National qualifications authorities Governance

15

Chapter 3 International experiences

3.1 Governance

9

3.1.1 National qualifications authorities

The majority of countries that have implemented a NQF have created a single qualifications authority to design andor implement and manage their NQF. However, these authorities vary substantially, especially in their terms of reference, operations, size and capacity [Allais 2010]. In essence the variance is due to: • nature, scope and purpose of the NQF; • characteristics of the qualifications system, including the quality assurance arrangements in place or desired; • degree and scope of desired stakeholder engagement; and • social and political characteristics of the country. Generally, the variances are as a result of whether the authority has a quality assurance role or not within the qualifications system. Some countries may have established multiple agencies to manage the quality assurance of various sub sectors e.g. Australia, however each country has established only one single agency to manage the NQF and manage or coordinate the implementation of its NQF across all education and training sectors within the scope of its NQF. The underpinning purpose of an NQF can affect the governance arrangements of the responsible agency within a country. A NQF is a set of nationally agreed standards, developed by competent authorities, which recognize learning outcomes and competences for all forms of learning [UNESCO 2012]. Raffe distinguishes between three types of qualifications frameworks [Raffe 2009], • communication frameworks; • reforming frameworks; and • transformational frameworks. A communications framework is defined as one that takes the existing structures of the education and training system and aims to make it transparent and easier to understand. A reforming framework is one which takes the existing structures of the education and training system and aims to improve it. The transformational framework on the other hand looks towards the future for the education and training system and aims to develop structures to achieve the proposed change. NQFs can vary in terms of whether they are tight or loose frameworks [Tuck 2007]. Tuck states that tight NQFs are generally based on legislation or regulation with which accreditation of qualifications are to comply. As such, there are often common rules and procedures for the development and approval of qualifications for all education and training sectors. Loose frameworks, on the other hand, tend to be based on general principles and are more guidance rather than requirements to comply with [Tuck 2007:22]. Tuck [2007] indicates that tight frameworks are more appropriate for a regulatory environment and a loose framework more appropriate when the framework has more of a communicative focus. Tuck’s 9 Full report prepared by Ms Andrea Bateman on international experiences of governance arrangements is submitted separately. 16 classification does not imply that there are only two types of NQFs, but that there is a continuum of approaches. However, the two approaches highlight the need to consider the degree of central control to be exerted in regards to implementation, and therefore affects the role of the responsible agency i.e. the IQF Board. Six NQFs were reviewed i.e. Australia, Hong Kong, Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland and South Africa. New Zealand is cited as a tight framework with set criteria and requirements as opposed to that of Scotland, which has greater flexibility as to what is a qualification and what can be included in the framework. Other frameworks can be a mix of purposes, for example, the Australian Qualifications Framework AQF at its inception provided a basis for a regulatory approach to vocational education and training qualifications development, whereas with the higher education sector especially with universities it was said to be reflective of the status quo. Some frameworks clearly stated overarching objectives related to social inclusion, for example, South Africa’s NQF notes a key objective as ‘accelerate the redress of past unfair discrimination in education, training and employment opportunities’ [SAQA 2000:5].

3.1.2 Characteristics of the qualifications system