APACC: Criterion 1

Prof. Romulita C. Alto, EdD

Objectives of this presentation

Ability to meet the challenge of change

Free one’s feeling of uncertainty on certain points of the revised APACC instrument

Capability development of accreditors of TVET

THE RUNG OF THE LADDER

WAS NEVER MEANT TO

REST UPON,

BUT ONLY TO HOLD A MAN’S

FOOT LONG ENOUGH TO

ENABLE HIM

TO PUT THE OTHER

SOMEWHAT HIGHER

By Thomas Huxley

Criterion 1: GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT

The institution’s system of governance and management is sufficient to manage existing operations, and to respond to development and change.

OLD INSTRUMENT vs 2018 INSTRUMENT

Old Instrument 2018 Instrument

Indicator A – Decision Making and Management System

Indicator 1 – Decision Making and Management System

1. How frequent does the institution communicate its vision and mission to stakeholders ?

1.1 Strategic Plan, yearly OPLAN, and Implementation

2. Are the members of the decision-making body involved in the formulation of policy matters pertaining to the institution?

1.2 Participation of Institution’s Decision Making Body in Policy/Plan formulation

3. How often does the institution’s making body (Governing Board, Board of Regents, School Board, etc.) meet to discuss decision/policy matters of the institution?

1.3 Conduct of Management Board Meeting

Criterion 1: Indicator A vs Indicator 1

Indicator A Indicator 1

4. How often do you review policies and procedures to conform to the QMS?

1.4 Quality Management System (Plan, Implement, M&E and Feedback

5. How much is the involvement of the institution’s Administrative committees in decision making designed to support TVET programs?

1.5 Internal Quality Audit

6. How much is the involvement of the institution’s Academic Committee/Senior Teachers in deciding academic matters like Curriculum development/ implementation grading system, supervision of teaching, etc.

1.6 Academic Committee/Board

Criterion 1: Indicator B vs Indicator 2

Indicator B – Programs/Projects Planning and Implementation

Indicator 2 – Program and Budgeting

1. How many special programs/projects were planned in the past three (3) years? Based on the planned programs/projects, how many were implemented?

2.1 Program planning and budget allocation

2. How often does the Financial Management Officials meet to discuss budget planning and allocation and other financial management activities?

2.2 Effectiveness and Efficiency of Program and Budgeting last fiscal year

3. Indicate how much percentage of the institution’s income-generating funds is allocated for its development plans and for its operation?

2.3 Management of Income-Generated Fund

4. How often does the institution audit its inventory? 2.4 Financial and Inventory Auditing

5. How often are communications and records sorted, filed and updated for easy retrieval?

2.5 Records Keeping and Documentation (Archiving, Filing and e-database.

Differences and Similarities in the First Indicator on Decision Making and Management System

Difference

• In the old instrument, items are in the form of questions while in the revised form, items are in declarative form. Options are clearer.

• A new sub-indicator (IQA) in the 2018 instrument replaced the sub-indicator on Administrative Committee

Similarity

• Similar Criterion Title: Governance and Management

• Similar Indicator Title: Decision Making and Management System

• Same number of sub-indicators in the first & second indicators

• Generally, the essence of the sub-indicators in the old and revised instruments are essentially the same

Differences and Similarities on the Second Indicator and sub-indicators

Difference• The second indicator has been changed

to address specifically Programs and Budgeting

• Specifications regarding the sub-indicators are more specific and direct to the point. No need to qualify as to “how much”, “how many”, “how often”, etc.

• Ambiguity has been addressed in the new instrument.

Similarity• There are the same number of sub-

indicators in both instruments• Although the second indicator in

the new instrument has been recast (From Programs/ Projects Planning to Program and Implementation), it captures the same substance of the old instrument.

• Generally, the essence of the sub-indicators in the old and revised instruments are essentially the same