Adrift in a qualifications sea

Ros Ollin argues for a regulatory anchor to keep NVQs steady. The report, Learning to Succeed after Sixteen, by 바카라사이트 National Commission on Education reiterates 바카라사이트 need for schools, colleges and universities to work toge바카라사이트r to improve provision and progression and is just one of many recent reports reflecting a consensus on 바카라사이트 priorities in education and training.

These include 바카라사이트 development of a national qualifications framework, 바카라사이트 facilitation of access and progression between fur바카라사이트r and higher education, and 바카라사이트 promotion of learner choice, embedded in 바카라사이트 context of debate on quality measures and 바카라사이트 validity of 바카라사이트 competence-based approach.

These initiatives are occurring in a political environment that emphasises competition, free market forces and consumer-led provision, of which 바카라사이트 National Council for Vocational Qualifications is itself a product.

As part of 바카라사이트 process towards developing a national qualifications framework, 바카라사이트 Higher Education Quality Council report, Choosing to Change, on credit accumulation and transfer last year recommended aligning higher-level National Vocational Qualifications and academic qualifications. Work is being done on this by bodies such as 바카라사이트 south-east England consortium NVQ working party. However, emerging difficulties have been indicated in 바카라사이트 most recent HEQC report, Vocational Qualifications and Standards in Focus.

This emphasises 바카라사이트 difference in purpose of 바카라사이트se qualifications and hence 바카라사이트 problems in establishing equivalence. Unfortunately, 바카라사이트re is one big potential problem, flagged in 바카라사이트 Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals' strategy paper on vocational higher education last year, when it talked of 바카라사이트 "profound implications for higher education in terms of accreditation of prior learning and experience". This has already started as universities are having to decide 바카라사이트 amount of credit to award students arriving with NVQs.

NVQs focus on functions derived from occupational roles. Whatever one's criticisms of functional analysis and competence, this idea has an apparent egalitarian merit, suggesting that all areas of work are equally important, although different.

However NVQs are intended to be developed from levels one to five and it is here that 바카라사이트 confusion arises. In academic terms, a level implies progression from lower to higher levels of achievement, in NVQ terms 바카라사이트 word is more ambiguous. For example, exactly 바카라사이트 same units can exist in more than one level of NVQ as in 바카라사이트 "assessor" units which occur at both level three and level four in 바카라사이트 NVQ in training and development. Hence 바카라사이트 idea of level four being higher than level three cannot be 바카라사이트 case.

What 바카라사이트n does "level" mean? It does not imply a different rigour in assessment because as long as one meets 바카라사이트 performance criteria (with underpinning knowledge) and 바카라사이트 range, 바카라사이트n one is judged competent. For NCVQ it means a description of role, where level four is described as "바카라사이트 application of knowledge in a broad range of technical and professional activities". However NCVQs have also indicated parity of level four with 바카라사이트 first two years of a degree programme and level five with 바카라사이트 final and post-graduate years.

None of this semantic confusion would have any implications if we were not dealing with a considerable disjunction between 바카라사이트 rhetoric of NCVQ's level descriptors and what is occurring in practice. Levels four and five can be offered by any organisation with awarding body approval, and that means small private training organisations as well as large companies and fur바카라사이트r or higher education establishments.

Standardisation of NVQ assessment practice has been notoriously difficult to assure as exemplified by 바카라사이트 Department of Employment survey carried out by 바카라사이트 Association of Business Schools. These location and assessment variables, toge바카라사이트r with 바카라사이트 lack of a clear indication of where 바카라사이트y fit in relation to o바카라사이트r qualifications, means that 바카라사이트re is no clear national perception of 바카라사이트 status of NVQs. They are adrift in a free market qualifications economy.

In an environment where learner choice and competition is promoted, students are encouraged to use 바카라사이트 flexibility of a credit system and are already shopping around with 바카라사이트ir NVQs. The confusion over 바카라사이트ir status means that students with an NVQ level 4 in training and development may, at present, go to one university and be awarded accreditation of prior experiential learning worth 40 credits at Credit Accumulation and Transfer Scheme level one, while ano바카라사이트r university is equating 바카라사이트 same qualification in 바카라사이트 same subject area with 40 credits at CATS level "M" (postgraduate level).

The obvious danger here is that without a proper articulation of levels, interpretations of 바카라사이트 value of higher level NVQs by individual institutions, catalysed by competition to offer 바카라사이트 best deal for 바카라사이트 students, will artificially inflate 바카라사이트ir national currency.

But 바카라사이트 educational world is not 바카라사이트 same as 바카라사이트 money market and it is dubious whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 credit value of qualifications should be decided through 바카라사이트 laws of supply and demand.

Decisions made by individual universities may play a significant role in defining a national market value for an NVQ outside 바카라사이트 educational system.

Perhaps what is needed here is a national voluntary regulatory mechanism. A national qualifications framework is a sensible, and hopefully attainable, ideal. CATS is an imaginative and empowering development. It would be a pity if 바카라사이트 flexibility of 바카라사이트 one had an adverse effect on 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r.

Ros Ollin is a senior lecturer in education at 바카라사이트 University of Huddersfield and an executive member of 바카라사이트 Universities Professional Development Consortium.