October 2000 ISSUE 35

Standards bring national recognition for learners

Ten years ago, New Zealand's qualifications system was a source of frustration for learners. Local qualifications were often untransferable between industries or institutions, there was little consistency in the naming of qualifications and a number of sectors had no means of formally recognising people's skills. The introduction of Framework standards and qualifications has given learners national recognition for their achievements and qualifications that are truly portable.

The central feature of the Qualifications Framework is that all qualifications are now based on defined and accepted national standards. The standards development process was a massive undertaking involving extensive consultation and partnerships with industry, schools, tertiary providers and Government agencies. For each area of skills and knowledge, a skills analysis was completed and standards developed and packaged into qualifications.

This drafting and consultation process, although onerous, ensured that the standards and qualifications developed were appropriate to the needs of each industry or field of knowledge.

NZQA quality assurance manager, Brent Richardson, joined the Authority in 1993 and worked with numerous standards-setting groups. He recalls it as both an exciting and stressful time.

"When you look back to the 1980s there was a high level of frustration with the qualifications system. It lacked coherence and consistency. For instance, in qualifications nomenclature, the word Diploma could mean any number of things to different people."

The development of the Framework reflected a fresh approach to recognition issues.

"In the early days, we were all learning, because developing the Framework involved a completely different emphasis from the work that had happened in the 1980s. Instead of focussing on how and what people were teaching, we were focussing on the outcomes of the learning, which was a huge shift in thinking."

"As a country we pumped millions of dollars into the education system, into resource and curriculum development, but at the end of it, all we could say was that a person gained '57% in Maths' or that they had 'attended' English. To me that was amazing, we spent so much on education and training, but the net result was that there wasn't any information that captured what a person had actually attained.

"Brent Richardson says the term 'Framework', does not wholly capture what developed - a national recognition system whose introduction was an essential pre-requisite for building the country's skills base.

"The whole economy was crying out for a transformation that was not possible with the education, training and qualifications system we had in the 1980s. There was new emphasis on upskilling and retraining but if that training had no status it was an economic and social waste. So developing the Framework wasn't just about developing unit standards, it was a conscious effort to develop a robust and integrated system of quality assurance so that new training and qualifications could be promoted with credibility."

"The Framework was about increasing people's confidence in qualifications by clearly articulating through standards what people were achieving when training for their qualification."

Dudley Brown of the New Zealand Equine Industry Training Organisation confirms that these benefits have happened in his industry.

"For the equine industry the Framework has given us the opportunity to register qualifications that recognise current competencies and have flexible learning pathways towards National Certificates. Because the certificates are issued with industry endorsement it provides proper recognition for people seeking employment here or overseas."

Brent Richardson adds that having a national recognition system has also helped to address fundamental social equity concerns.

"When we're making judgements about people for qualifications or performance review or remuneration systems, we owe it to them to do so in a way that is fair and equitable, using clear benchmarks. To deny people access to knowledge of what is expected of them when they learn or are given a task is reprehensible really. Now people know, it's up front. People are happy to do the best they can as long as they know what that is."

Jay Lamburn of the Public Sector Industry Training Organisation has also referred to the 'democratising force' of the Framework.

"The Framework involved a huge range of people in the process of defining, developing, implementing, training and receiving training in industry standards. It democratised the process of skills and competencies away from the traditional hierarchy of academic and vocational institutional divisions in education and training. It enabled industry to control their own training provisions through the establishment of ITOs and generally to be more actively involved in training, rather than just being passive recipients."

Brent Richardson adds: "I remember reading a quotation once that said 'Never give a good idea to a bureaucrat, because all you get is paper.' Well, the Framework didn't turn out like that, because it wasn't the bureaucrats doing it, they set up the process and facilitated it, but it was the providers, the learners, the employers, the professional associations who wanted to do it and gave their time to do it. We wouldn't have got where we are now without a hell of a lot of people's enthusiasm, determination and commitment to generate a national qualifications system."

It wasn't all plain sailing, says Brent. "Many stakeholder groups were coming together for the first time. Some of those meetings were hellish, some were a real buzz. In the early days it was very uncomfortable, you'd get abuse at parties. But it was good having criticism, and being challenged, because the challenges made us think. But there were plenty of instances where it worked well and sectors came together that had never had formal recognition of their skills."

Another benefit, noted by Jay Lamburn, was that the Framework raised employer expectations of quantifiable improvement in their workforce and expectations that performance should be more rigorous with definable and assessable outcomes. "Generally, today, there is a better balance between theory and practice than previously, as well as greater employer awareness of the importance of appropriate teaching and assessment methodologies, including moderation."

Brent Richardson says one of the strengths of the Framework has been its evolutionary nature.

"Over time, the system has been challenged and modified, but those changes have made the Framework better. The Green Paper in 1998 and the White Paper in 1999 were big challenges to the idea of having a national recognition system. But the system stood up and was supported."

"There have been changes in implementation, but the Framework's underlying principles have never been challenged or changed. It has been supported because setting up a national recognition system to value people's skills has become a social and human resource imperative."

"The Authority has always tried to do its best and I think it can be proud of what it's done. Internationally, it is respected for what it's done. Other countries have faced the same issues and come up with exactly the same principles and approach - USA, Australia, Namibia, the Basque region in Spain."

"My belief is that the Framework recognises people and their value, it enhances the recognition given to qualifications and the benefits of gaining qualifications. It's not about standards or standards-based assessment, it's about valuing people and the Framework has provided people with substantial and regular reinforcement of success."

And the challenges ahead? Brent Richardson concludes, "We've set up a national recognition system, now the challenge is to achieve an internationally-recognised system. We want people around the world to recognise and have confidence in New Zealand qualifications."

HOME

TOP

NEXT

Copyright © 2000 New Zealand Qualifications Authority