Daniel F Nyaungwa DBA, PhD
In this piece, I will discuss the overlapping functions, contradictions and duplication of accreditation and registration of Namibian institutions, universities and vocational centres by the three governing agencies, namely the Namibia Qualifications Authority (NQA), Namibia Training Authority (NTA), and National Council of Higher Education (NCHE), which produce conflicting results in many accreditation exercises.
To refresh our memories, the Cambridge Dictionary defines paradox as "a situation or statement that looks impossible or difficult to grasp because it incorporates two contradictory facts or features," as defined in the preceding article.
Recent media revelations on the University of Namibia’s (Unam) unaccredited qualifications clearly show the conflict between NCHE and NQA. Many Namibians at the present moment do not know of the NCHE.
The power struggle is on who should do the accreditation, NQA or NCHE.
Unam and the Namibia University of Science and Technology (NUST), like all other HEIs, are obliged to register all of their qualifications with the NQA on the National Qualification Framework (NQF), which at all is not questionable, and subsequently get accreditation from the NCHE or NQA.
There are two unique procedures here that Namibians should be aware of. The operations of quality assurance are linked. The accreditation of the institution, the accreditation of the programme, the registration of the institution, and the registration of the programme. NQA accredits programmes and registers credentials on the NQF.
NCHE accredits programmes, but merely registers institutions, whereas the NTA registers both institutions and their accreditation scope. All credentials with a level six or higher are considered higher education, whilst those with a level five or lower are considered technical and vocational educational qualifications (TVET).
Most HIEs are now obliged to be accredited and/or registered by all three regulating bodies, resulting in overlapping functions of the three organisations.
In my opinion, the NQA Act should be changed to prohibit it from accrediting higher education, and instead delegate that responsibility to NCHE. Like in South Africa, the qualifications’ framework is managed by SAQA, and institutions are accredited by the Council of Higher Education.
Furthermore, the NTA, which was also founded by an Act of Parliament, also audits and registers institutions with levels five and lower.
This implies that even universities which give certificates and diplomas at level five and lower must also register with the NTA. HIEs repeat the same procedure in all three regulatory organisations.
Considering that accreditation is granted for three years only, it makes institutions preoccupied with accreditation, and not delivery.
The paradox of accreditation comes in the duplication and overlapping of functions by the three regulating bodies. HIEs are required to go through the same cumbersome process for qualification after every three years.
In many of the instances I personally experienced, the outcomes of accreditation will be totally different from all three of them for the same exercise. It then makes perfect sense that the overlapping, duplicating functions of the NTA, NQA, and NCHE be brought under one roof, and the accreditation period of a course be five years, and not three years. For a four-year study course, the accreditation expires before even the first graduates have graduated.