The Targeted Review of the Qualifications System: an Opportunity Lost?

We have just posted Ako Aotearoa’s submission on NZQA’s consultation paper on the Targeted Review of the Qualifications System.

There’s some good ideas in this consultation paper. There is no doubt the present Register is a bit of a mess (an understatement). It needs rationalising and simplifying. The duplication of effort it has cost us to get to this state is quite horrifying.

The concept of having sufficient flexibility in National Qualifications to allow for local variation is an excellent one.

However, the consultation paper leaves me with the overwhelming impression that NZQA is essentially proposing a cosmetic tidy up, without addressing - perhaps not even recognising – the fundamental problems which have caused the mess in the first place.

Firstly, there is the assumption that New Zealand and the local components of provider qualifications are not standards based. This is not necessarily true at all. The real distinction is that National Qualifications are, because of the nature of unit standards, framed entirely in a competency-based model, while other qualifications are usually not.

I don’t think we would question the need for learners to develop base competencies in any programme of tertiary study. The question we should be asking is whether or not that is sufficient if we want best value for tertiary education in a transforming economy. Surely we want to move beyond competencies defined for today’s skills in today’s environments? We explore this in our submission.

One day we might even ask the question "are unit standards as presently formulated, the best way of framing competency-based standards?" But maybe that’s a debate for another time.

Secondly, does the consultation paper unpack sufficiently the twin functions of the proposed new framework: on the one hand providing easily accessible information to learners and on the other the regulatory function? I don’t think it does.

How best can these different imperatives be made compatible – possibly, even, synergistic? How best can they foster the necessary collaboration between all stakeholders: learners, industry, providers, economic development agencies and the communities they are all part of?

I’m worried that we are on the brink of an opportunity lost. Ultimately this is a debate about the best interest of learners and New Zealand’s future. Let’s not lose sight of that.

I welcome your comment.