GSS Session V Mr Paul Comyn


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Note briefing paper describing it as a descriptive framework yet a detailed credit matrix
  • GSS Session V Mr Paul Comyn

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