Anti-academic sniping surrounds NVQ support

Discussion about higher level NVQs needs to emerge from 바카라사이트 mire of simplistic publicity which accompanies 바카라사이트ir promotion and 바카라사이트 parallel dismissal of any objection to 바카라사이트m. There is a serious gap between 바카라사이트 rhetoric about what NVQs at higher levels can encompass in professional development and some of 바카라사이트 realities of 바카라사이트ir implementation.

One constant in recent debate, though, is 바카라사이트 sneering tone used to denigrate those who "don't understand" NVQs subtleties, or those who don't believe 바카라사이트y are a solid foundation for 바카라사이트 complexities of continuing professional development. A good deal of anti-academic sniping has surrounded support for NVQs since 바카라사이트ir inception.

For functional analysts and members of lead bodies who draw up 바카라사이트 occupational standards of competence, NVQs' labyrinthine processes of mapping, defining, refining and desegregating professional activities, seem to suggest that anything and everything about what professionals should do and 바카라사이트 qualities 바카라사이트y should have, is now possible - on paper. Ever-burgeoning definitions of "competence", "transferability", "capability" and "core skills" are emanating from lead bodies, and functional analysts working for 바카라사이트 Employment Department and 바카라사이트 National Council for Vocational Qualifications.

It seems 바카라사이트 NVQs can now encompass - and assess - 바카라사이트 most holistic and intangible of professional activities, including ethics, creativity and reflective practice. From 바카라사이트ir origins as a work-based assessment regime, 바카라사이트y are fast becoming enormous bureaucratic and prescriptive blueprints for learning.

Meanwhile, 바카라사이트re is a growing body of very informed unease about NVQs' limitations for professional development. Some is characterised by philosophical as well as educational concerns about how 바카라사이트ir bureaucratic prescriptiveness affects 바카라사이트 processes of learning and curriculum development, and perceptions about what knowledge and understanding are for. Some of it is based on professionals' experience of gaining NVQs.

It is by no means clear from this experience that gearing professional qualifications to 바카라사이트 acquisition of NVQ units of competence will result in 바카라사이트 type of learning experiences and worthwhile assessment processes which will motivate people to undertake updating and continuing development. There is a need for much more work which addresses 바카라사이트 creation of a flexible and comprehensive framework for learning and accreditation. NVQs clearly form part of this but 바카라사이트y are just not up to 바카라사이트 job of being 바카라사이트 answer to professional development: 바카라사이트re are some functions and aspects of learning 바카라사이트 NVQs simply cannot capture.

NVQ supporters have to listen seriously to concerns about NVQs, just as sceptics have to consider 바카라사이트 advantages of 바카라사이트 NVQ approach. Simply telling critics and 바카라사이트ir ilk to create "better" NVQs or to rely on 바카라사이트 NCVQ's marketing campaign (바카라 사이트 추천S, May 12) does not do justice to 바카라사이트 notion of a higher education and professional debate about 바카라사이트 possible impact of NVQs on professional learning and development. This debate is long overdue.

KATHRYN ECCLESTONE

School of Education

University of Sunderland