|
Return
to: |
|||
Edition: 01 April
2009
(S) REVISED
DIRECTIVES FOR EXTERNAL AUDITING OF STUDENT, STAFF AND ACADEMIC PROGRAMME
DATA: APRIL 2009
1.1 The
1997 Higher Education Act requires the council of a public higher education institution
to provide the Minister of Education with data on its students, staff and
academic programmes. These audit directives deal with the auditing of these
three data sets.
1.2
The annual student, staff
and academic programme data submissions of public higher education institutions
are used by the Department of Education for a number of overlapping purposes.
These include (a) monitoring the performance of the public higher education
system, (b) planning its future development, and (c) distributing state funds
to institutions. The Department undertakes regular checks on the reliability of
the student, staff and the academic programme data submissions of public higher
education institutions, and in particular those data required for monitoring
and planning. The Department’s reliability and reasonableness checks inevitably
include the state subsidy data, but its subsidy checks, as far as an individual
institution is concerned, cannot be as detailed as those of an external,
independent auditor.
1.3
Since data collection and
data reporting are the responsibilities of the council of each public higher
education institution, the main purpose of these audit directives is to assist
councils in ensuring that institutional data required for the allocation, or
potential allocation, of state subsidies are realistic and correct. The
submission of an audit report to the Department of Education by the due date of
31 July of each year is the responsibility, not of the auditor, but of the
council of the public higher education institution.
2.1
The student, staff and
academic programme data of public higher education institutions have to be
consistent with various national policies approved by the Minister. Auditors
must be acquainted with these policies, which include:
¨
current national policies on university and technikon academic
programmes;
¨
current policies on the reporting by institutions of their
qualifications and major fields of study, and of the courses included in the curricula
of qualifications;
¨
current policies on the reporting of student enrolments and
student outputs;
¨
current policies on the reporting of staff.
2.2
A list of the publications containing these policies is included
in the Annexure to these directives.
2.3
In the
audit report, auditors must certify that the data in certain fields of relevant
VALPAC files are realistic and accurate representations of the institution’s
student records, staff records and of its academic programme records. The Department realises that it is not always
possible to keep the hard copies of registration forms due to space
constraints. The Department therefore
will accept for audit purposes as proof of registration a scanned electronic
version of the signed registration form.
However, the format of the scanned document must be such that
alterations and additions cannot be made to the forms subsequent to initial
processing.
2.4
The
Department requires the auditors to verify that the data going into Valpac is
correct, that means checking that the data extracted from the institutional
database into the ascii files is correct. This is to ensure that there is consistency
between the institution’s database and Valpac.
Manual changes in Valpac should only be done with the agreement of the
Department of Education. If students are
added to Valpac manually this will have an effect on the funding calculations.
The
following VALPAC files are essential to the generation of data used for the
allocation of state subsidies to public higher education institutions:
3.1
Qualification and
qualification CESM files
3.2
Course file
3.3
Credit value file
3.4
Student file
3.5
Course registration file
3.6
Staff profile file
The checks,
which auditors must make on the data within these files, are discussed in the
subsections that follow.
4.1 The
table below sums up some of the initial checks, which must be made in the
audit. The notes below the table describe in more detail certain aspects of
these checks.
|
Item to be checked |
Checks to be made |
|
Coding of courses |
Each subject matter offering
considered to be a course has a unique code in the course file |
|
Course
census date |
Provision has been made for an
appropriate census day, consistent with policy to be assigned to each
uniquely coded course |
|
Active students |
The institution has in place
mechanisms designed to ensure that only students active in a course are
reflected as registered for the course on the census day. |
|
VALPAC error reports |
No fatal data errors are listed
in the latest run of the VALPAC detailed validation reports except where
approved by the Department of Education.
Institutions should submit a list of their errors to the DoE and an
indication will be given of which fatal errors may be ignored. |
|
VALPAC reports |
Reports/tables generated (a) by
VALPAC and (b) directly from the institution’s student database are
identical. These checks should not
necessarily be done against the old sapse reports. There should be consistency between the
reports generated in Valpac and those generated from the main database/ascii
files – see point 4.5. |
4.2
The census dates of
courses must be determined as the midpoint of the academic period for a
course. The start date for the set
period is the first teaching day for the course and the end date the last
teaching day before the examination. The
start date for the set period must not be the date of registration.
4.3 If a
course is regarded as an annual course and crosses two reporting periods the
student must be reported in the year of the census date. For example, if students are registered in
July 2008 and complete the course in July 2009 and the census date is
determined to be in December 2008, these students will form part of the 2008
reporting year. However, if the census
date is determined as January 2009, the students must be reported in the 2009
reporting year.
4.4 Acceptable
evidence of student activity is left to the discretion of the external
auditors, and auditors are expected to report on the criteria they employed to
determine activity. Auditors should
however note the following specific points:
¨
The mechanisms for
determining whether or not a student was active on the census date of a
particular course could include any one of the following: The student (a) had submitted course
assignments, or (b) attended lectures, seminars, tutorials or practicals, or
(c) had written class tests, or (d) had raised study queries with an academic
staff member, or (d) had made use of a learning centre.
¨
The Department will accept
proof of activity after the census date provided that the student is registered
on census date and the proof of activity is before the final examination and
the activity is one of the transactions listed in the first bullet.
¨
What would not be acceptable as sole evidence
of activity is the writing of the final examinations in a course or merely some
form of administrative process such as a financial transaction, change of
address, etc, the activity must be a teaching or learning related
activity. If no acceptable evidence of
activity can be found, the course registrations of the students concerned
should be excluded from VALPAC.
4.4 The
error reports in VALPAC are designed to indicate whether there are either gaps
or inconsistencies in institutional data. If these error reports are ignored,
then the subsidy data generated by an institution could contain serious
flaws. The auditors are to confirm with
the institution where the Department has given approval to ignore certain fatal
errors such as postal codes.
4.5 The reports/tables
generated in VALPAC should be checked against reports generated from the
institution’s production database or data warehouse. There should not be a substantial difference
between the student numbers generated from the institution’s production
database or data warehouse and those that are generated in Valpac. The only difference should be that of the
persons who are doing non-formal qualifications. The Valpac reports should not be recalculated
by the auditors but they should confirm that there is consistency between data
generated from the production database,
such as from Institutional Management Information reports and the Valpac
reports. The reason for this check is to
ensure that the data in Valpac has not been manually adjusted without notifying
the Department of Education.
4.6 The
sign off of the Valpac reports (see appendix B) will enable the Department of
Education to confirm that the database received has not been adjusted
subsequent to the audit.
5.1 The
table below sums up the main checks, which must be made in the audit of these
two files. The notes below the table describe in more detail certain aspects of
these checks.
|
Data element |
Checks to be made |
|
004 Approval status |
The qualification under the name
employed by the institution has been approved for state funding purposes by
the Minister of Education.
Qualifications indicated for occasional students must be coded “N” |
|
005 Qualification type |
The qualification has been
placed in the correct category by the institution |
|
006 Major field CESM |
The Minister of Education has
approved for purposes of state funding the major field or fields of study
linked to the qualification. The PQM
refers |
|
053 Minimum time: total |
The correct total time in years
has been recorded for the qualification |
|
054 Minimum time: experiential |
The correct experiential time
in years has been recorded for the qualification |
5.2 A
formal qualification is one which has been approved by the Minister of
Education for state funding. The “approved” indicator must therefore not be set
against any qualification which has not been approved by the Minister. These
non-formal qualifications can be recorded in VALPAC, provided that the “not
approved” indicator has been set.
5.3 Auditors
should ensure that qualification has been approved, accredited and SAQA
registered. However, due to the delays
in registration, the department will accept proof of the application to
register the qualification with SAQA as sufficient.
6.1 The
table below sums up the main checks which must be made in the audit of the
VALPAC course file. The notes below the table describe in more detail certain
aspects of these checks.
|
Data element |
Checks to be made |
|
031 course approval status |
The course appears in the
curriculum of at least one qualification approved for state funding by the
Minister of Education |
|
033 course CESM |
The course has been assigned to
the correct second order CESM category |
|
034 Course level code |
The course has been placed in
the correct course-level category |
|
062 Experiential training indicator |
The “experiential” indicator
has been set if the course has been approved for experiential training only |
|
091 Foundation course |
The “foundation” indicator has
been set if the course is a foundation course as defined in the policy
document “funding for foundation provision in formally approved programmes:
2007/08 to 2009/10” |
6.2
The “approved” indicator
cannot be set for any course which does not count as a credit towards a formal
qualification which has been approved by the Minister of Education for state
funding. This implies that courses such as (a) remedial or bridging offerings
or (b) those included only in programmes offered as part of an institution’s
community service activities cannot be flagged as approved for state funding.
6.3 The
assignment of an incorrect CESM category code or course-level code to a course
can have a major impact on the amount of state subsidy which students
registered for that course will generate. Particular note must be taken of any
changes made to the CESM or course-level classification of courses across two
consecutive reporting years.
6.4 Particular note must be taken of the requirement that any postgraduate course offered at a number of course-levels for different postgraduate qualifications must be classified at the lowest course level in all the qualifications for which it may be taken. For example, a course offered in a postgraduate diploma as well as a masters degree must be coded as preparatory postgraduate (and not as intermediate postgraduate or masters level).
6.5 In
the case of undergraduate qualifications, this requirement applies only to
courses which are offered at higher undergraduate level. If any course is
offered at higher undergraduate level in one qualification and at either
intermediate or lower undergraduate (or lower prediplomate) level in another,
then it must be classified at one of these two lower levels.
6.6 Courses
approved for experiential training only do not generate state subsidy. The
required indicator must be set for all experiential courses.
7.1 The
table below sums up the main checks, which must be made in the audit of the
VALPAC credit value file. The notes below the table describe in more detail
certain aspects of these checks.
|
Data element |
Checks to be made |
|
036 course credit value |
The institution has calculated
course credit values in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the
VALPAC help files, Report 005 and Report 020(U) in Annexure A, and HEMIS
circulars. |
|
050 completed research course credit value |
The institution has assigned
the correct fraction of the total formal time for the relevant qualification
to successfully completed research courses.
This element is used in the calculation of success rates and no longer
for subsidy purposes. |
7.2 A
general point to note is that the credit value of a course is dependent on the
curricula of the qualifications in which it appears. The credit value of a
course indicates what fraction it constitutes of the standard curriculum of a
specific qualification. It follows that
a course which appears in a number of qualifications must have, possibly
different, credit values specific to each qualification.
7.3 Ensure
that the graduation test (former 2% test) has been undertaken by the
institution and that it has been done so according to the requirements stated
in the Valpac Help files. See also Hemis
circular 4 of September 2004. All
credits, subject to Faculty regulations, must be passed for students who have
changed qualifications, otherwise the graduation test will compute incorrect
credit values for the subjects within the curriculum. Please note that these credits awarded for a
subject passed under a different qualification or for completion of the course
at another Institution must not be reported in Valpac, as exam only, as they
would have already been reported either by the other institution or in a prior
reporting year.
8 VALPAC
STUDENT FILE
8.1 The
table below sums up the main checks which must be made in the student file. The
notes below the table describe in more detail certain aspects of these checks.
|
Data element |
Checks to be made |
|
001 qualification code |
VALPAC data correspond with
student’s signed registration forms |
|
013 race |
VALPAC data correspond with
student’s signed application and or registration forms |
|
014 nationality |
VALPAC data correspond with
student’s signed application and or registration forms |
|
010 entrance category |
VALPAC data correspond with
student’s signed application and or registration forms |
|
022 secondary education |
Documentary proof exists that
student has satisfied statutory entry requirements for admission to the
formal qualifications and courses for which she/he has registered |
|
026,027,028, 029 areas of specialisation |
VALPAC data correspond with
student’s signed registration forms |
|
025 qualification fulfilled status |
(a) Student has satisfied all
the requirements for qualification for which she/he was registered. (b) No student satisfying the requirements
for a qualification is recorded as a “non-graduate” or “non-diplomate” or “occasional”. |
|
019 NSFAS status |
VALPAC data correspond with the
institution’s documentation on student’s eligibility |
|
073 % research time for a Masters qualification |
The student has completed the
Master’s qualification with n.nnn research time. That is if a student has done 50% research
it will be reflected as 0.500 for element 073 |
8.2 Incorrect
qualification codes can affect the state subsidy generated by students. For example if a student registers for a BCom
this should be reflected in Valpac unless there is proof that the student has
requested a change. There have been
cases where students have been registered for the incorrect qualification,
through an administrative error. This
should then be rectified prior to the census date.
8.3 A
registration form is important as it represents a formally signed contract
between the institution and the student. If a registration form cannot be found
and if a satisfactory explanation cannot be offered by the institution, then
the student concerned should be deleted from VALPAC.
8.4 The race and nationality of students can
affect their eligibility for state funding through the subsidy formulas and
through the national student financial aid scheme. The accuracy of these data
must therefore be checked.
8.5 Part
of the definition of a student is that she/he has satisfied the legally defined
entrance requirements for study at a higher education institution. No person
who fails to meet these requirements can be included in an institution’s VALPAC
data.
8.6 Masters
qualifications may generate subsidy for Teaching outputs and Research
outputs. Element 073 therefore is
critical in determining the fraction that needs to be subsidized as research
outputs. The percentage research time
completed by the student must be the accredited research time for a Master’s
qualification, this may vary from a part research dissertation to a full
research dissertation, therefore the indicator is set against the percentage
research completed by the student.
8.7 Students
who have fulfilled the academic requirements for their qualifications (Element 025)
but who have not been awarded their qualification for outstanding fees etc,
should be coded “W”. These students will
be included in the subsidy tables.
However, if the code for element 025 is changed from a “W” to an “F”
then this should not be reflected in a future years database. The database of the relevant reporting year
must be updated accordingly and resubmitted to the Department.
8.8 Students
who have been incorrectly recorded as having completed their qualification in a
prior reporting year and reported again in the new reporting year should be
noted in the exception report. This
duplication results in a double claim on the teaching output subsidy.
9.1 The
table below sums up the main checks which must be made in the course
registration file. The notes below the table describe in more detail certain
aspects of these checks.
|
Data element |
Checks to be made |
|
064 attendance mode for course |
VALPAC data correspond with
student’s signed application and or registration forms |
|
018 funding status |
The student is a bona fide
student of the institution and is not registered for the same course by
another public institution, as part of a collaboration agreement. |
|
030 course code |
VALPAC data correspond with
student’s signed registration and/or change-of-course forms |
|
032 course completion status |
VALPAC data are consistent with
institutional examination or other records |
|
051 examination-only indicator |
VALPAC data are consistent with
institutional examination and registration records |
9.2
State
subsidy for contact students is considerably higher than that for distance
students. It follows that incorrect use of the attendance mode indicator could
have a major impact on the state subsidies of institutions.
9.3 Students
cannot generate state subsidy for the same qualification and course at more
than one public higher education institution. Collaboration agreements must
indicate which one of the participating institutions will be registering
students for particular courses.
9.4 Incorrect
course codes can have a major impact on the amount of state subsidy generated
by students. These must therefore be checked.
9.5
Some
students who do not complete the requirements of a course in a given academic
year are permitted by the institution to write the course in a subsequent year,
without re-attending the course. Institutions must register these students as
“examination-only” students, which has the effect of excluding them from the
enrolled student count for that year.
These students will not be included in the enrolled funding credit (fte)
tables but in the completed funded credit (degree credit fte) tables.
10. PQM CHECK
10.1 Students reflected in the database must be
registered for a qualification on the Institutions approved Programme
Qualification Mix (PQM). Occasional
students, do not register for a qualification on the PQM but if they are
reflected in the institution’s HEMIS database they must be registered for
subjects that are part of an approved qualification.
11. VALPAC
STAFF PROFILE FILE
11.1 The
table below sums up the main checks which, must be made in the staff profile
file.
|
Data element |
Checks to be made |
|
039 Personnel category |
The institution has used the
staff categories correctly, particularly the category “instruction and
research professionals” as this determines the norm for the research outputs. |
|
012 Gender |
VALPAC data correspond with the
institution’s human resource records. |
|
013 Race |
VALPAC data correspond with the
institution’s human resource records. |
|
041 Permanent/temporary status |
VALPAC data correspond with the
institution’s human resource records. |
|
048 On payroll code |
VALPAC data correspond with the
institution’s payroll of staff members. |
April 2009
The VALPAC
on-line help function contains summaries of some of the key policies affecting
the reporting of student, staff and academic programme data by public higher
education institutions . The list of relevant national policy documents is set
out below:
(1) Report 116: A Qualification Structure for Universities in South Africa, March
1995
(2) Report 150: General Policies for Technikon Instructional Programmes, January
1997
(3) Government Gazette Vol 415: Norms and
Standards for Educators, February 2000
(4) Report
151 Formal Technikon Instructional
Programmes, January 2004. This document
is no longer being updated. Universities
of Technology must follow the programme approval route for the introduction of
new programmes, new major fields, changes to major fields of study and
programme names.
(5) Report 003: Classification of Educational Subject Matter, October 1982
(6) Report 004: Formal Degree/Diploma/Certificate Programme Classification
Structure
Manual,
October 1995
(7) Report 005: Student Statistics Manual, January 1998
(8) Report
007 Personpower Resources
Budgeting and Accounting Manual, May 1982
(8) Report 020(U): Notes on the Reporting of Student Statistics
(Universities), May 1983
(9) Report
021(U): Notes on the
Reporting of Person-power Resources (Universities), May 1983
(10) HEMIS Circulars: Number 1 of August 2002
Number 2 of October 2002
Number 3 of May 2003
Number 4 of September 2004
Number 5 of August 2005
Number 6 of October 2006
(11)
Funding for Foundation provision in formally
approved programmes 2007/08 to 2009/10
NOTE: The
implementation date of the Higher Education Qualifications Framework (HEQF) is
January 2009, therefore it is not applicable to the auditing requirements for
the 2007 and 2008 reporting years.
The tables which must
be signed by external auditors and submitted to the Department of Education
with the audit report are these:
(1)
Funded
credit report, contact-mode only, excluding experiential learning, including
foundation
(2) Funded
credit report, contact-mode only, excluding experiential learning, including
foundation (a) by race and (b) by
nationality
(3) Completed
funded credit report, contact-mode only, excluding experiential learning,
including foundation
(4) Funded
credit report, other than contact-mode only, excluding experiential learning,
including foundation
(5) Completed
funded credit report, other than contact-mode only, excluding experiential
learning, including foundation
(6) Funded
credit report, contact-mode only, excluding experiential learning, foundation
only
(7) Funded
credit report, other than contact-mode only, excluding experiential learning,
foundation only
(8) Fractional
1ST order CESMS for all students
Total (Table 2.12)
(9) Fractional
1ST order CESMS for all students
Contact only (Table 2.12)
(10) Fractional
1ST order CESMS for all students
Distance only (Table 2.12)
(11) Fractional 1st order CESMS for
all students fulfilling requirements (Table 2.13)
(12) Headcount of permanent Staff by personnel category
race and gender (Table3.3)
Note:
The funded credit
reports are used in the calculation of the teaching input units. The completed funded credit reports are now
used in determining the success rates, they are no longer used in the subsidy
calculation.
The funded credit
reports by race and nationality are used in the calculation of the allocations
to NSFAS.
Table 2.12 used
in the calculation of the norms for the teaching outputs.
Table 2.13 is
used in the calculation of the teaching outputs and research outputs.
Table 3.3 (row
instruction/research) is used in the calculation of the research output norm.
External audit
requirements April 2009