NZQA is targeting 42 PTES that have not met a June 30 deadline for filing papers relating to their accounts and quality processes. This mirrors a process applied earlier to PTEs that missed a 31 March deadline, although it now seems to be being applied sooner after the deadline. If they don’t supply the data they might lose their registration – last time, the few that didn’t comply by the deadline were given extensions.

NZQA also seems to be chasing ITPQ, with Tertiary Education Minister Steven Joyce saying that NZQA might take over QA of the whole non-university sector, with ITPQ losing their delegated authority for QA of ITPs. The Government’s push is probably driven by three things: an honest belief that centralisation might work better; a suspicion that ITPQ gives ITPs an easy ride becasue it is dominated by ITPs; and a human desire by NZQA to expand its empire.

On the other hand, ITPs will value the customisation of ITPQ’s services and the extra control that they have over decisions – ITPQ’s board has four ITP CEOs, while NZQA has no ITP input on governance (and QA decisions are generally delegated to NZQA staff anyway).

I think ITPQ probably will have its delegation removed if NZQA really wants to push this, but rather than go through all the issues, I thought I’d explore one comparison of the two bodies. NZQA has only just started its focus on public naming of PTEs facing compliance notices, but ITPQ doesn’t seem to advise if it has offered any compliance notices. One ITP, Telford Rural Polytechnic, has not had Quality Assured Status (the standard status) for some time, but no information on that ITP is provided on the website – even the latest audit report is not provided, while it has been for all other ITPs. An audit of Telford was carried out in 2009 (see p.4 of ITPQ Annual Report), so why isn’t it up on the site? I could understand if there were some legal issues around the latest audit report, but why is there no information about Telford at all up on ITPQ’s site? There is no earlier audit report, nor any mention of the problems leading to the withdrawal of Quality Assured Status, nor any mention of compliance notices in effect. An external stakeholder would not gain any reassurance from ITPQ about Telford’s quality, while this situation could be offered as proof that ITPQ is soft on ITPs.

NB I have relied simply on ITPQ’s website in writing this note, rather than any information about ITPQ gained in my earlier role at ITPNZ.