1 / 31

Overview of presentation

Draft Policies and Criteria for the Inclusion in, or Alignment with, the National Framework of Qualifications of the Awards of Certain Awarding Bodies National Qualifications Authority of Ireland Briefing Session 24 May 2006. Overview of presentation.

imaran
Download Presentation

Overview of presentation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Draft Policies and Criteria for the Inclusion in, or Alignment with, the National Framework of Qualifications of the Awards of Certain Awarding BodiesNational Qualifications Authority of IrelandBriefing Session 24 May 2006

  2. Overview of presentation Update on implementation of National Framework of Qualifications and related developments Introduction to draft policies and criteria Group A: Bodies with statutory power to make awards Group B: Certain bodies which recognise the attainment of learning outcomes associated with regulation of professions and professional titles Group C: Awards of Certain bodies from outside the state Conclusion: next steps

  3. Implementing the Framework I • FETAC to put in place arrangements by June 2006 for Framework awards at levels 1-6 • implementation arrangements in higher education announced in July 2004 • being implemented from autumn 2004 and used in 2005 CAO • Junior Certificate and Leaving Certificate included in the framework

  4. Implementing the Framework II • HETAC • using interim standards for all award-types • delegating authority to make awards to institutes of technology • University existing awards aligned with major award-types • implemented for Ordinary Bachelor Degree, Honours Bachelor Degrees, Masters Degrees & Doctoral Degrees • process underway within universities for Higher Diploma & Post-Graduate Diploma • process underway for ‘smaller’ award-types • DIT implementing all new major award-types; using some smaller ones

  5. Quality Assurance for Awards in the Framework • Statutory quality assurance arrangements in place for the following awarding bodies: • State Examinations Commission • FETAC • HETAC • Dublin Institute of Technology • Universities

  6. Existing & previous awards – placement in the framework • Some awards will cease to be made • Intention is to map these awards to Framework levels • Awarding bodies and Authority to agree placement • Placements agreed with HETAC, FETAC, DIT and the Department of Education and Science

  7. NSEW Cross referencing - European Meta-Framework Developments Irish Framework does not stand alone or in a vacuum • Has been cross-referenced to Frameworks in place in the United Kingdom in 2005 • In due course will be aligned to European Meta-Frameworks • Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area • established by European Higher Education Ministers in Bergen in May 2005 – the ‘Bologna Framework’ • European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning • Still undergoing further development/ consultation process

  8. NSEW ALIGNMENT

  9. Alignment of Irish Framework with Bologna Framework • Formal process underway • Steering group of awarding bodies and international experts established • To make a proposal for broader consultation nationally in June 2006 • Workshop planned for 3 October 2006

  10. European Meta-Framework Summary • In both cases • Primacy of the National Framework of Qualifications • Quality assurance required in national arrangements • Qualifications relate to national frameworks and frameworks talk to each other through meta-frameworks • a dialogue based on commonly understood notions of learning outcomes • Countries self-certify the link of their national frameworks to European frameworks following established criteria and procedures

  11. Framework Development: final steps Policies and Criteria concerning the recognition of awards (or associated learning outcomes) of certain awarding bodies not already recognised in National Framework of Qualifications • Prepared by Qualifications Authority after an extensive consultation process • Two formal consultative papers issue: May 2002, September 2004 • Submissions sought and considered by Authority from relevant stakeholders • Series of meetings with Stakeholders • For process see http://www.nqai.ie/en/FrameworkDevelopment

  12. Framework Development – final steps • Authority published draft policies in April 2006, proposing the recognition through the Framework of the following: • Group A: The awards of Irish bodies which make awards on a statutory basis (where the body’s awards are not yet in the Framework and where the awards cannot be withdrawn) • Group B: The learning outcomes associated with the awards of certain Irish bodies which do not make awards on a statutory basis but which recognise the attainment by learners of learning outcomes in a formal way associated with the regulation of the operation of a profession or of a professional title by such bodies • Group C: The awards of certain bodies from outside the State which make awards in Ireland. • Today’s workshop: an opportunity to brief stakeholders on emerging policies and criteria

  13. Nature of Professional approval/ accreditation/ recognition • No single model or set of arrangements • In the context of the Framework, Authority considers that there is an optimum model for the relationship between professional/regulatory bodies and education and training providers and awarding bodies • Professional body not an awarding body but an accreditor/approver of the awards of awarding bodies and programmes leading to these awards • Needs of professional bodies should defined in terms of learning outcomes • Accreditation/approval etc should be met in advance of a programme commencing and subsequently verified • Alignment of professional accreditation and QA processes of awarding bodies/providers • No direct provision by professional regulators of learning opportunities • IHEQN Conference 17 October 2006: will explore some of these issues

  14. Mode of Referencing to Framework Applies to Groups A, B and C • Through the Framework award-types and their descriptors • At a level in the Framework on an overall ‘best fit’ basis

  15. Group A: Bodies with Statutory Power to Make Awards • Voluntary process • Awards that cannot be withdrawn • Awards can be included in Framework

  16. Process of Inclusion Stage 1 • Application in writing to Authority seeking confirmation of eligibility Stage 2 • Submission of detailed application to Authority: • Identify all awards in question • In format that specifies learning outcomes (knowledge, skill & competence) • Identify quality assurance arrangements • Commitment to operate in manner consistent with Framework policies and criteria (Access, transfer and progression, credit, RPL, national approach to recognition of international awards)

  17. Process of Inclusion Stage 2 (continued) • Processing body identified Stage 3 • Processing body considers application • Standard setting • Programme validation • Quality assurance • Assessment procedures • Titles • Conditions

  18. Process of Inclusion Stage 4 • Authority considers proposal by processing body • If agreed by Authority, then award(s) included in Framework • Published by Authority • Agreed quality assurance procedures implemented • Body provides information as appropriate, and when requested

  19. Group B: Certain Bodies which Regulate Professions • Regulation relates to practice or use of professional title • Relation to education and training providers • Not awarding body, but: accredit/approve/recognise awards of awarding body • Regulators which require achievement of further learning outcomes (CPD/E) • No parallel education and training award

  20. Group B: Certain Bodies which Regulate Professions • Recognition in terms of alignment with the Framework • Withdrawal of professional registration • Terms of learning outcomes • Applies at time of adoption of policy • Cross-grouping awards • Voluntary process • Role of FETAC / HETAC

  21. Process of Alignment Stage 1 • Application to an awards Council in writing seeking confirmation of eligibility Stage 2 • Submission of detailed application to the Council: • Identify all awards in question • In format that specifies learning outcomes (knowledge, skill & competence) • Identify quality assurance arrangements • Commitment to operate in manner consistent with Framework policies and criteria Access, transfer and progression, credit, RPL, national approach to recognition of international awards)

  22. Process of Alignment Stage 2 continued • Council considers application • Standard setting • Programme validation • Quality assurance • Assessment procedures • Titles

  23. Process of Alignment Stage 2 continued Council decides on the alignment with the Framework Information published by the Council

  24. Process of Alignment Stage 3 • Councils inform the Authority on regular basis of any decisions made • Applicant body will provide information, as appropriate and when requested on continuing awarding arrangements • Councils ensure agreed quality assurance procedures are implemented and will review effectiveness at least once every five years

  25. Group C: Certain Bodies outside the state • Awards made by awarding bodies outside Ireland following programmes undertaken by learners in Ireland • Bodies would have a status in law or authority to make awards in another jurisdiction and their awards would be included in national frameworks or equivalent tool • Awards can be aligned with the Framework – will take place in context of cross-referencing of Frameworks generally • Matter for Authority, FETAC and HETAC primarily, given statutory remit

  26. Process of Alignment Stage 1 • Application in writing seeking confirmation of eligibility Stage 2 • Submission of detailed application to Authority • Identify all awards in question • Identify how awards are included in national framework or equivalent mechanism • Identify body responsible for national framework or equivalent mechanism • Identify body responsible for external quality assurance of awarding body

  27. Process of Alignment Stage 2 (continued) • Commitment to operate in manner consistent with Framework policies and criteria (Access, transfer and progression, credit, RPL, national approach to recognition of international awards) Stage 3 • Authority and relevant Council(s) considers application with relevant Framework body • Where external quality assurance does not travel, Council(s) will agree QA procedures with applicant body • QA arrangements will allow for changes to the awards of the applicant body and may be subject to conditions of Council(s) • Where external quality assurance does travel but only relates to awards and not to programmes leading to them, this will be made clear in alignment, and brought to attention of interested parties

  28. Process of Alignment Stage 3 (contd) • Titles will be reviewed for consistency with titles in use in NFQ • Authority and relevant Council(s) agree alignment with applicant awarding body Stage 4 • Where external quality assurance does not travel, each Council will ensure that agreed QA procedures are implemented and reviewed for their effectiveness at least once every five years • Applicant will provide information on its continuing awarding arrangements as appropriate and as requested by Authority and Council(s)

  29. Conclusion: Next Steps • Today’s workshop: an opportunity to brief stakeholders on emerging policies and criteria • Finalisation by Authority of policies and criteria, summer 2006 • Implementation of policies and procedures, 2006/7/8

More Related