The Ministry of Education has overall responsibility for the regulation of education in PNG. Within the Ministry, there are a number of bodies with specific competencies. The National Training Council (NTC) is responsible for the accreditation of private and public sector TVET providers. The NTC is in the process of establishing National Qualification Framework (NQF), which will form the basis for curriculum development and skill standards in the TVET sector. The Office of Higher Education (OHE) administers higher education in the country.
Each PNG university is established by a separate Act of Parliament.
a) International regulatory and policy frameworks
The USP is a member of the Asia-Pacific Quality Network (APQN). The USP is also a member of the International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE).
Education for All (EFA)
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
United Nations Literacy Decade
UNESCO’s Four Pillars of Education
United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005-2014)
b) Regional agreements and policy
Pacific Islands Forum Basic Education Action Plan (FBEAP)
Pacific Regional Initiatives for the Delivery of Basic Education (PRIDE) Project
Pacific Education for Sustainable Development Framework
Pacific Education Development Framework (PEDF) 2009-2015
The Pacific Plan (the Pacific Plan Task Force is managed by the Pacific Islands Forum Secretary General)
Virtual University for Small States of the Commonwealth (VUSSC)
Secretariat of the Pacific Board of Education Assessment (SPBEA)
c) National regulations and policy
Divine Word University Act (1999)
Higher Education Act (1983)
University of Goroka Act (1997)
University of Papua New Guinea Act (1983)
University of Vudal Act (1997)
Guidelines for Institutional Accreditation 2002
Draft Higher Education Bill 2009
National Higher Education Plan II 2010
National Higher Education Plan III 2010
Development Strategic Plan (2010 - 2030)
Medium Term Development Plan (2011 - 2015)
Gender Equity Strategic Plan 2009-2014
GENDER EQUITY IN EDUCATION POLICY Guidelines for Implementation
MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS Progress Report for Papua New Guinea 2004
Achieving a better future A NATIONAL PLAN FOR EDUCATION 2005 - 2014
d) State/District regulations and policy
None relevant.
e) University policies
The Office of Higher Education (OHE) is committed to improving the environment for tertiary education in the country. As part of this process, the OHE is engaged in the development of the National Quality Framework (NQF) and the formulation of quality assurance systems for higher education institutions. In addition, the OHE plans to strengthen bilateral relationships in the fields of quality assurance and to improve the Higher Education Management Information System.
The following major institutional and national factors have not only contributed significantly to what has been only a very marginal increase in the overall quality (course design and delivery) and growth of university-level distance and flexible learning (DFL) programs and courses in PNG since 2000, but also need to be addressed if significant progress is to be made in future:
• Pedagogical models that separate course development from course delivery (whereas good instructional design considers them to be intrinsically linked, course delivery being addressed in the course development process)
• Pedagogical models that require instructors to deliver the same course in two different modes (face-to-face and via DE) to a combined cohort of students
• Organizational models, at institutional levels, that are overly dependent on traditional, full-time academic staff whose first teaching allegiance is to their face-to- face students, and who often consider developing and delivering DFL as an insufficiently rewarded, inadequately supported, even annoying responsibility
• Organizational models that do not encourage or facilitate the development of labour- market driven programming
• DFL models that are driven by an institution’s financial needs rather than those of off-campus learners
• Financial arrangements between central administrations and DFL units that allow for insufficient predictability, flexibility and responsibility in the DE units if they are to provide optimal course materials and learning opportunities for their students, varied and expanded traditional programming, innovative new programs that are responsive to the labour market, sound, long term financial planning
• Absence of dedicated manpower and staffing in the OHE
• Governmental and institutional budgeting and reporting that do not draw attention to the special role of DFL in the HE system
• Inaction, or very slow progress, on key policy areas related to DFL: out of country providers; quality assurance for accredited institutions; transfer credit; program and course credit structures
• Regulations that prevent DFL students from accessing equitable scholarship and other financial support schemes available to on-campus students
• An underdeveloped ICT infrastructure to enable effective electronic communications between distance learners and instructors, and learning centres and main campuses.