Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
GSS Session V Mr Paul Comyn
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

GSS Session V Mr Paul Comyn

391
views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
391
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Note briefing paper describing it as a descriptive framework yet a detailed credit matrix
  • Transcript

    • 1. Decent Work for All ASIAN DECENT WORK DECADE 2006-2015 National & Vocational Qualification Frameworks (NQF/NVQF) International Experiences Paul Comyn Senior Specialist in Vocational Training & Skills Development Decent Work Team for South Asia ILO New Delhi
    • 2. This presentation will…
      • Consider claims made for qualification frameworks;
      • Consider some of the evidence against these claims;
      • Provide an overview of recent ILO research on NQFs and NVQFs;
      • Highlight key strategic, implementation and design issues; and
      • Consider the implications for India in the context of current NVQF developments.
    • 3. What are QF expected to deliver?
      • Greater recognition of skills and learning (incl. informal learning)
      • Increased access, transfer and progression
      • International recognition and alignment of qualifications
      • Increased mobility of learners and workers
      • Enhanced opportunities for lifelong learning
      • Demand oriented education and training
      • Improved accountability and control
      • Enhanced quality of learning
      • Increased coherence and coordination
      • Improved understanding of education system
      • Improved employability of workers, productivity of enterprises and inclusive economic growth
    • 4. How are they expected to deliver?
      • By providing a common ‘language’
      • By stimulating stakeholder engagement and coordination
      • By regulating provision
      • By extending or improving quality assurance
      • By ‘modularising’ or ‘unitising’ learning
      • By making individual qualifications more transparent
      • By leading systemic reform
    • 5. Are all frameworks the same?
      • Each reflects a distinctive response to agreed national purposes and priorities
      • Each involve distinct mechanisms that reflect national systems
      • Can vary across education and training sectors and can involve sub-frameworks (NQF/NVQF/NVEQF/NTVQF)
      • Can be distinguished as ‘communications’, ‘transformational’ and ‘reforming’ or a combination of these but other typologies exist (provisional/comprehensive, tight/loose etc) including trans-national variations (referencing etc)
    • 6. Do we have good evidence of NQF outcomes and impact?
      • Most NQFs are at too early a stage to evaluate - even some of the ‘older’ NQFs
      • ‘ Early starters’ are atypical eg: Scotland
      • Monitoring and evaluation usually an afterthought
      • Limited independent evaluation
      • Evidence of positive outcomes from the development process
      • Less evidence of impact: difficult to interpret and generalise due to weak data and methodologies
      • Very little evidence on trans-national or regional QFs
    • 7. The ILO Study: Aims
      • To what extent can NQFs achieve various policy objectives such as improved employability?
      • Is there evidence of impact, for example on recruitment, productivity or improved access ie: what is the impact on labour markets?
      • Which models of NQFs and which implementation strategies and approaches are most appropriate in which contexts?
    • 8. The ILO Study: Approach
      • ILO and ETF funding
      • S. Allais (SA) & M. Young (UK) the main contributors
      • 16 country case studies at different stages of development
      • Mainly secondary sources of data: consultations, focus groups, public data on impact, examples of qualifications and standards
      • http://www.ilo.org/skills/projects/WCMS_126588/lang--en/index.htm
    • 9. The ILO Study: Findings
      • Most NVQF success is in improving communication
      • Evidence of over-specification and unused qualifications as a result of efforts to improve transparency through learning outcomes
      • Little evidence of reduced mismatch between education and training and labour markets
      • Little evidence of improved RPL
      • Little evidence of improved access
    • 10. The ILO Study: Findings
      • Mainly government-led with mixed patterns of social dialogue and varied input from stakeholders
      • Evidence of unclear purposes & unrealistic expectations
      • Evidence of resistance from education/training institutions
      • Clear difficulties working with different curriculum models across education sectors
        • The ‘knowledge’ problem
        • Limited value of policy borrowing
    • 11. What does the overall evidence show?
      • Improved understanding of education systems? – Yes, if QF is comprehensive and ‘loose’, and if language is kept simple and applied consistently
      • Increased coherence & coordination? – Potentially: a loose, comprehensive QF may provide a tool but not drive change
      • Improved access, transfer and progression? – Potentially, if comprehensive, but depends on complementary measures, incentives and trust; but may introduce rigidities which restrict access and progression; little evidence of impact on ‘parity of esteem’
    • 12. What does the overall evidence show?
      • Improved accountability and control? – Yes, but can be bureaucratic, costly and stifle provision
      • Updated and extended standards? – Yes, may increase employer input; but not if complexity, bureaucracy or cost discourage employer engagement
      • Enhanced quality of learning? – Variably: quality assurance may have impact; other impacts on pedagogy are slow to appear
      • Increased recognition of skills and learning (incl. informal learning)? – It provides a tool but not the incentive to use it, or the trust to underpin recognition
    • 13. What does the overall evidence show?
      • Promote mobility? – Has helped some countries to market their educational programmes abroad; too early to judge impact on labour mobility
      • Reference qualifications to transnational framework? – Yes, on paper, but trust in referencing has barely been tested
      • Make education more demand-focused? – Yes and no; increased employer input in specific sectors/niches, but effects can be negative, and the problems of articulating demand persist
      • Promote lifelong learning? – Yes, through some of the above
    • 14. What are the implications for India?
      • ILO / World Bank Options Paper for Indian NVQF:
        • pre-determined or developmental ?
        • outcomes-based or outcomes and inputs combined ?
        • whole qualifications , part qualifications (eg: units) or both?
        • comprehensive or partial or framework?
        • tight or loose regulatory approach?
        • horizontal axis determined by type, occupation or sector ?
        • vertical axis determined by level descriptors based on comparative mapping, learning outcomes and/or occupational profiles?
        • credit accumulation and transfer system or not?
    • 15. What are the current issues and risks?
      • Administrative:
        • NVEQF / NVQF: MOHRD / MOLE ie: no clear leadership
      • Developmental:
        • Haryana ‘pilot’ is not an NVQF pilot but a new model for TVET in schools
        • Developed in isolation with limited involvement of social partners
      • Technical:
        • Limited coherence in level descriptors / arbitrary link with years of schooling
        • Unclear links between occupations, employment pathways and levels
        • Incomplete nomenclature / unclear NOS template & scope: doctoral level?
      • Implementation:
        • Legal framework for NVQF unclear
    • 16. What might be a way forward?
      • Formally establish a sub-committee of the National Skill Development Coordination Board (NSDCB) to combine MOLE and MOHRD efforts
      • Map curriculum and develop occupational profiles in priority sectors to validate draft descriptors and levels
      • Develop sectoral sub-frameworks that to suit sectoral logics and then deal with equivalence
      • Clarify institutional arrangements and legal basis
      • Increase investment in curriculum and learning resources
      • Cross your fingers..
    • 17. Key considerations
      • Recognise that key processes are socio-political more than technical
      • Aim to match NVQF to institutional and sectoral logics
      • Balance ‘political’ demands with NVQF realities
        • NVQFs have the potential to support incremental change based on consensus
        • where consensus does not exist and when change is not possible their potential is more limited
        • don’t rush it!
    • 18.
      • THANKS