Consultation for the Review of Foundation and Bridging Qualifications 2014
Consultation is open until 28 February 2014.
Select one option:
 This response is a joint response and represents the views of ______________________
(name of workplace)
 This response is an independent response and may not necessarily reflect the views of my
workplace.
Questions:
1. The Governance Group has identified a difference between level 1 and 2 ‘foundation’
qualifications, which should be relatively broad, and level 3 and 4 qualifications that
are more specialised. Is this an appropriate division? If it isn’t, why not?
2. The Governance Group has initially proposed a list of one qualification at each level,
but has not yet decided on whether there should be strands or endorsements (see
definitions above). Should there be formal strands or endorsements for these
qualifications?
3. If there were strands or endorsements for these qualifications, what should these be?
Should they be based on Vocational Pathways (currently available for NCEA Levels
1 and 2)?
4. If there need to be other fully separate qualifications at each level, what specific and
distinct outcomes for learners should they be designed to achieve?
5. The Governance Group has used Ako Aotearoa’s work on graduate profiles to
identify possible core capabilities at levels 1 and 2. What core capabilities should be
common to all graduates at levels 3 and 4?
6. If there was one qualification at each level, the Governance Group has proposed the
following names:
 NZ Certificate in Foundation Studies Level 1
 NZ Certificate in Foundation Studies Level 2
 NZ Certificate in Preparation for Career and Higher Level Studies Level 3
 NZ Certificate in Preparation for Career and Higher Level Studies Level 4
Are these names easily understood? Do they adequately reflect the nature and
intention of the qualification? Please suggest alternatives.
Consultation 2 – Review of Foundation and Bridging Qualifications
Page 1