VUSSC/TQF2008/Monday

Day's End - Report


 * VUSSC
 * Expectations
 * QA and QFs
 * Case Studies
 * Group Discussion

VUSSC


 * VUSSC mandated by Ministers of Education; VUSSC to use existing structures and capacity.
 * Task for the week‚ (James Keevy f2f workshop leader) refine doc; agree to a framework; plan the agreed mechanism and processes (plan of action); need to work online after this week
 * Decisions made here will be presented in 2009 to CCEM.
 * More of a network of Ministries of Education to facilitate the development of material.
 * TQF not intended as COL's. It is a VUSSC production for small states. The states will need to take ownership.
 * VUSSC can help improve APRs
 * Establish critical mass of expertise via collaborative work
 * VUSSC a collaborative network, not a tertiary institution
 * From a network to a consortium, with support from COL.
 * TQF ‚Äì matching outcomes; translating between systems; national and regional systems.


 * A linking structure, to build human capacity and strengthen countries.
 * COL does what governments ask it to do, not the other way around. COL does not operate like a donor agency.
 * Continuity in pursuing objectives not a problem as each meeting deals with a different subject.
 * Produce FAQs about VUSSC

EXPECTATIONS


 * Looking for directions
 * Link other QFs and accreditation systems with the TQF; Ensure that there isn‚Äôt duplication.
 * Compatibility; transferability
 * Challenges of the Virtual University
 * Refining the concept doc
 * Learning from the experience of others
 * Implementability; Feasibility of concept
 * philosophical/theoretical clarification
 * Networking with other countries
 * Credibility; transparency
 * Mechanism, processes and principles to recognize VUSSC courses
 * VUSSC support for strengthening national systems
 * Specific needs of this group and how the needs could be met
 * Agreement and consensus on way forward; consensus building; community of practice.
 * Adoption of doc as guidelines (INCREMENTALISM; STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT; SIMPLICITY)
 * Need to leave here with a sense of ownership
 * How the TQF relates to eLearning.

QA & QFs 

UNESCO


 * Fora for QA
 * Conventions for academic mobility covering six regions re recognition of qualifications
 * Comparability by 2010 (Bologna process)
 * Guidelines for cross-border education (guidelines distributed).
 * More than 60 countries have adopted external accreditation system.
 * Degree mills false links to Unesco; portal of recognition being developed. 14 countries participating.
 * QA in small states ‚Äì new initiative

The Singapore Model

Lee Kok Hong‚ MoE‚ Education & Training

Phases of Singapore Educ System


 * Survival driven; bldg more schools; equipping students with skills to support industries;
 * Efficiency-driven: streamlining school types; ensuring quality via inspectorate system
 * Ability-driven: thinking schools; learning nation; school autonomy and cluster system; flexibility and choice

QA in Schools


 * Now, self assessment and external validation
 * Searching for a framework Europe, US and Singapore Q Award Model
 * Evolving own framework

School Excellence Model


 * Core values (students first; teachers key; leading with purpose; systems support; working with partners; management by knowledge; continuous improvement and innovation. People + systems = organizational excellence);
 * Framework (enablers driving key performance results);
 * external validation (once in every 5 years; based on self-assessment report; MoE appointed external validation team of trained SAB assessor/s and external assessors (from NIE, polytechnic e.g. & MoE people as well)

QAF for HE


 * Universities, polytechnics and other HEIs.
 * 3-5 year cycle‚ instit. self-assessment; feedback
 * Governance and leadership; management and strategic planning; teaching and learning; service (framework criteria)
 * External review panel from overseas

Mr Renganathan‚ Singapore Quality Class (SQC) for private education organizations (PEOs).


 * To establish Singapore as an education hub
 * Aligned to international standards
 * Voluntary
 * Pre-Q requirements must be maintained for them to remain in good standing
 * Continuous improvement‚ minimum score 400 (out of 1,000 points)
 * Benchmarks for student recruitment
 * Private schools not allowed to award degrees but can partner with overseas universities (Australia, UK and USA).

Sharon Tan‚ QA system


 * WDA development of a skilled workforce
 * Organizational accreditation and course accreditation
 * Organization: mgt; financial practices; learner support and services; admin practices
 * Course: design and dev; trainer and assessor requirements; facilities and equipment
 * Continuous improvement review processes ‚Äì undertaken once a year; effective design & delivery; ability to deliver outcomes; fulfillment of continual improvement requirements; viability of the organization; free from breach of terms and conditions
 * Capability development. Build competency-based training
 * Summary: focus on capability dev; emphasis on CIR; simplify accreditation process
 * WDA www.gov.sg;
 * WSQ http://wsq.wda.gov.sg

Qualifications frameworks as a global phenomenon

Introduction


 * About 70 countries have QFs; all QFs not the same.
 * USA not involved in a QF; Germany only recently involved.
 * Point of departure in this exercise is to start with what the states have and build upon that.
 * Issue of a state being too small to have a qualifications framework. Not enough people; too expensive (do all countries need a QF?).
 * How we stop the brain drain lies elsewhere, not in having a QF.
 * QA necessarily comes with a QF (question raised)

Case Studies

SAMOA


 * Long discussion/consultation period on the way to creation of SQA
 * From certificates through to doctorate level covered by the framework
 * Providers and employers were engaged
 * Stakeholder engagement to promote awareness
 * Strategic and corporate plan in place.
 * Benefits‚ national equivalence and comparability of qualifications; facilitates international comparability; career dev opportunities; recognition of prior learning;
 * Challenges‚ ambitious pr5oject; additional support required; need for database on labour market requirements; need to train resource people and establish local templates; continuation of QA work; funding (donors could be very directive).
 * TQF will be relevant to the development of NQFs/RQFs

SEYCHELLES


 * Built from the bottom up through an elaborate process of engagement and consultation
 * 10-level framework
 * Challenges ‚Äì capacity internally and to facilitate change; limiting conflicts of interest; getting public acceptance; keeping stakeholders continually in the loop; MoUs with professional bodies; delineating the role of SQA vis-√†-vis existing modalities, e.g., within the MoE ‚Äì turf issues
 * Difference between SQA and NQF
 * Autonomy of SQA
 * NQF has occupational bias, reconciling autonomy with emerging HE system
 * Overcoming old habits
 * Articulation with other NQFs (comparability and access)
 * Achievements ‚Äì small and nimble; communities of trust; progress in dev of NQF;
 * recognition of foreign qualifications; building capacity; sown seeds for implementation of aspects of NQF
 * (MOVING FROM POLICY DEV TO IMPLEMENTATION)

CARICOM


 * 10 reps from the Caribbean
 * Most countries do not have a NQF or Accreditation bodies; working on RQF
 * Academic and TVET, RQF intent to allow for a seamless progression in qualifications transfer
 * Responsibilities of partner institutions‚ MoEs, CXC,
 * Level 1-5, from entry level to advanced level.
 * Benefits ‚Äì descriptions of knowledge and skills; skill demand vs. supply; portability; career choices; development of CARICOM; integration of Caribbean workforce; realize mobility;
 * Transparency and trust needed.

PACIFIC REGIONAL QUALIFICATIONS REGISTER


 * Shift from Framework to Register
 * Labour/educ mobility
 * Quality assured qualifications locally are registered
 * QA and Q control procedures
 * RQR doesn‚Äôt interfere with national qualifications

GROUP DISCUSSIONS

Africa


 * Further definition of the virtual university
 * Applies not only to small states (Commonwealth QF for small states?)
 * Framework should include all levels of education
 * Develop action plan to include a costed implementation plan
 * Increase access and mobility, and quality

Caribbean


 * Clearer definition of the VU concept
 * Implementability and available support from COL
 * Interrelationships between QFs
 * Ownership
 * Purpose of TQF, how it will be developed
 * Elements that should go into TQF: e.g., what is meant by QA, accreditation
 * TQF should aim for similarities, benchmarks, standards
 * Definitions, levels of descriptors, entry levels, duration

Med & Indian Ocean


 * Definition of VUSSC‚ virtual, loose, not a legal entity
 * Other countries could be involved
 * Seems directed at vocational training
 * Portability
 * Need for a TQF was questioned. Small states w/o own NQF need it
 * Is it premature at this point to talk about a TQF that is limited in its scope?

PACIFIC


 * Concentrate on concept rather than definitions
 * TQF useful organism to guide own work
 * TQF only for VUSSC? Yes but used for universal application or reference