PROFESSIONAL PROGRAMS - McGill University



PROFESSIONAL PROGRAMS

(this is a translation of a document adopted by CREPUQ’s committee of Vice-Recteurs Affaires Académiques, VRAA) on 1st June 2007 and by CEP on 11th June 2007 entitled Mécanisme et procédure d’évaluation de pertinence des projets de programmes d’études menant à la modification éventuelle du Règlement sur les diplômes délivrés par les établissements d’enseignement désignés qui donnent droit aux permis et aux certificats de spécialistes des ordres professionnels.)

In keeping with an agreement among the members of the CREPUQ-MELS-OPQ-MSSS Table de concertation, any new program proposal leading to the possible modification of the Règlement sur les diplômes délivrés par les établissements d’enseignement désignés qui donnent droit aux permis et aux certificats de spécialistes des ordres professionnels (Regulation pertaining to degrees from designated teaching institutions granting access to professional orders’ permits and certificates), is subject to a procedure for evaluating their pertinence, for which the following conditions apply:

1) a major modification to the Règlement is envisaged, such as a shift to a higher degree level granting access to a permit or a specialist certificate delivered by a professional order;

2) the proposal reflects a trend in the professional milieu and in institutions that offer a degree granting access to the profession resulting from new needs or shortcomings in the current education, with respect to the professional competencies required.

Given the role played in this respect by the Comité de la formation of the relevant professional order, by virtue of its mandate, that Comité de la formation must express formally its support for the proposal.

If it is not clear whether the procedure should apply, the question will be resolved by means of a consultative mechanism that will involve the Office des professions (OPQ) and CREPUQ’s VRAA (committee of Vice-Recteurs Affaires Académiques).

The steps in the evaluation of “pertinence”:

The proposal should be submitted to the Commission d’évaluation des programmes (CEP) of CREPUQ when it is still at an exploratory stage, i.e. as various opportunité parameters (regarding demand, need, pertinence) have been explored.

The proposal is brought to CEP by the university or group of universities that is developing the proposal, with the support from the relevant professional order. CEP carries out a first analysis in light of which it draws a list of questions for the organisations and experts that it will consult. If deemed necessary, it may also solicit additional information from the University or group of universities. In consultation with the OPQ whose knowledge of the various professional milieus constitutes an essential source of information, CEP also prepares a list of the organisations and experts that should be consulted (for example, MELS, MSSS, OPQ, professional orders and associations, etc.).

CEP will appoint a number of its members to a small committee whose task will be to hear the selected organisations and experts, carry out an in-depth analysis of the information gathered regarding the proposal, highlighting major points and formulating conclusions that could be part of its “Avis de pertinence” prepared by CREPUQ’s secretariat. Finally, CEP adopts its Avis de pertinence and forwards it to MELS.

It is the responsibility of MELS to carry out the required consultation of relevant governmental authorities. CEP’s Avis de pertinence will, in this respect, constitute a source of expertise and information. MELS will then advise the University or group of universities of the decision taken by the relevant authorities regarding the proposal.

If the decision is negative, the proposal is cancelled. If the decision is positive, the University or group of universities further develops the program proposal. The OPQ will have a solid dossier in hand to support the process leading to the modification of the Règlement. Once developed, the program proposal is submitted to the usual internal and external evaluation and authorization process for new teaching programs. Universities initiating proposals that require an evaluation of pertinence must seek the necessary governmental authorization prior to submitting their proposals to CEP for an evaluation of its quality, failing which such proposals will be returned to the proposer.

This procedure is in keeping with the consultative status of CEP, while respecting its independence and the integrity of its recommendations (avis). It also abides by the prerogatives and jurisdictions of governmental authorities in terms of authorizing funding and services to the public.

Evaluation criteria

By virtue of their core mandate to protect the public, professional orders are required to ensure that candidates to a regulated profession have acquired a quality education and have the necessary competencies and qualifications for meeting their professional responsibilities adequately. The Commission (CEP) will take that basic premise into account in its deliberations and in its analysis of the motives behind the proposal in particular.

Pertinence will be evaluated according to criteria pertaining to the scientific, systemic and socio-economic aspects of the proposal:

- Scientific dimension

Evaluation of scientific pertinence rests on an analysis of the adequacy of the means to meet program objectives. For the purpose of evaluating pertinence, they have been grouped into two categories:

1) Objectives of the proposal: structure and evolution of the profession; competencies that students should acquire by means of the proposed program; value added by the proposed changes with respect to the education provided by means of the previous program; correlation between the scientific training being proposed (as described in the broad objectives) and the new requirements of the profession.

2) The framework (cadre): admission requirements and procedure (general and specific admission requirements and selection criteria); program structure (including internships if relevant), and duration.

- Systemic dimension

Evaluation of the systemic pertinence of a proposal rests on an analysis of the status of the proposed program in relation to the full range of programs currently offered by Quebec universities and in terms of its contribution to the orientations and policies of the Quebec university system. It requires taking into consideration similar or related programs offered by other universities. The following should be included among the features that will be taken into account for defining the systemic dimension:

1) position of the proposed program in the Quebec, North-American and international university network, with respect to professional requirements;

2) the novel contribution made by the proposed program in the Quebec context;

3) the expected impact of the proposed program on the professional training in that particular discipline in Quebec (consider the possible creation of several such programs within the Quebec university network; their position with respect to student recruitment in particular; impact of the implementation of this new program on student enrolments in existing programs);

4) if relevant, describe foreseeable links with related programs, expected collaboration between professors in the proposed program and those in related programs, etc.

- Socio-economic dimension

Evaluation of the socio-economic pertinence of a proposal rests on an analysis of the needs that the program intends to meet. It includes the capacity of program objectives and content to meet the societal needs which the university has identified. Elements that should be taken into consideration for defining the socio-economic pertinence of a proposal include the following:

1) availability of sufficiently detailed studies regarding need; enrolment projections stemming from those studies; foreseeable impact of program on recruitment and graduation of future professionals;

2) evolution of training needs in the field in Quebec in recent years and expected employment situation;

3) employment opportunities and employability of graduates in Quebec, North America and elsewhere in the world; mobility of future professionals; their contribution to Quebec society in general and to meeting the needs that have been identified;

4) degree of priority assigned to the program field by professional associations or orders, private or public organisations or the ministries;

5) legislative and regulatory framework of professional practice in Quebec, with respect to this program;

6) incidence of the proposed program on manpower evolution, particularly in Quebec;

7) availability of this type of program elsewhere in the world (in North America in particular), outcomes of such programs regarding enrolment, academic success, and ability to meet the needs which they are intended to meet, if relevant, etc.

8) clarity of the degree name and conformity with its overall aims.

Information that should be included in the proposal

In order for CEP to carry out its analysis of the scientific, socio-economic and systemic dimensions of the proposal, the university or group of universities, submits a program proposal dossier that should include the following information:

1) program identification: degree level, discipline, degree designation, unit responsible; name of institution.

2) description of the situation: history, structure and evolution of the profession.

3) rationale for the creation of the program; demonstration of the inadequacy of the current program with respect to the needs of the profession; other options considered and justification for the solution selected; value added by the modifications; employment prospects; mobility of future professionals; expected impact of the proposal on recruitment and graduation of future professionals; position of the proposed program in the Quebec and North-American university network; position of the proposed program with respect to similar programs offered elsewhere.

4) General objectives of the proposed program; description of the major competencies that the program will allow students to achieve; table comparing program objectives or competencies with those of the program currently offered.

5) Fields of study within the proposed program: description of the trend reflected in the program; definition of the field of study (drawing clear distinctions among the components of the program, if necessary, i.e. specialisations, concentrations, profiles, options, axes, etc.); the University should pay particular attention to this definition if the proposal aims to cover an innovative field of study;

6) Framework: admission criteria; program structure (internships, if relevant), and duration.

Expected timeframe

The process leading to the avis de pertinence should not exceed twelve months, from the date of submission of the proposal to CEP.

Cost sharing

Expenses to cover the costs of consulting the relevant organisations and experts (transportation, per diem and stipends) will be covered by the university or group of universities and by the relevant ordre professionnel, according to a distribution formula yet to be determined.

Evaluation of the procedure

After three years from the time of its adoption, the procedure described above will be evaluated.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download