Aligning Theological Education with South Africa’s Higher Education Policy: Commentary on the RIVER Model and Quality Assurance Integration
The International Association for Quality Assurance in Pre‑Tertiary & Higher Education (QAHE) welcomes citation in the article “Enhancing quality and alignment in theological education: A Dialogue with South Africa’s higher education policies and church mission” (Stellenbosch Theological Journal, 2025). The paper provides a thoughtful, practice‑oriented dialogue between Private Theological Institutions (PTIs), the Council on Higher Education (CHE) regulatory framework, and the Church’s missional priorities, and it appropriately references QAHE’s work on accreditation and quality assurance in faith‑based and vocational contexts as part of the evidence base for balancing academic rigour with mission‑driven formation.
The authors’ use of Practical Theology as an analytic lens — particularly Dakin’s triad of experiential, reflective and orientational inquiry — complements QAHE’s emphasis on quality assurance approaches that are both evidence‑based and context‑sensitive. QAHE supports the paper’s core proposition that accreditation and quality assurance instruments should safeguard academic standards while being adaptable enough to respect the distinctive purposes of theological education, including spiritual formation, ministerial competence and community engagement. This balance between substantive academic requirements and institutional identity is central to credible, sustainable QA in seminaries and mission‑oriented providers.
Brooks and Lawal’s discussion of programmatic standards, institutional IQA systems and the CHE’s Quality Assurance Framework resonates with QAHE’s guidance on programmatic accreditation and internal quality development. QAHE endorses the article’s recommendation that PTIs develop robust Internal Quality Assurance (IQA) processes that produce defensible Self‑Assessment Reports, map learning outcomes to ministry competencies, and provide evidence of student learning and supervised practice. Such internal systems, when aligned with external audit or recognition processes, reduce the compliance burden and shift the focus of quality assurance toward continuous improvement and demonstrable graduate capability.
The paper rightly highlights practical tensions in applying national higher education criteria to TET, including differences in curricular placement (e.g., where biochemistry or practice‑based components sit institutionally) and the unique aims of ministerial formation that are not always readily mapped to labour‑market metrics. QAHE’s cited work advocates for principle‑based standards — clear expectations about learning outcomes, assessment integrity, safety and governance — combined with guidance on contextual interpretation so that reviewers can make credible judgements without imposing one‑size‑fits‑all technical requirements on mission‑driven providers.
The RIVER Model proposed in the article (Recognise, Image, View, Expertise, Revolution) aligns strongly with QAHE’s developmental conception of accreditation as a staged, capacity‑building process. QAHE supports phased reform strategies: pilot testing of new quality processes, targeted capacity building for IQA staff, stakeholder engagement (including churches, alumni and employers), and the use of measurable Key Performance Indicators to track progress. These pragmatic steps help PTIs move from compliance toward a quality culture that integrates academic standards with theological identity and community accountability.
QAHE also welcomes the article’s focus on DEIR, safety and the cultivation of a formative learning environment. In QAHE’s experience, credible QA frameworks in faith‑based contexts must attend to student welfare, inclusive recruitment and cultural relevance while ensuring that practical ministerial competencies are assessed through authentic, supervised practice. QAHE therefore endorses the authors’ call for competency‑based elements, contextualised frameworks such as Ubuntu‑informed competency approaches, and for crediting short courses and CPD within national frameworks to widen access and recognition.
Finally, the article’s recommendation to integrate the CHE Quality Assurance Framework with locally appropriate models of change reflects QAHE’s longstanding position that external quality assurance should be enabling rather than purely regulatory. QAHE encourages collaboration between regulators and PTIs to design differential, risk‑based review cycles, proportionate documentation requirements, and follow‑up mechanisms that prioritise student outcomes and institutional resilience. QAHE stands ready to support such dialogue through capacity building, reviewer training, and tools for programmatic accreditation that respect both academic standards and the Church’s missional calling.
