The Targeted Review of the New ZealandQualifications System

Consultation: The Targeted Review of the New Zealand Qualifications System The following questionnaire contains questions regarding the seven proposed changes for the New Zealand qualifications system. We value your feedback on these changes.

Each proposed change has its own set of questions. You may either provide feedback on all the changes and complete the entire questionnaire, or you can fill out just the sections that are of interest to you.

Please ensure that you have read the consultation document before answering this questionnaire. Online responses are preferred, but hard-copy responses are also welcome. The due date for responses is 10 November 2009.

Please fill out the form and send it via email to: qualificationsreview@nzqa.govt.nz Alternatively, you can print the questionnaire out and send it to: Targeted Review Consultation Policy Unit NZQA PO Box 160 WELLINGTON 6140

1

Before starting the questionnaire, could you please fill out the following information: i. Your name, role and organisation Jo Scott Policy Analyst Tertiary Education Union Te HautĹŤ Kahurangi o Aotearoa

ii. Is there any other information by which you would like your organisation to be identified e.g. MÄ ori PTE, Pacific provider? Please specify.

The union representing academic and general staff in all institution types within the tertiary education sector.

iii. Is your response a personal view or the view of your organisation?

Our response represents the view of the national union.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to this consultation.

2

Change One: Develop a unified New Zealand qualifications framework 1. To what extent do you support a unified outcomes-based qualifications framework for New Zealand? (please place a tick (√) in one box) Strongly support change one 9

Support change one

Neutral

Somewhat support change one

I do not support change one

2. Please provide reasons for your answer to the above: As it is currently structured, the register and framework system is confusing and poorly understood by both providers and students. The TEU is very supportive of the changes proposed; the structure has a much greater logic to it than the current model, and should mean that we have a system that provides clearer information and is more ‘user-friendly’.

3. How easy would it be for learners, employers and people from overseas to understand the proposed New Zealand Qualifications Framework, compared with the present New Zealand Register of Quality Assured Qualifications and National Qualifications Framework? (please place a tick (√) in one box) Very easy 9

Easy

No different

Difficult

Very difficult

4. To what extent would the proposed New Zealand Qualifications Framework make the relationships between qualifications clearer, compared with the current framework? (please place a tick (√) in one box) Very clear 9

Clear

No different

Unclear

Very unclear

5. What other alternatives or improvements to the proposed New Zealand Qualifications Framework do you think could improve the clarity and userfriendliness of the system?

The TEU believes that we should be looking forward to a progressive phasing-out of provider qualifications, and strengthening/enhancement of national and New Zealand qualifications (in line with the changes proposed later in the review document). We see no good reason for the existence of provider qualifications if the changes proposed are implemented (e.g. allowing greater flexibility for local content in national qualifications). Our qualifications system should be based on national/New

3

Zealand qualifications that if properly structured will provide much greater confidence for employers and students, as well as ensuring greater credibility when being compared internationally.

6. Please provide any additional comments about change one in the space below.

No further provider qualifications should be permitted in the new system; if a provider or group of providers puts a case for a new qualification, it should be considered for development only as a national or New Zealand qualification.

4

Change 2: Require the use of existing quality-assured qualifications and change the design rules for national (standards-based) and New Zealand qualifications to allow for more inclusion of local components.

7. To what extent do you support NZQA requiring the use of existing quality assured qualifications? (please place a tick (√) in one box) Strongly support change two 9

Support change two

Neutral

Somewhat support change two

I do not support change two

8. Please provide reasons for your answer to the above: As we noted above, there is no good reason for the development of further provider qualifications if the concerns about the current structure of national qualifications are addressed. At NCEA level, we don’t allow providers (schools) to create their own versions of the national qualification and ‘brand’ them as their own. Why then should we allow this in the tertiary sector? We acknowledge that the current situation of proliferation and duplication of provider qualifications has arisen because of structural problems in the current system, however the changes proposed in our view will address these concerns. Ultimately, as we noted above, we believe the system should only allow for national and New Zealand qualifications – we recognise that this position may not be shared with providers, and may create difficulties in terms of intellectual property etc. Over time however, we do not think these issues are insurmountable.

For the time being, requiring the use of existing qualifications will be an effective means of addressing the problem of duplication and proliferation.

9. What impacts would this change have on qualification developers?

It would require developers to always think about the national applicability of a proposed qualification, and would encourage them to consider more carefully whether the needs they have identified could be addressed within a national qualification, through the local content component.

10. One option to increase the flexibility of national and New Zealand qualifications is to allow local components, by either: a. setting a percentage range within which local components could most usefully added (e.g. 30 per cent); or b. establishing principles for developers and standard setting bodies to determine the appropriateness of local components 5

Which option do you prefer and why?

The TEU believes that both options could be applied; the first places a definable amount on local content and the second gives developers and standards setting bodies guidelines for determining the appropriateness of local components.

11. What else should be taken into account when applying the requirement to use existing qualifications?

As we noted above, the new system should not allow the development of new provider qualifications.

12. Please provide any additional comments about change two in the space below.

At a recent consultation meeting on this review, we got a very real sense that for some providers/qualification developers, the national qualification system (i.e. New Zealand and national certificates and diplomas) should be secondary to their retaining the ability to produce provider-branded qualifications. Additionally some providers/standards setting bodies gave the impression that losing this ability would undermine their capacity to effectively deliver to students. The TEU does not support this view. Allowing continued unfettered development of qualifications, particularly provider qualifications can only be detrimental to our qualifications system. What we should be aiming for is a system of national qualifications that are widely understood and valued, transferable (between providers), that have widespread relevance for industry and communities, and are recognised internationally as part of a cohesive national system. Continuing with a plethora of ‘boutique’ qualifications will not achieve this.

6

Change 3: Require mandatory periodic reviews of qualifications to determine whether they are still fit-for-purpose 13. To what extent do you support the introduction of mandatory periodic reviews of qualifications to determine whether they are still fit-for-purpose? (please place a tick (√) in one box) Strongly support change three 9

Support change three

Neutral

Somewhat support change three

I do not support change three

14. Please provide reasons for your answer to the above: The proposed change is a vital element to ensure that we have a system of relevant qualifications that are valued and understood by students, the staff responsible for their delivery, employers and the sector. Additionally as is well noted in the review document, this process will assist in reducing the extensive duplication and proliferation of qualifications that currently exist.

15. What impacts do you think this change will have on qualification developers?

It will serve as a reminder to qualification developers to maintain a cycle of assessing current relevance of qualifications, and would ensure that they maintain up-to-date networks with industry, iwi/hapĹŤ and communities. If our proposal that provider qualifications be phased out was implemented, it would reduce the workload/expense for these providers quite considerably!

16. How should timeframes for reviews be determined? (e.g. annual or every 3 to 5 years) Once the initial reviews have taken place, a timeframe of 3-5 years should be sufficient.

17. Do you have any other suggestions on how a qualification remains fit-for-purpose and how this could be shown?

Part of the evaluation of fit-for-purpose should include a very robust justification as to why a qualification should remain as a provider qualification rather than a national or New Zealand qualification (recognising as we noted above that there may be issues regarding intellectual property). We believe that the issue of intellectual property

7

could be addressed by allowing providers to ‘brand’ or ‘own’ local content components within national qualifications. Such an approach may also address potential issues around indigenous intellectual property (e.g. local iwi/hapū knowledge that has been gifted to a provider to use as part of a qualification).

18. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the idea that provider accreditation should be subject to mandatory periodic review? (please place a tick (√) in one box) Strongly agree 9

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

19. Please provide any additional comments about change three in the space below.

Mandatory review is an important element of accountability for public funding that the whole sector should be committed to.

8

Change 4: Strengthen and standardise qualification outcome statement requirements 20. To what extent do you support the change to strengthen and standardise qualification outcome statement requirements? (please place a tick (√) in one box) Strongly support change four 9

Support change four

Neutral

Somewhat support change four

I do not support change four

21. Please provide reasons for your answer to the above: One of the concerns that has been raised regarding the current system is that it is difficult for students and other providers to easily choose qualifications or identify pathways to other qualifications, leading to poor choices, or to students not being able to progress to a higher level qualification. Strengthening and standardising qualification outcome statements will go a long way to addressing this problem. It will also assist in shifting thinking in the sector from the ‘uniqueness’ of individual providers/standard setting bodies to a more collaborative system where providers can still retain their identity, but within a cohesive framework of qualifications.

22. Should this change be undertaken for new qualifications only, or applied to all qualifications?

The change should be implemented for all qualifications, but allowing time for providers and standards setting bodies to respond to the changes.

23. Is there any other content (additional skills and knowledge, and education and employment pathways) that you would like to see included in the outcome statements?

24. Please provide any additional comments about change four in the space below.

9

Change 5: Introduce a mandatory pre-development assessment stage for qualification developers 25. To what extent do you support the introduction of a mandatory pre-development assessment stage for qualification developers before development commences? (please place a tick (√) in one box) Strongly support change five 9

Support change five

Neutral

Somewhat support change five

I do not support change five

26. Please provide reasons for your answer to the above: The TEU supports the proposed mandatory pre-development stage as it means developers will not unnecessarily invest time or resources into qualification development. It will also provide a system of controlling new qualification development, a vital measure when we consider the number of qualifications already available.

27. Do you have any other suggestions to reduce qualification duplication besides a pre-assessment stage?

We believe that the changes to the system that have been proposed (such as the unified framework) are very comprehensive. They should give developers much better information about the appropriateness of a new qualification before they even get to the first stage of development.

28. Please provide any additional comments about change five in the space below.

We would urge the NZQA to consider taking a stronger line in new qualification development – that new qualifications will not be considered unless current or future national applicability can be shown. Of course by national applicability we do not mean that every part of the country must be providing the qualification. However the sector needs to get beyond thinking that an effective approach to qualification development is creating new qualifications whenever a need appears in a region or centre. Qualification development should be based on a well-researched analysis of need in the short, medium and long term. In particular developers should always consider where local content components could be introduced into a national qualification to meet identified local/regional need.

10

Change 6: Strengthen recognised industry involvement in qualification development 29. To what extent do you support the change to strengthen recognised industry involvement in qualification development? (please place a tick (√) in one box) Strongly support change six 9

Support change six

Neutral

Somewhat support change six

I do not support change six

30. Please provide reasons for your answer to the above: In line with our strong support for greater use of national and New Zealand qualifications, we favour an increased requirement for evidence of industry, professional body, iwi and hapĹŤ and community endorsement. Whole new qualifications should not be developed to meet limited local or regional need; even if there is evidence of support at the local or regional level. Rather providers and standards setting bodies should be looking at incorporating local content components into national qualifications, or investigating a new national qualification that has widespread application across the country.

31. How much involvement would be considered adequate and how would you expect this involvement to be evidenced?

32. Do you have any suggested alternatives to improve the relevance of qualifications?

Qualification developers should not be able to develop whole new qualifications that are applicable only to an employer, area or region – if this is the case, the desired qualification becomes a case for local content components integrated into a national/New Zealand qualification.

33. Please provide any additional comments about change six in the space below.

11

Change 7: Provide the public with clear information about whether a qualification is active, inactive or closed 34. To what extent do you support the change to provide the public with clear information about whether a qualification is “active” or “inactive” or “closed”? (please place a tick (√) in one box) Strongly support change seven 9

Support change seven

Neutral

Somewhat support change seven

I do not support change seven

35. Please provide reasons for your answer to the above: There is currently considerable confusion about the status of qualifications. The changes proposed will provide clarity and certainty for all users of the qualification system, and will give our qualifications system a much higher level of credibility, both nationally and internationally.

36. Are there other categories for the status of qualifications that should be available for the public?

No – the categories proposed seem comprehensive.

37. Please provide any additional comments about change seven in the space below.

12