Labour Society Economy Market Education Training the Value - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Education Population Labour Market Economy the next generation Value System Society Training

What do they aim at or promise? What are we at SDC interested in? Which features to develop & maintain? Which interests may cause conflict?

What do they aim at or promise? 1. Transparency (learning outcomes) 2. Comparability (level and equating of awards) 3. Mobility of Learner (transition, permeability) 4. Mobility of Worker (progression, portability) 5. Esteem of TVET (re-valuation of programmes) 6. Trade in Services (GATS mode 4)

STATUS MARKET CAREER VALUE PATHWAYS MIGRATION

What are we at SDC interested in?

• 1. Is there an easy access point for disadvantaged persons?
• 2. Are the “ladders” to higher skill levels working?
• 3. Do TVET-specific qualifications emerge on levels 5+?
• 4. Are there “bridges” from TVET into HE (and GE) ?
• 5. Is recognition of informal and experiential learning fair?
• 6. Are certificates honoured in the labour market?

Which Features do we wish to develop and maintain?

• 1. Offer free SD entry level short courses with certification.
• 2. Offer SD progression courses to levels 2 and 3.
• 3. Create higher TVET qualifications.
• 4. interconnect TVET and higher education.
• 5. Treat RPL candidates fair and assist them.
• 6. Ensure assessment quality and validity of SD certificates.

NO DEAD ENDS OPEN ACCESS LiFE-LONG LEARNING MARKET VALUE INCLUSION BEST OF BOTH WORLDS

Conflicting interests to deal with?

• 1. Empire building (jobs and power)
• 2. HE supremacy (preserving value pyramid)
• 3. Unit-centered TVET (Neo-Taylorism)
• 4. Profit (selling systems and tools)

higher education ministries and institutions; society as a whole 1st world framework agencies, international awarding bodies, business interest as a whole job vs.

• ccupation; global

trend towards standardising technical usefulness national regulators, developers, professional assessors, certifiers; state as a whole

Typical Pitfalls and Weaknesses

• 1. Complicated total integration of GE + TVET + HE.
• 2. Many upper levels to reflect HE diversity.
• 3. Access and progression based on credits.
• 4. TVET void on higher levels.
• 5. Few credits for experiential learning.
• 6. Jargon and elaborated specifications.
• 7. Complex design and massive controls.
• 8. Framework just a chart – not delivering.

Lean system. Fast delivery. Equity-driven.

What do they aim at or promise? What are we at SDC interested in? Which features to develop & maintain? Which interests to reckon with?

grand ideas Caveat emptor!

Education Population Labour Market Economy the next generation Value System Society Training

award better qualifications to entire workforce

Classification Chart:

• Number of Levels
• level descriptors
• strands
• credits

map existing programmes and awards onto the chart. step 1: create relevant

• ccupational profiles

and standards step 2a: develop assessment tools & procedures step 2b: develop new curricula and modules step 3b:

• ffer new or

replace old programs

(incl. formative assessment)

step 3a: provide summative assessment incl. RPL

allow simple referencing

register / approve programmes or modules license / accredit providers appoint / accredit awarding bodies quality assurance mechanisms and authority introduce credit transfer between existing programs

From Drawing Board to Practice. Think big, act...

revamp or reform delivery system

Nepal

(NSTB) We may use this diagram to check the performance

• f National (Vocational) Qualifications Frameworks.

Cambodia

Sri Lanka SLQF of 2012

Kuwait

(KOSAC)

Bahrain

(MoL) The Philippines (TESDA) UAE NQA

(purchased from City&Guilds)

Lao PDR

(VEDI)

India

(NSDC) a

lot or little?

Singapore WSQ

Sri Lanka NVQF

Bhutan Bhutan

BVQF

Pakistan

(NAVTTC)

Bangladesh

(NSDB,BTEC)

Several Committees to harmonise frameworks (standards, testing, qualifications); Abu Dhabi Dialogue; few pilot occupations flagged for validation with migrants; UAE imported City&Guilds (?) ASEAN task force on Qualifications Reference Framework; process propelled by ASEAN Economic Community (integration deadline: 2015); pioneers: Singapore, Philippines; lagging: Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia Qualifications Framework not on agenda diverse national situations Australian Qualifications Framework New Zealand Qualifications Framework Mature Systems presented as best practices