Professor Simon Roodhouse, Chief Executive of the University Vocational Awards Council, follows up his article on streamlined qualifications (February’s issue of ‘t’ magazine) with a thought-provoking account of how a coherent qualifications framework would work
David Sherlock, Chief Executive of the Adult Learning Inspectorate, recently called our qualifications framework “incoherent and chaotic”.
A coherent national qualifications framework is a prize worth having - primarily for the learner - as it will provide for the first time, a coherent progression matrix; linked to a common credit system that is transportable from one institution to another across the country and ultimately internationally.
Such a system has the potential to increase the number of learners - particularly at work – who wish to take advantage of higher level qualifications to develop their competences. As a result, a serious contribution can be made to national economic development and social inclusion. ( Scotland is already moving in this direction with an integrated qualification framework for further and higher education.)
The advantages of such a framework would be:
- A learner-centred approach to qualifications
- Explicit progression for the learner
- A system that is easily understandable by all
- Clarity relating to Agency roles and responsibilities
- A workable National credit system
- National transfer of credit between institutions and internationally
- Cost savings leading from the coordination of audit systems (avoiding overlap and duplication)
- Better employer engagement through a simplified and coherent qualifications framework based on national occupational standards
- The strengthening of existing relationships between further and higher education So how do we go about making this a reality?
Sir Anthony Greener, QCA Chairman, has his own ideas about this – and also shares David Sherlock’s views about the current qualifications framework. I in a speech to the Sector Skills Development Agency on the 20 January 2004, Sir Anthony supported David Sherlock’s assessment and suggested a way forward saying:
“He [David Sherlock} was not wrong. Our so-called national qualifications framework is not a ‘framework’ in the sense of providing architecture - at present it is merely a listof qualifications.”
He went on to outline a way forward:
“I would start by seeking to fill in that over-riding element of the strategy that I suggested was missing - a coherence and a continuum which is built up from the needs of the consumer. That coherence requires:
- First, a single qualifications framework which includes all general qualifications, vocational qualifications, university degrees and higher degrees. This single framework should be
- regardless of the different funding mechanisms for parts of it (by the LSC or by the Higher Education Funding Council for England)
- it should be regardless of which agency accredits, regulates or quality assures it (by the QCA or by the Quality Assurance Agency)
- it should be regardless of whether the content of the qualification has its basis in industrial practice or in university research
- and regardless of the type of institution or workplace in which the teaching and learning takes place (school, college, university, office, laboratory, workshop, factory floor or on-line)"
Such a system is now being developed by the QCA along with a national credit system. The emerging model reflects the proposal described in my recent article in ‘t’ magazine – reproduced below (the full paper is available at
www.simonroodhouse.com) :
