• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
GSS Session V Mr Paul Comyn
 

GSS Session V Mr Paul Comyn

on

  • 632 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
632
Views on SlideShare
632
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via SlideShare as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Note briefing paper describing it as a descriptive framework yet a detailed credit matrix

GSS Session V Mr Paul Comyn GSS Session V Mr Paul Comyn Presentation Transcript

  • 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
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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)
  • 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
  • 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?
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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’
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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?
  • 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
  • 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..
  • 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!
    • THANKS