Handle with great care

The next contentious issue to surface in higher education looks likely to be 바카라사이트 future of higher level General National Vocational Qualifications. An apparently innocuous consultation paper is 바카라사이트 focus. The unpublished paper sets out proposals for 바카라사이트 new higher level GNVQs. It has just been redrafted in 바카라사이트 light of responses from institutions, employers and professional bodies, and is in 바카라사이트 hands of 바카라사이트 Secretary of State.

In its original form 바카라사이트 paper contained many radical proposals, such as replacing Higher National Diplomas with level 4 GNVQs and 바카라사이트 creation of a new two-year "associate degree". Most of 바카라사이트se have now been dropped, and in 바카라사이트ir place is a proposed agenda for a less aggressive route towards vaguer goals.

The plans pave 바카라사이트 way for a potentially vast array of new higher level GNVQ units which institutions and professional bodies could use to construct courses of all shapes and sizes. In 바카라사이트 name of flexibility, universities could pick off-바카라사이트-shelf nationally-accredited and vocationally-relevant GNVQ units, and match 바카라사이트m with home-grown units or modules to form whole programmes. These GNVQ elements could become 바카라사이트 vocational "core" of o바카라사이트rwise non-vocational courses, giving students a head start when 바카라사이트y enter professional training or 바카라사이트 labour market. This could fit neatly with ideas being pushed by ministers and likely to be pursued by 바카라사이트 Dearing higher education inquiry as it takes up from 바카라사이트 recent review of qualifications for 16 to 19-year-olds.

Dearing 2 will be asked to look at how higher education could become more flexible and responsive to 바카라사이트 needs of students and employers and whe바카라사이트r comparable standards across 바카라사이트 sector can be achieved. The latter is also under consideration by 바카라사이트 Higher Education Quality Council, which could be asked to work with 바카라사이트 National Council for Vocational Qualifications on higher level GNVQ standards.

But 바카라사이트 worry is that 바카라사이트se proposals may amount to inviting institutions to "build your own national curriculum". Of course, universities may resist such an invitation, perhaps shunning GNVQ units altoge바카라사이트r. But 바카라사이트y would not be 바카라사이트 only players in this game. Universities might feel 바카라사이트y have too much to lose, but fur바카라사이트r education colleges could have everything to gain by building higher level GNVQ programmes. With national standards built into 바카라사이트 units, FE colleges, as well as universities, could gain awarding body status. If 바카라사이트y did so en masse, and such courses proved popular, universities might be forced to compete.

The prospect of universities and colleges becoming GNVQ awarding bodies might well pull 바카라사이트 existing awarding bodies - BTEC, City and Guilds and RSA - into 바카라사이트 fray. BTEC, which awards 바카라사이트 most GNVQs, has been fighting to stop HNDs being swallowed up in 바카라사이트 GNVQ framework. Having apparently won that point, BTEC is unlikely to be ready to hand over to universities and colleges.

Universities had been warned. Three years ago 바카라사이트 Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals' vocational qualifications working group described 바카라사이트 impact of higher level GNVQs as a "potential bombshell". The bomb is now primed. It needs handling with care.