic Policy. Providers of higher education programmes and qualifications will be expected to begin to implement these requirements for all incoming students as from January 2004 (see the table below).
Implementation of the National Plan |
|
|
Implementation of the New Academic Policy |
| Submission of institutional missions and proposed programme and qualification mixes for 2002-2006 | 31 July 2001 | ||
| Institutional visits by the Ministry to discuss proposed programme and qualification mixes, compared with DoE’s institutional profiles | November 2001 | ||
| Report from National Working Group on the Restructuring of the HE system. | Dec 2001 | December 2001 | |
| 31 January 2002 | Release of the NAP as a Discussion Document Responses to be dealt with by the DoE and SAQA | ||
| February 2002 | Advice to the Minister from the CHE on the final version of the NAP.Production of final document | ||
| Advice from the CHE on proposed niche areas and institutional programme and qualification mixes | March 2002 | March 2002 | Distribution of final version of the NAP |
| Publication of approved programme and qualification mixes | April 2002 | ||
| Distribution of national guidelines for development of three-year rolling plans for 2003 – 2005 | April 2002 | April 2002 | Guidelines to include necessary adjustments to accommodate the NAP, e.g. changes in the qualifications structure, funding framework etc. |
| Submission of three-year rolling plans by institutions for 2003 – 2005 | 31 July 2002 | 31 July 2002 | Programme and qualification plans to be aligned with the NAP |
| Implementation of New Funding Framework | Jan 2003 | Jan 2003 | HEIs to begin re-designing programmes and qualifications to align with the NAP |
| June 2003 | Submission of qualifications to SAQA for full registration - these to be fully aligned with the NAP | ||
| Jan 2004 | Implementation of the NAP - aligned programmes and qualifications for all incoming students |