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
Tuck [2007] categorizes qualifications systems into tracked, linked or unified. In a tracked system the vocational education and training VET sector and higher education are separate and distinct. In a
linked system there are different tracks, but emphasis is on their similarities and equivalences. In a unified system all provision is within the one system.
Generally speaking, most countries have tracked systems. Australia is clearly a tracked system with the VET sector being distinct from higher education; although there is some blurring of provision with some
providers and qualification types and a very strong emphasis at all levels on access and provision of vertical and horizontal pathways.
Within any qualifications system the quality assurance arrangements include: • approval and monitoring of the achievement standards such as study programs, curriculum,
occupational standards, educational or competency standards; • approval of education and training providers, including approval to be established and approval
to deliver specific programs; • monitoring and auditing of provider processes and outcomes, including student learning and
employment outcomes and student and user satisfaction levels; • control, supervision or monitoring of assessment, certification and graduation procedures and
outcomes; • provider or system-wide evaluations of quality, including evaluations by external agencies; and
• provision of public information on the performance of providers [Bateman et al 2012]. Countries typically divide these functions across different types of agencies, such as:
• accreditation agencies; • provider registration and monitoring agencies;
• qualifications agencies and awarding bodies; • licensing agencies and professional bodies;
• self-accrediting andor awarding providers; and • external quality agencies such as those responsible for the ISO standards [Bateman et al 2012].
The number and type of agencies and the balance of their responsibilities, as well as the processes that are used to undertake their functions, are varied.
17 For the six countries reviewed, the quality assurance arrangements vary and different models exist. In
Australia, although there is only one NQF, the responsibility for quality assurance is shared between two national regulators for the VET and higher education sectors, and there are separate quality standards
and separate processes for approving qualifications. The management of the national qualifications framework AQF falls under the policy direction of the Ministry of Education and Training. In Ireland,
prior to 2012, quality assurance was a shared responsibility with four agencies but was replaced by a single integrated agency, Quality and Qualifications Ireland QQI. In New Zealand, the New Zealand
Qualifications Authority NZQA is responsible for the oversight of the NZQF and also quality assures the non-university sector with Universities New Zealand being the key quality assurance body for
universities acting under delegation from the NZQA.
3.1.3 Legislative basis
