credential evaluation: philippines

P R O F E S S I O N A L N E T W O R K S

Admission and Credential Evaluation

Admissions wRAP-Up Newsletter,

March 2006

Admissions, Recruitment, and

Preparation Knowledge Community

March 17

, 2006

N A FSA : A SSO CIA TIO N O F IN TERN A TIO N A L ED U CA TO RS

Volume 3, Issue 2

March 2006

A D M I S S I O N S W R A P U P

A N E W S L E T T E R F O R T H O S E I N T E R E S T E D I N I N T E R N A T I O N A L A D M I S S I O N S A N D R E C R U I T I N G

IN S ID E TH IS IS S U E:

News You Can Use

Building a Transfer

Articulation Database

A View from the

Armchair

3

4

7

Letter to the Editor

New Zealand

Secondary Education

8

10

Q & A with Jim Frey

23

Credentials Evaluation:

The Philippines

25

Admissions

Coordinator

Update

By Marybeth Gruenewald

On March 1, 2006, a memo was released to the leadership of the Recruitment,

Admissions, and Preparation (RAP)

Knowledge Community from Mariam

Assefa, NAFSA Board President.

In this memo, which is reprinted here in its entirety, Ms. Assefa announces the demise of the National Council on the Evaluation of

Foreign Educational Credentials (CEC.)

Future of the National Council for the

Evaluation of Foreign Credentials (CEC)

The following m essage wentoutearlier to the leadership of the Recruitm ent,

Adm issions, and Preparation

Knowledge Com m unity from M ariam

Assefa,NAFSA Board President.

Featured country for credentials evaluation in this issue:

The

Philippines

Earlier today, the chair of the National

Council for the Evaluation of Foreign

Credentials (the Council), Timothy

Thompson, received a letter from the organizations which sponsored the

Council in the past stating that support for the Council will no longer continue.

With that letter, the Council is effectively dissolved. The letter goes on to thank the many professionals who have contributed to the Council's work over the years.

This publication has been developed

The dissolution of the Council took place at a meeting of The Liaison by NAFSA members for use by their Group (TLG) a week or so ago. At that meeting, the representatives from newsletter may be reproduced

AACRAO, CGS, College Board, IIE, and without written permission from

NAFSA discussed whether to renew

NAFSA: Association of International their support for the Council. NAFSA

Educators.

staff members Marlene Johnson and

Page Admissions wRAP Up - March 2006

Bob Stableski attended the meeting with me and were part of the discussion.

As you may know, three years ago, the

TLG worked with the Council to formalize its support for the Council through a memorandum of agreement among the then members of the

Council: ACE, AACC, AACRAO, CGS, the

College Board, IIE, and NAFSA. NAFSA played a key role in this process as we believed in the importance of the

Council's continuation. At that time,

ACE and CGS decided not to sign the agreement.

During the most recent TLG meeting which I attended, AACC and AACRAO withdrew their support for the Council.

That reduced the number of sponsors to the point where the Council could not play a meaningful role. The staff and I reported to the Executive

Committee last week on this development, and after a long discussion, we decided to agree to the dissolution of the Council, as we did not believe there was an option to keep it alive in its current form.

We must now turn our attention to answering the question of how the

Council's role can and should be executed in a new way, and how NAFSA can contribute to the field and support member needs given this changing landscape. In light of this, I am asking

VP for Education and Professional

Development, Christopher Viers, to consult broadly with the member leaders involved to consider how this void can best be filled, and outline options we, as NAFSA, have in this situation.

This unexpected turn of events will come as a surprise, I am sure. Our

(Continued on page 2)

(Admissions Coordinator - continued from page 1) work now must focus on what the best next step is for

NAFSA in the service of its members. If you have any comments or suggestions, please go the ACE network discussion forum and respond to a special message from Robert Watkins, ACE Network Manager.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the legacy of the

CEC, I have included brief descriptions of the CEC as well as its related committee, The Liaison Group (TLG.)

The committee meets twice a year to share information of a general nature about international students in the United States. Formerly known as the

National Liaison Committee (NLC), the committee voted two years ago to change its name and restrict its membership to the above associations to continue the useful conversation and trust that have evolved between the associations as a result of the committee meetings. NAFSA's representative to the Liaison

Committee is Executive Director and CEO Marlene M.

Johnson.

Information about the National Council on the

Evaluation of Foreign Educational Credentials and The

Liaison Group

The National Council for the Evaluation of Foreign

EducationalCredentials

The National Council on the Evaluation of Foreign

Educational Credentials (CEC) is an interassociational body made up of several educational organizations involved in comparative international education issues.

The chief organizations are the American Association of

Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO) and NAFSA: Association of International Educators

(NAFSA). Other organizations represented are the

College Board, Institute of International Education (IIE),

Council of Graduate Schools (CGS), the American

Association of Community Colleges (AACC), American

Council on Education (ACE), and an observer organization, the New York State Education

Department.

Since it was formed in 1955, the Council has reviewed publications produced by PIER and its predecessors, and the placement recommendations suggested by the authors, approving, modifying, or deleting the suggested placement recommendations as the Council

We who evaluate foreign educational credentials and who read country profile publications, from the former W orld

Education Series which in recent history became Projects in International Educational Research (PIER), are familiar with the placement recommendations usually found in the back of these volumes. These placement recommendations, now known as comparability statements, helped many international admission officers and credential evaluators in their handling of foreign credentials and were a support base when many of our placement decisions were questioned by students, faculty, or deans.

So, the CEC is no more. I am sure many of you are wondering, whatnow?

Examine how you and your colleagues within your institution have evaluated international credentials. Look closely at the various resources and tools you have used in this evaluation work. Grab a PIER report off your shelf and look at it closely. Did these comparability statements help you? Could the CEC’s role be redesigned? Do we even need this role? And as NAFSA members, how do you think

NAFSA can take part in all of this? recommendations are nonbinding on the readers and users of the publications; however, tradition dating back to the Council's origin has lent the recommendations strong weight among institutions and organizations in the United States over the years.

The Council with its rotating membership parallels the more formal structure in other countries of an official or quasi-official national education information center that sets national standards or guidelines in the sphere of applied comparative education.

Manager, Robert Watkins, has begun a Discussion in our

ACE Network within the RAP section of NAFSA’s website. I urge each of you to visit our ACE Network Discussion

Forum and reply to Robert’s post. We seek your comments and suggestions.

Marybeth Gruenewald is the Admissions Coordinator for the Recruitment, Admission and Preparation Knowledge

Community

The Liaison Group

The Liaison Group (TLG) was established more than ten years ago as a means for the American Association of

Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers

(AACRAO), the College Board, the Council of Graduate

Schools (CGS), the Institute of International Education

(IIE), and NAFSA: Association of International Educators to share information and raise issues of concern and interest regarding the recruitment and admission of international students.

Page 2 Admissions wRAP Up - March 2006

News You Can Use

Indian Naming Conventions

Wikipedia , the free online encyclopedia, has a wonderful entry on Indian naming conventions. Here’s a peek at some information pulled from the article.

“Indian names are based on a variety of systems and naming conventions , which vary from region to region. Names are also influenced by religion and caste. India's population speaks a wide variety of dialects and nearly every major religion in the world has a large representation in India. This variety makes for subtle, often confusing, differences in names and naming styles. For example, the concept of a second name did not exist in South India until modern legal systems initiated the use of second names to reduce the occurrence of name clashes.

For many Indians, the birth name is different from the official name; the birth name starts with a letter considered auspiscious on the basis of the person's horoscope. Some children are given three names: A unique first name, an

(often) unique middle name, and a last name, which is usually the family name. It can also be a God's name or the grandfather or grandmother's name - depending on the sex of the child. Many children are given two names: a first and last. The first name is often unique and the last name is usually the family name. One person having four names is uncommon, as are persons with single, unique names.”

To read the complete article, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_family_name .

Lebanon

At a recent meeting, the Council of Ministers of the Ministry of Higher Education approved the following institutional name changes.

x University Center of Technology in Koura (est. October 1996) to Lebanese French University of Technology and Practical Sciences x Business and Computer University Institute (est. August 2000) to American University of Arts, Sciences and

Technology x Higher Education Institute for Physical Therapy (est. December 1999) to Lebanese German University for

Technology and Practical Sciences x Ecole Supérieure et Internationale de Gestion (ESIG) (Higher International Institute of Business

Administration, est. August 2000) to Lebanese Canadian University x C&E American University College (est. August 2000) to American University of Culture and Education x Jowaya University Institute of Technology (est. December 1999) to the South University of Science and

Technology x University Institute of Administration and Sciences (est. August 2000) to the Modern University of

Administration and Sciences

The Council also approved the withdrawal of the license previously given to the Institute of Technology in the North to establish a University Institute for Technology in Akkar.

--AM IDEAST EducationalUpdate,February2005

Australia-Indonesia

On the 5 January 2005, the Prime Minister of Australia, the Hon. John Howard, announced the availability of AUD 1 billion to be made available over the period of 5 years for the Australia-Indonesia Partnership for Reconstruction and

Development (AIPRD). The main objective of AIPRD is for reconstruction and development throughout Indonesia. The focus of the AIPRD is on Indonesian government program reformation and on the strengthening of economic and social development. AIPRD has provided direct funding of AUD 500 million and an additional amount of AUD 500 million in the form of "soft loans". AIPRD activity will be jointly implemented by the Australian and Indonesian Governments as part of

Australia's bilateral aid program to Indonesia.

For further information on AIPRD, go to http://www.ausaid.gov.au/hottopics/default.cfm

and click on to the Australia-

Indonesia Partnership for Reconstruction and Development (AIPRD) hotlink.

--IDP-Australia website


Building a

Transfer

Articulation

Database

By Chris J. Foley

Transfer is one of the most popular topics in higher education these days. More and more states are mandating transfer articulation programs between institutions. Lawmakers are proposing laws that intend to regulate what credit can and cannot be accepted. Athletic departments are interested in how much credit can be awarded so their athletes can gain eligibility. Students are seeing more cost savings by going to less costly 2-year institutions with the intention that they will transfer to another university to receive their bachelor’s degree.

Universities are recruiting transfer students to flesh out their student bodies for revenue purposes.

So how do you manage all this transfer credit—especially for international students? Determining transfer equivalencies is a cumbersome, time-consuming, maddening activity, but when the credit is from an international institution, the troubles grow and your confidence in your own work can be shaken. After all, it’s hard enough to determine the equivalency of the credential, but determining the equivalency of the credit behind it is harder still.

A solution to helping transfer credit in general, but especially for international transfer credit is to develop a database of your “articulations.” (By articulation, I mean a mapping where X course from University A will always come in as Y course at your institution – either as part of a formal agreement or simply the “rule” to be followed when the course is encountered in the future.) This solution can be relatively simple or complex, and it is important for you to determine what is best for you and your institution. If you don’t see a lot of international transfer students, then a robust transfer credit database may be a waste of time— a simple spreadsheet may do. Hopefully, this article will help you make that decision.

So why do you need to do this?

In most cases, building a database is a significant undertaking. But there are several reasons why you need to build a system for handling transfer credit. Handling it

“on the fly” is not a good practice, even if you see only a handful of cases a year. Here are just a few reasons why you should make sure you do transfer credit well.

¾ Growing popularity We are seeing more and more students transfer credit from one or more institutions back to the institution that eventually awards their degree. Either they start at a community college, or the go on an overseas study program, or they take a summer course at a university or college back home.

Like it or not, transfer credit will only grow in the future years, and so we need to be prepared for it.

¾ Equity Fairness is essential when awarding transfer credit and, as a result, consistency from one case to the next is a necessity. Handling transfer credit in ways that would create inconsistent evaluations is unfair and could also raise legality questions as transfer credit becomes increasingly regulated.

¾ Recruitm ent Students who want to transfer to your university are often concerned about how much transfer credit they will receive. This is because it will save them money. Remember, students are attending community colleges because it is cheaper in many cases. In other words, money matters in their decision. The faster and more easily they can know what will and will not transfer, the more likely you will win them.

¾ Transparency In the past, transfer credit has been mysterious. Transcripts go into an office, and reports come out. Few knew how or why assessments were made—even if the reasons were very sound. By adding technology to your transfer credit process, you can post articulations on the web. In this way, even prospects can find out how things will transfer over time.

¾ Consistency As I already mentioned, consistency is necessary to maintain equity, but it’s also important for other reasons. Students talk and compare credit transfer reports. So do faculty and other offices (like overseas studies). If you develop technology to help you record transfer credit that is easily searchable, then you can help reduce complaints and reevaluation of transcripts.

Form follows function

“To develop a database or not?” is a question that deserves serious thought before you do anything. Any technology demands not just a commitment to develop, but also one to maintain the data. The more complex the system, the more of a commitment is necessary. In some cases, it’s just not worth it to build a massive database.

Simpler tools exist. Here are a few of the possible options:

¾ Outsource it Like it or not, it may just not be worth it to even deal with international transfer credit, and there are credentials evaluation agencies that will do a full course-by-course evaluation using your course catalogue. The downside to this is that these can come to significant cost, and if your office isn’t willing to pay for the evaluation, then the cost to the student may steer them elsewhere. There may also be longer delays, so a student who needs admission today may have to wait. Still, if you balance the cost to the



(Transfer database - continued from page 4) university versus the staff and technology needed to track international transfer credit, this may be a desirable solution.

¾ Paper Sometimes, there’s no need to go beyond paper. This certainly isn’t cutting edge technology, but in some cases, having a binder with the reports done previously (and indexed in some fashion), will do just as well as technology. After all, thousands of years ago, the pen and paper was the cutting edge.

¾ Spreadsheet The next step up is to use a spreadsheet (like Excel or Lotus) to maintain a list of courses. For this, you will probably want a separate column for External University/College Name,

External Course Department, External Course

Number, External Course Name, External Course

Number, External Course Credits, Your Course

Number, Your Course Department, Your Course

Credits, and the Date Articulated. Though a spreadsheet is not a database, there are many sophisticated features of spreadsheets these days that allow you to filter out for particular pieces of data and sort data. What a spreadsheet won’t do for you is keep copies of all the evaluations you have done in the past (unless you set them up as spreadsheets as well), so for each new report, you’ll have to look up each course individually.

Automation is limited.

¾ Course look-up database This is like a spreadsheet, only with a means to look up courses that makes finding and sorting articulations faster and easier. The added benefit of this is that you can post this on the web for students and other staff/faculty to use. This is still basic, but it begins to add transparency to the process for external constituencies.

¾ Articulation database With this one, in addition to storing the articulations for future use, we now start recording individual student records in the system. This adds to the complexity, but the benefits are significant. Now that you can save individual student records, you can set up the system so that staff can enter in the credit from the transcript, look up articulations that already exist, and if all courses are articulated, print the report. No specialized knowledge is required if all the articulations are there. Theoretically, transfer credit becomes a data entry function. Moreover, if you have this system set up on the web, then students could enter in their coursework for you. You would then verify the coursework with the transcript that arrives. In the world of electronic transcripts, it is even possible for you to receive an electronic feed of data and the database would articulate everything. But don’t reassign your transfer credit specialist just yet. You still need him or her, but instead of handling each and every file, he or she now handles only those that need additional articulations, and when they enter them into the system, there’s no need for them to see the courses again.

¾ Articulation and degree audit database This takes customer service to a new level. In addition to everything listed above, this type of database would run the transfer report through a degree audit and let the student know what is required to graduate. In this case, students wouldn’t have to ask (and would be less likely to assume) if 60 hours of transfer credit meant they could complete a bachelor’s degree in 2 years. They would see not only what they received, but also what it was worth.

Putting the “international” in international transfer credit

As with all things international, international transfer credit throws a few curveballs into a system that is usually focused on domestic students. First, not all countries use course codes or even departments. Korea and Japan, two of the largest sources of international transfer students to IU, use only course names. As a result, we had to build our systems to allow for courses to be indexed by names only. Second, there’s the grading scale. There are lots of them (but there are a lot in the U.S. as well). This may mean that you have to expand the system to accommodate more than just the U.S. scales. Second, international students my have difficulties using any articulation information you put on the website since the transfer of credit is literally “foreign” in many countries. This may mean you will have to add more information on your website to help international students enter their coursework into your system or simply look up their courses to see how they will transfer. Finally, there’s the credit conversion. If you do automatic conversion of credit, this will require you to have more options than just semester or quarter credit hours. You will need to build the system to accommodate the year-length courses of India, the modules seen in France or the U.K., and the “in class” hours normally reported in Russia.

Keeping it running

As I’ve already noted, maintenance is essential to maintaining a good database. You’re only as good as your data, so making sure your data is clean and scrubbed is the most important (and daily) step. If you need to update course articulations, you need to do so promptly (especially if you post them on the web and students can see them).

Software packages often undergo upgrades, and this will require you to continue developing the system over time. If you integrate your system into a larger student information system, you must maintain the interfaces. In general, the more complex the system, the more maintenance required.

But if you do it and commit to it, it can be worth it.

And finally, watch it grow . . .

If you build a database and maintain it, you will see the result of your work increase. Students will have fewer questions about evaluations. Evaluations will move faster with less effort. In the case of IU, the redesign of our



(Transfer database — continued from page 5) transfer credit database (and the re-engineering of the business processes that touched on transfer credit) trimmed weeks off of our processing of transfer applications, allowed us to post more credit on the web, and bring more and different types of staff to help us articulate transfer credit. If you commit the resources to build a database and maintain it, you will watch the number of articulations grow over time, and as it grows, the number of times you have to rearticulate the same course becomes easier. It is a rewarding experience, if you put the energy and commitment into building it.

Chris J. Foley is Director of International Adm issions and

Chief of Operations, Office of Adm issions at Indiana

University--Bloom ington


A View from the

Armchair

By Alan M argolis

THE COUNCIL …NO MORE

I am dealing here with both personal experience with the

Council and with perceptions that were developed before, during and after this experience. I served on the Council for seven years, representing both NAFSA and AACRAO.

Three publications with which I was associated were reviewed by the Council over a period of fifteen years. As chair of the defunct World Education Series of AACRAO

(later morphed into PIER) and as a member of the NAFSA

Board of Directors, I have had considerable exposure to the process as it developed over the last thirty years. I attended both the Oregon and Milwaukee symposiums that addressed key issues and tried to create a Council environment that was consistent from year to year. The role of the Council was discussed several times at the

National Liaison Committee (NLC), at which I represented

NAFSA.

What was good about the Council was that, by reviewing the publications and the placement recommendations, it kept authors honest: the text needed to support the recommendations.

What was bad, ironically, was the very concept of placement recommendations, supported or not by the text. These recommendations gave evaluators answers when, often, they did not even know the questions to which the answers applied. Too often, and occasionally in my hearing, the response on campus to a faculty member’s question to an administrator about a particular credential evaluation was, “The book says it’s so.”

A dependency was created that, while it may have given an answer and addressed an issue, minimized the need for evaluators to develop strategies that would obviate the need for placement recommendations altogether. The

“saving grace” for such colleagues was that the recommendations were approved by the Council, the membership of which represented the “leadership” in the field.

I will not provide chapter and verse of the Council’s deliberations; although they can provide a delectable smattering of laughter and groans. While the process and decisions were both variable and specific to the Council’s constituency at the time, we supported it because it was there and made our lives easier.

I have always felt that evaluation professionals need to fend for themselves by adopting a methodology that provides basic and advanced concepts applicable to their review of all educational credentials. Conceptually, one needs to know the right questions to ask and develop means of ascertaining the answers. What is needed is a

Manual of “What and How To.”

The availability of on-line information does not provide the answer. These snippets of information are not developed to respond to the needs of US credential evaluators. It is tantalizing to find “valuable” information; however, unless you know the questions to ask yourself, you cannot judge the utility of the information you’ve uncovered.

What I believe is needed is an on-line manual that will, in great detail and with copious documentation, create a viable methodology: the questions and the process, not the answers. This should have been done many years ago: now we have the opportunity to do this even if under pressure. The manual should not provide answers, as individual and institutional considerations will make the answers different. Process, not results should be the aim.

While it does not always work well, a symposium consisting of “experts” and less experienced individuals, all of whom are dedicated to this approach, should be held to map out the manual. What would result from such a meeting cannot be determined here and now; however the symposium should set minimum goals that have to be achieved.

The demise of the Council is not a bad thing as it provides us with the opportunity to do what it was our responsibility to do years ago.


Letter to the

Editor

applicants through the admissions process fast enough to satisfy undergraduate enrollment targets and/or graduate program directors and deans. Reading complex texts and reaching their own conclusions are not part of the job description.

Alan:

Philosophically, I'm in total agreement with your comments.

But I don't believe your suggested solution is realistic.

I too have served on the Council (AACRAO representative

1967-69, 1971, 1973; NAFSA representative 1973-77,

1981-84). I also have had publications I wrote and/or edited reviewed by the Council (Turkey and Iraq in the

AACRAO World Education Series, Canada in the PIER workshop report series).

Over the years I have been a (sometimes severe) critic of the Council. My dissatisfaction was primarily (but not exclusively) with the representatives some of the sponsoring associations appointed to the Council, not with the role of the Council or its placement recommendations.

When I was a member of the ADSEC national team (1973-

76), I reviewed all of the entries in the AACRAO and NAFSA membership directories. I found fewer than 100 persons whom I could verify were full-time foreign educational credential evaluators. At that time the NAFSA directory included the number of enrolled foreign students for each member institution. There were more than 2,000 institutions with a foreign student enrollment of at least 50.

The staff members evaluating credentials for the majority of institutions, as part of an employment assignment, did not have the luxury of the time needed to learn how to do the research you and I wish everyone would do, even if they had an interest in doing so. Many of them did not (and still do not) even have adequate reference libraries to consult if they wanted to.

When I first became involved, the Council-approved placement recommendations were embedded in the text, to encourage readers to read the contiguous text before accepting the recommendations. Editors of the AACRAO

The enrollment-driven environment in which many of our colleagues work today also mitigates against the kind of research educational institutions ought to conduct. At a

NAFSA Regional workshop on diploma mills and fraudulent

World Education Series (and later of PIER workshop reports) changed that policy because it was more convenient to append the placement recommendations to the text, thereby permitting them to move the text through several stages of the publication process without having to realign page breaks and chapter breaks. At that time there was much gnashing of teeth among Council members that this change would encourage readers to flip to the back of a publication and never read the text. educational credentials I conducted two years ago, I had two eye-opening conversations:

1. A director of graduate admissions said her institution received three grade reports for one applicant, all different.

How could the correct grade report be identified? I said it didn't matter, because at least two of the grade reports were fraudulent; the applicant should be denied admission.

Her response: "My dean would never allow us to lose the enrollment. We just have to make the admissions decision based on the correct document."

I've never seen any solid evidence that readers read the text when the placement recommendations were embedded. Most readers did not take the time to do that.

Many did not have an inclination to do that.

2. An academic vice president asked me what percentage of the foreign educational credentials we receive are verified as being fraudulent. I said about 5%. His response: "Only 5%! It doesn't pay to set up a procedure to catch so few."

The same leaders of our profession who fought to keep

Council-approved placement recommendations in the text fought against publication of The Country Index and the

Graduate Handbook because they were too simplistic, too

If we want to enable university and college staff members to evaluate accurately the foreign educational credentials cookbook-like, too devoid of the detailed information needed to reach appropriate admission and placement they receive, we have to acknowledge that the vast majority of them will never become truly professional in this activity. decisions. Two young upstarts (Jim Haas and Jim Frey) argued that a simplistic source of information beat no

They need accurate information that's easy to obtain and easy to understand and easy to explain to applicants, information at all. Our point of view eventually prevailed. advocates, administrators, and politicians who question their decisions.

I believe it is a mistake to presume that all of the university and college administrators who have used Councilapproved placement recommendations consider

Council-approved placement recommendations met that overwhelming need, as simplistic as they were often used. themselves to be professional foreign educational credential evaluators. In my 38 years of involvement in

AACRAO and NAFSA activities, I have concluded that most of them are beleaguered administrators, wearing many hats, trying to move applications from foreign-educated

I believe those of us who consider ourselves professional foreign educational credential evaluators have an obligation to international education to help our less-



(Letter to the Editor - continued from page 8) professional and non-professional colleagues to do as complete and accurate a job as they have the talent and time and inclination for. A new Council, staffed by professional foreign educational credential evaluators devoted to this task, can take over and do the job right.

As an amateur cook, I've learned the difference between chop and dice and mince as used in recipes. But I'll never have the talent or time or inclination to make a souffle or an angel food cake from scratch. I need lots of simplistic help from food professionals. Many of our colleagues in U.S. higher education need lots of simplistic help from professionals, too.

Jim

James S. Frey, Ed.D., President

Educational Credential Evaluators, Inc.

(a non-profit public service organization )


A Brief

Description of

Secondary

Education in

New Zealand

secondary examinations, approving courses that are mainly or wholly for international students in schools, and ensuring that New Zealand qualifications are recognised overseas. NZQA also has a standard setting role for some areas including core generic, Pasifika and field M ą ori standards.

Since 1990, NZQA has been developing the National

Qualifications Framework (NQF), in consultation with specialists from education and industry. Unit standards and achievement standards, National Certificates and

National Diplomas are registered on the NQF. The

National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA),

New Zealand’s national secondary school qualification, is a qualification on the NQF.

New Zealand education has a decentralised structure in which individual schools and tertiary institutions have considerable responsibility for their own governance and management, working within the framework of guidelines, requirements and funding arrangements set by central government and administered through its agencies.

The M of Education ( www.minedu.govt.nz

), a government department, carries out the following functions: x provision of education policy advice to the Minister of Education and the Government x purchase of services on behalf of the Crown x allocation of funding and resources to schools and early childhood education providers x overseeing the implementation of approved education policies x managing special education services x collection and processing of education statistics and information, and x monitoring the effectiveness of the education system as a whole.

Administrative authority for most education service provision is devolved away from central government to the educational institutions which are governed (in the public sector) by individual boards or councils, members of which are elected or appointed.

The N Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA)

( www.nzqa.govt.nz

) established under the Education Act

1989, registers private education providers, government training establishments and workplace assessors for industry. It accredits and audits tertiary educational institutions other than universities that offer approved courses and award credit for registered qualifications (see

New Zealand Register of Quality Assured Qualifications and

National Qualifications Framework). All registered education providers outside the universities are listed on NZQA's website ( www.nzqa.govt.nz

). The listings show approved courses, qualifications and recent audit reports.

NZQA is also responsible for administering national

The E www.ero.govt.nz

) is the government department that oversees the quality assurance of school education. ERO reports on the education and care of students in primary and secondary schools and early childhood centres. It carries out reviews of individual schools and early childhood centres, home-based education reviews, cluster reviews of schools and early childhood centres, and national evaluations of education issues. This involves inspecting and evaluating all aspects of school and early childhood services including the quality of teaching, the quality of students' learning, and the role of management and elected trustees and other authorities such as Crown agencies. ERO reports on individual schools and centres are freely available to the public.

Primary and Secondary School Education

The education system for schools comprises 13 year levels. Children may start school at age five and the majority do so, although schooling is not compulsory until the age of six. In 2004, average teacher:student classroom ratios ranged from 1:19 to 1:24 across the various year levels and school types. The New Zealand school year usually runs from the end of January to mid-

December, and is divided into four terms. Both singlesex and coeducational schooling options are available and state (public) schools are generally secular.

Primary education starts at Year 1 and continues until

Year 8, with Years 7 and 8 mostly offered at either a primary or a separate intermediate school.

Secondary education covers Years 9 to 13, during which students are generally aged 13 to 17. Most secondary students in New Zealand attend Government-funded schools, known variously as secondary schools, high schools, colleges or area schools.

There is a compulsory national curriculum for Years 1 -

10. Students progress to the next level of schooling at the beginning of each school year, except for entry to

Years 12 and 13 where each school decides its own policy.



(New Zealand - continued from page 10)

Schooling is compulsory until the age of 16, which for most students is Year 11. Although retention rates at Years 12 and 13 are reasonably high. A small number of schools offer

Year 14 programmes. which the principal language of instruction is M ą ori and education is based on M ą ori culture and values. Most Kura

Kaupapa M ą ori cater for students from Years 1 to 8, and a few (Wharekura) cater for students up to Year 13.

Most schools are English language, but some schools teach in the M ą ori language. Kura Kaupapa M ą ori are schools in

Figure 1 summarises the New Zealand education system, from early childhood education to tertiary study.

The National Certificate of Educational Achievement

The implementation of the new qualifications system in

New Zealand schools, the standards-based NCEA, began in

2002. The NCEA is available at three levels. NCEA level 1

(at Year 11) was implemented in 2002, level 2 (at Year 12) in 2003, and the principal pre-tertiary entry level 3 (at Year

13) in 2004. standards. Unit standards are often vocationally based and generally internally assessed. Credit is awarded in each standard when the required level is achieved. High performance may be recognised in achievement standards through Merit and Excellence grades. Results for unit standards are reported as Achieved credit only, without the categories of merit or excellence.

The NCEA is a qualification registered on the NQF. S ince

2004, school leavers going onto tertiary education have presented results related to the NCEA and other nationally registered qualifications. These results are gained in nationally registered unit standards and achievement standards. Both types of standards establish learning outcomes and provide assessment criteria. A credit value is attached to each standard.

Assessment for the NCEA is both school-based (internal), and external, through national examinations conducted by the Qualifications Authority. Each subject grouping generally includes both internally and externally assessed

University Entrance Requirements

From 2004, entrance is most commonly gained on the basis of credits gained in level 3 NQF standards in approved areas of study. Students will be qualified for entrance to a university in New Zealand if they have obtained: x a minimum of 42 credits at level 3 or higher on the

NQF, including a minimum of 14 credits at level 3 or higher in each of two subjects from the

‘approved subject’ list*, with a further 14 credits at level 3 or higher taken from no more than two



(New Zealand - continued from page 11) additional domains on the NQF or approved subjects; x a minimum of 14 numeracy credits at level 1 or higher in Mathematics or Pangarau on the NQF; x a minimum of 8 literacy credits at level 2 or higher in English or Te Reo M ą ori; 4 credits must be in

Reading and 4 credits must be in Writing. foundation for further study and employment.

All NCEA awards are gained by accumulating credits.

Level 2 requires a minimum of 80 credits, 60 of which must have been achieved at this level or above. The remaining credits can come from any level. Credits gained while studying towards other NQF level 2 qualifications may also contribute to NCEA level 2.

Admission to some university degree programmes such as medicine is restricted and usually requires achieving higher

The NCEA level 2 replaced Sixth Form Certificate in 2003

(see previous qualifications in appendix 1) than a minimum specified standard. A Bachelor degree requires either three or four years' full-time study

(depending on the particular qualification) or equivalent.

Requirements for entry to non-university degree

National Certificate of Educational Achievement (level 3)

Students can build upon NCEA levels 1 and 2 to achieve level 3. As with the NCEA level 1 and level 2, level 3 is programmes or other tertiary courses are established by designed to acknowledge achievement across a range of individual teaching institutions.

learning areas in the New Zealand curriculum to provide

*The approved list of subjects is: Accounting, Agriculture and Horticulture, Biology, Chem istry, Chinese (Second

Language), Classical Studies, Com puting, Cook Islands

M ą ori, Design (Practical Art), Dram a, Econom ics, English, an advanced foundation for further study and a basis for employment. Students certified at level 3 are identified as having the knowledge and skills to solve unfamiliar problems, access, analyse and use information effectively and work independently.

French (Second Language), Geography, Germ an (Second

Language), Graphics, History, History of Art, Indonesian

(Second Language), Japanese (Second Language), Korean

(Second Language), Latin, M athem atics with Calculus,

Statistics and M odelling, M edia Studies, M usic Studies,

Painting (PracticalArt),Photography (PracticalArt),Physical

All NCEA awards are gained by accumulating credits, with credits achieved at levels greater than or equal to level 2 contributing to level 3. Level 3 requires a minimum of 80 credits, 60 of which must have been achieved at this level, and 20 at level 2 or above.

Education, Physics, Printm aking (Practical Art), Sam oan,

Science, Sculpture (Practical Art), Spanish (Second

Language), Social Studies, Te Reo Rangatira or Te Reo

M ą ori.

The NCEA level 3 replaced the University Entrance

Bursaries and Scholarship (UEBS) award in 2004 (see previous qualifications in appendix 1).

Qualifications


NCEA level 1 is designed to acknowledge achievement across a range of learning areas in the New Zealand curriculum to provide a foundation for further study and employment. Students usually begin NCEA in Year 11 after three years of secondary schooling.

Award of Certificates

Before 1 February, candidates are sent a Result

Notification* showing their results in each of the standards entered in the previous year. Following the release of the result notices to candidates, results of candidates are made available to their school. All candidates gaining any standard will have their credits recorded on their Record of Learning*. The Record of

Learning is a lifelong document that can be requested from NZQA by students.

All NCEA awards are gained by accumulating credits. Level 1 requires a minimum of 80 credits, 60 of which must have been achieved at this level. Students are required to meet literacy and numeracy requirements in order to gain the

NCEA level 1 (eight credits from approved standards for literacy skills and eight credits from approved standards for numeracy skills). Students being assessed towards their

NCEA level 1 may also be assessed for some NCEA level 2 credits.

NCEA level 1 replaced the School Certificate in 2002 (see previous qualifications in Appendix 1).


NCEA level 2 follows the same format as NCEA level 1.

Level 1 can be built upon by the student to achieve level 2.

It is designed to acknowledge achievement across a range of learning areas in the New Zealand curriculum to provide a

* See Appendix 2 for a sam ple Result Notice, Record of

Learning and NCEA level3 Certificate.

Grading System

The result for each achievement standard for each level of

NCEA is awarded as either Not Achieved, Achieved, Merit or Excellence. Results for unit standards are reported as

Achieved only, without categories of merit or excellence.

Each standard has a specific number of credits. An approximate equivalent of a year’s study in one subject is

20-24 credits. As each subject is made up of several standards, a student’s results for each subject may be a combination of Not Achieved (NA), Achieved (A), Merit (M) or Excellence (E). On a student’s Result Notice, which in almost all cases is their final results, only results of




Achieved or better are shown. However, students who access the NZQA website using their Personal Identification

Number can view their full range of results for externally assessed standards (i.e., those examined by NZQA), including Not Achieved.

National Certificate of Educational Achievement grading:

NA not achieved (externally assessed standards only)

A achieved

M merit (achievement standards only)

E excellence (achievement standards only)

Percentage Grade Distribution - Major Subjects 2004 taken by level 3 candidates (subjects with more than 2,000 candidates from a total candidature of approximately 29,400):

Subjects

Accounting

NA

26.5

A

34.2

M

24.0

E

15.4

Biology

Chemistry

35.8

36.8

39.0

32.9

18.8

16.2

6.4

14.1

Classical studies

Design

Economics

English

31.6

5.9

43.2

28.7

31.6

47.9

38.6

43.9

26.0

28.0

13.4

20.2

10.7

18.1

4.7

7.2

Geography

History

Mathematics with calculus

Media studies

Painting

Photography

Physical education

Physics

21.8

27.0

32.8

19.7

4.8

16.8

0.0

30.2

44.0

37.1

45.2

42.4

52.2

44.7

55.6

41.1

24.3

24.1

17.6

25.3

26.8

23.5

30.6

18.9

16.1

14.9

13.8

9.8

10.0

11.8

4.4

12.6

New Zealand Scholarship 2005

Students in a secondary school have the opportunity to win a New Zealand Scholarship. Scholarship is a monetary award for top students. It does not attract credits nor contribute towards a qualification but the fact that a student has gained a Scholarship will appear on their

Record of Learning.

Scholarship enables students to be assessed against challenging standards, and is demanding for the most able students in each subject. Scholarship students are required to demonstrate high-level critical thinking, abstraction and generalisation, and to integrate, synthesise and apply knowledge, skills, understanding and ideas to complex situations .


The Scholarship Awards are:

Single Subject Awards x For candidates who get Scholarship in up to two subjects x A 'one-off' award of $500 per subject

Top Subject Scholar Award x For candidates who are top in one of the 27 Scholarship subjects x $2,000 each year for three years as long as candidates maintain a 'B' grade average in tertiary study

Scholarship Award x For candidates who get three Scholarship subjects x $2,000 each year for three years as long as candidates maintain a 'B' grade average in tertiary study

Outstanding Scholar Award x For the top 40-60 candidates who get three Scholarship subjects with at least two outstanding performances x $5,000 each year for three years as long as candidates maintain a 'B' grade average in tertiary studies

Premier Award x For the very top 5 to 10 candidates who get three Scholarships with outstanding performances.

x $10,000 each year for three years as long as candidates maintain at least a 'B' grade average in tertiary studies

International Recognition of NCEA

New Zealand has qualifications recognition agreements with Australia and the United Kingdom. Although New

Zealand does not have any specific qualifications recognition agreements at a government level with the

USA, the two education systems are broadly comparable.

New Zealand qualifications are acceptable for most purposes in the United States, including entry to tertiary education and employment.

‘ International Qualifications for Entry into Higher

Education ’ is a reference guide used by UK tertiary providers when they are evaluating school leaving qualifications of students applying for admission to UK tertiary institutions. The UCAS publication is also used more widely internationally as an authoritative guide.

Information about NCEA is included in the annual UCAS publication, and aggregate results are provided for some subjects so that admissions officers can determine the relative achievement levels of applicants from New

Zealand.

Australia

New Zealand has traditionally had a formal agreement for mutual recognition of university entrance only with

Australia. NCEA level 3 results are recognised (as were

Bursary results) by the Australasian Conference of Tertiary

Admissions Centres (ACTAC) as the basis for determining students’ entry to Australian universities, provided that applicants also hold University Entrance. ACTAC monitors the process for admissions to universities throughout

Australia, and all states/territories use a similar approach for tertiary entrance ranking.

NARIC provide recognition service and comparability information of international qualifications from countries worldwide with those in the UK. NARIC recognises that students with University Entrance and NCEA level 3, with some Merits/Excellences in subjects to be studied at higher education institutions, are considered comparable to those with the overall GCE Advanced standard.

Each year in early January NCEA level 3 results for students seeking entry to Australian universities are aggregated by

NZQA and converted to a percentile scale called the

Interstate Transfer Index. This information is then provided to the Tertiary Admissions Centres and allows students with NCEA results to be treated equitably with Australian students for tertiary entry and selection purposes.

For more information, please contact:

Manager, International Unit

Policy, International and Research Group

New Zealand Qualifications Authority

PO Box 160

Wellington 6015

New Zealand e-mail: international@nzqa.govt.nz

Appendix 1 – Previous Qualifications and Grading System s

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, both the National Academic Previous Qualifications

Recognition Information Centre (NARIC) and the School Certificate

Universities and Colleges Admissions Services (UCAS) recognise NCEA level 3. The UCAS publication

School Certificate was phased out and replaced by the




NCEA (level 1) in 2002.

School Certificate was awarded in single subjects. Most students took five or six subjects or combined one or two

School Certificate subjects with other courses offered by their school. aggregated). The 'A' Bursary was awarded on a total of 300 marks or better (out of 500), while the 'B' Bursary was awarded on totals in the range 250-299 marks, with each grade in the UEBS contributing to the range of marks (see grading systems ). Top achievers in each subject may have been awarded scholarships.

Many School Certificate subjects were a mix of internal and external assessment. Some subjects (such as Art, Music and Design Technology) were fully internally assessed by the school and verified by NZQA moderators.

Sixth Form Certificate (SFC)

The Sixth Form Certificate was phased out and replaced by the NCEA (level 2) in 2003.

Successful attainment in the examination also resulted in the award of the University Entrance Certificate. From

1993 until 2004, the minimum requirement for entry to university was three grades of C or above, plus the award of HSC. Students who gained Bursaries may have had priority for entry into university courses where selection was in force, while those with 'A' Bursaries may, in a small number of cases, have been granted exemption from certain first-year papers.

This was awarded on a single-subject basis to students in

Year 12, although there was a provision for accelerated students to be registered in Year 11. A maximum of six subjects were taken, one of which had to be English or

M ą ori. Each subject was awarded a grade from 1 (highest) to 9 (lowest). Assessment was internal to each school, but the overall distribution of grades was pre-determined on the basis of School Certificate results achieved in the previous years.

In summary, to qualify for higher education, students either: x obtained the University Entrance with three grades of C or above plus the HSC; or x obtained a New Zealand Bursary at A or B level

The examinations were administered and the certificate awarded by NZQA. UEBS examinations have been phased out and replaced with NCEA (level 3) from 2004.

SFCs were recognised for entry into polytechnics, colleges and, to a lesser extent, universities. Recognition was usually accorded on the basis of the student's "best four" grades. Thus, a total score of four was the best possible. A student with a "best four" score in the range 4-12 was considered good university material, while a score in the range 12-16 was generally considered to demonstrate likely success with university study, although any score on its own is not an entrance qualification. NZQA made the formal award of the certificate.

Grading System for Previous Qualifications

School Certificate (before 2002)

Grades were awarded in individual subjects in five divisions:

A

B

80-100%

65-79%

C

D

E

50-64%

30-49%

1-29%

Higher School Certificate (HSC)

The HSC was phased out in 2003.

This was a "certificate of completion" awarded for five years of satisfactory performance, to students in Year 13 commencing at Year 9. It was internally administered by schools and formally awarded by NZQA. There were no examinations and no subjects or levels of performance indicated. However, at least three fifths of the course undertaken must have been at a level in advance of the

Sixth Form Certificate.

University Entrance, Bursaries and Scholarships (UEBS)

This was an all-in-one examination taken at the end of Year

13. Candidates took between one and six subjects, although most took five. Other than art and physical education, all subjects were examined externally or by a combination of internal and external assessments.

Sixth Form Certificate (before 2003)

Numerical grades were awarded in individual subjects from

1 (highest) to 9 (lowest).

University Entrance, Bursaries and Scholarships (before

2004)

UE Grade

A

B

C

D

E

Bursary Scores

66-100

56-65

46-55

30-45

0-29

New Zealand Bursaries were awarded on the basis of total marks achieved over no more than five subjects (for students taking six subjects the best five marks were

Appendix 2 – Sam ple Qualification Inform ation

Sample Results Notice (3 pages)

Sample Record of Learning (2 Pages)

Sample NCEA level 3 Certificate (in English and M ą ori)


00/000000000

A Learner

1 Apartment

1 Somewhere Way

In a City 0000

2004 NATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS FRAMEWORK

RESULT NOTIFICATION

The results of your 2005 assessment are shown below.

Results are not confirmed until all reconsiderations have been finalised. At that time if further changes have been made to your results,

NZQA will send you a revised copy of this notification.

You may print a copy of your Results Notification from the Learner Login area on the NZQA web site.

Please note this notification does not contain Scholarship results. If you entered Scholarship you will receive a separate Scholarship Results Notice in February 2006.

CLASSICAL STUDIES LEVEL 2

90247

Examine a passage from a work of classical literature in translation

90250 Investigate an area of classical studies

90251

90247

Communicate knowledge of an aspect of the classical world

Examine and explain a passage from work(s) of classical literature in translation ext int int ext

A

A

Achieved

A

A

M

M

E

E

M E

M E

Total credits you have gained

Merit Excellence

5

5

4

5

19

Your grade average for the achievement standards shown above is 62

ENGLISH LEVEL 2

12905

Read an inclusive variety of written texts and record the reading experience

90374 Deliver a presentation using oral and visual language techniques int int

90377 Analyse extended written text(s) ext

A

Achieved

A

Standard Achieved

M E

M E


Merit Excellence


4

3

3

10

A - achieved the standard

M - achieved the standard with merit

E - achieved the standard with excellence ex in externally assessed internally assessed

Final column indicates the number of credits gained

New Zealand Qualifications Authority, PO Box 160, Wellington, Telephone 04 802 3000, www.nzqa.govt.nz

1 of 3

0022/ 00368


00/000000000 A Learner

FRENCH LEVEL 2

90395

90396

Listen to and understand spoken language in French in less familiar contexts

Give a prepared spoken presentation in French on a less familiar topic ext int

90397 int

90398

90399

90400

Converse in French in a less familiar context

Read and Understand written language in French in less familiar contexts

Write test in French on a less familiar topic

Produce crafted writing in French on a less familiar topic, with the support of resources ext ext int

A

A

Achieved

A

A

A

M

M

M

M E 6

E

E

E

3

3

6 A

M

M

E

E


Merit Excellence

3

3

24


GRAPHICS AND DESIGN LEVEL 1

90037 Produce freehand sketches that show design features

90038

90044

Construct and use geometrical shapes and solids to communicate design ideas

Present design ideas that show design features and functions ext ext int

Achieved

A

A

A

M

M

E

E

M E


Merit Excellence

3

2

3

8


HEALTH LEVEL 1

6402 Provide resuscitation level 2 int Standard Achieved


1

1

HEALTH LEVEL 2

6401 Provide first aid int Standard Achieved


1

1

HEALTH LEVEL 3

6400 Manage first aid in emergency situations int Standard Achieved


2

2



E - achieved the standard with excellence ext int

externally assessed

internally assessed



2 of 3

0022/ 00368


00/000000000 A Learner

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT LEVEL 1

90030 Enter text from provided material and by direct entry composition ext

90031

90032

Use standard operating and file management procedures

Access and process information from different media ext int

Achieved

A

A

A

M

M

E

E

M E


Merit Excellence


MATHMATICS LEVEL 1

8489

8490

Solve problems which require calculation with whole numbers

Solve problems using calculations with numbers expressed in different forms int int

Standard Achieved

Standard Achieved


3

2

4

9

2

2

4

RELIGIOUS STUDIES LEVEL 1

5997

9748

Describe the development and use of sacred writings in world religions

Explain the importance of festivals and celebrations in a religion int int

Standard Achieved

Standard Achieved


3

3

6

RELIGIOUS STUDIES LEVEL 2

5990

6005

6009

Explain some of the meaning of a New Testament book, with reference to selected passages

Explain the functions and describe the dimensions of religion with reference to different religions

Explain the perspective of selected spiritual traditions on loss, death, dying, and associated grief int int int

Standard Achieved

Standard Achieved

Standard Achieved


4

4

4

12

*** End of Result ***

Provisional Qualification Summary

Your 2005 interim results and existing Record of Learning results contribute to the following NQF qualifications:

77 credits achieved towards NCEA Level One of the required 80 credits

NCEA Level One numeracy credit requirement met

6 literacy credits achieved of the required 8 credits

Provisionally attained NCEA Level Two

Provisionally attained NCEA Level Three

Provisionally awarded University Entrance

Please note that Scholarship results are not included in this notice.

A separate Scholarship Result Notice will be issued in February.



E - achieved the standard with excellence ext - externally assessed int - internally assessed



3 of 3

0022/ 00368






Q & A with Jim

Frey

x To give them a skill they can use for original research in a language other than English as a future graduate student?

By Jim Frey

Question: When you consider for transfer of credit a course completed at another university, does it matter how long ago the course was completed?

If a course was completed more than ten years ago, does that affect its acceptability? Do you treat courses in biology, chemistry, or physics differently than courses in other fields of

If an international student's proficiency in English, the native language, and perhaps another language or two as well, meets most or all of the reasons you require U.S. students to study a foreign language, it is likely that a different type of requirement might contribute more to the international student's education than requiring courses in yet another language. study?

Response: Is there a pedagogically sound reason for treating courses completed at another institution in a manner that differs from the way you treat courses completed at your own institution?

If a course completed at your institution more than ten years ago carries no restrictions, why would there be restrictions on courses for which you would otherwise grant transfer of credit?

You might consider requiring computer literacy. Or courses that lead to a greater understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of U.S. society (courses in economics, history, political science, sociology, and/or contemporary American literature). Or courses that might be useful if the international student after returning home should become employed in an administrative job as a business or government or school administrator or launch an entrepreneurial career (courses in accounting, economics, educational and/or business administration, management, organizational behavior, etc.).

If there are restrictions on courses completed at your institution, logically the same restrictions would apply to courses completed elsewhere.

You might want to consider several alternative combinations of courses that could be substituted for the foreign language requirement when it makes pedagogical sense to waive that requirement.

Question: We require U.S. students to complete courses in

English and in a foreign language.

To be consistent, should we require international students to take courses in English and in another language?

Question: Occasionally we receive a request from a student asking for copies of transcripts from previous institutions that were submitted with an application for admission. The

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act says a student can have copies of what is contained in our files. However,

I know that releasing transcripts from other institutions is usually frowned upon. What should we be doing?

Response: A good way to reach a decision would be to review the reasons why you have a foreign language requirement for U.S. students: x x x x

To introduce them to a different way of writing?

To introduce them to a different culture?

To introduce them to literature that represents a different milieu?

To give them the ability to think in a different way?

Response: Universities in the United States and Canada, and in some countries that have adapted our educational system (such as Japan, Korea, Philippines, and Taiwan), have a standard procedure for issuing grade reports

(transcripts). It is very simple for any current or former student from one of these countries to obtain a personal copy of the student's grade report, or to have an official copy sent by the university to any third party. Therefore there is never any real need to return an official grade report or a photocopy of it to the student, or to send a copy to anyone else.

The same is not true in most other countries. x To give them the ability to function in a different cultural situation? x x

To enable them to be more effective when working with speakers of another language (in business, nursing, teaching, etc.)?

To give them a résumé item that will help them get a job after graduation?

In France, in the countries of the Indian subcontinent

(Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka), and elsewhere, universities issue an official grade report to each student as soon as the final examination grades for an academic year or semester have been determined.

Extra copies are not issued. In many cases, the institution does not retain a record of individual subjects and grades



(Q & A - continued from page 23) because that information is not needed once a student enrolls in the next year of study or graduates.

In those countries, it is the student's responsibility to have additional copies of grade reports made whenever they are needed, formerly by having them re-typed, now by using a photocopy machine. The copies can then be attested, certified, notarized, or made "official" in some way by a gazzeted official, notary public, or local police.

If you cannot guarantee the absolute safety of original documents, make your admissions decision on the basis of photocopies submitted by the applicant. For those applicants whom you admit, make registration contingent upon submission of the original documents to you for comparison with the photocopies. Enforce that condition.

Do not let students register for the first academic term until this step has been completed. If the documents do not match, revoke the admission decision, and any student visa documents that might have been issued. Spell these actions out in your admission packet, so there will be no surprises.

In other countries, like Brazil, universities do not send official grade reports to any third party. They will prepare official grade reports on request, but it is the student's responsibility to send them to a third party.

It is virtually impossible for a current or former student to obtain official grade reports when the country involved is undergoing civil strife. This situation affects many countries from time to time.

It is a good idea to keep the envelope that contained an educational document from a foreign institution until copies of the document have been made for your use. Then you will always know the source of the document. A good rule of thumb: if the document came from an applicant, return it; if it came to you directly from the issuing institution, keep it.

It is unethical to require an applicant to submit official grade reports and other academic documentation when those documents cannot easily be replaced, unless the person or institution making the request can absolutely guarantee that the documents will not be lost, folded, torn, stapled, date-stamped, or have any other entry added.

Universities in some countries (such as England, Ghana, and

Nigeria) attempt to fight corruption by sending official grade reports to a third party and stating that the document is to be destroyed when no longer needed and should never be given to the person involved. If you want to continue receiving official documents from those institutions, you must follow that directive.

It is unethical to not automatically return such original documents to an applicant as soon as the institution has made photocopies for its own use.

Jim Frey is President of Educational Credential Evaluators,

Inc.in M ilwaukee,W isconsin

When original documents have been properly returned to an applicant, the question of sending copies to a third party will not arise.


C R E D E N T I A L E VA L U AT I O N S E C T I O N

This is meant to be used as a guide to help you in determining the admissibility of a student with a specific foreign credential, given, of course, that the student meets all of your other admission requirements. This guide is not an official endorsement by NAFSA: Association of International Educators. Remember that intelligent people disagree even when they are looking at the same facts! This tool is meant for you to begin to see the process of how to evaluate a credential from another country, and why your assessment might be different from a colleague’s assessment.

The evaluation of a foreign credential usually entails several steps, such as:

¾

gathering information on a country's educational system,

¾

gathering information on a particular credential,

¾ determining where the credential falls on the US credential benchmark spectrum,

¾ determining if the student is admissible given institutional policies, and

¾

determining placement and transfer credit, if warranted

Ascertaining the benchmark comparability of a credential should be carefully distinguished from determining the admissibility of a student. Students may have the equivalent to a US bachelor's degree, but they may not be admissible to your institution. Thus, the evaluation of a foreign credential is heavily determined by your institutional type and your institutional policies. Below, you will find that the benchmark comparability and the admissibility determination are clearly separated into two steps.

In the following section, you will see several credentials from The Philippines. You will also see evaluations from three sources:

1.

The National Council on the Evaluation of Foreign Educational Credentials: The “Council” is an interassociational group that provides guidelines for interpreting foreign educational credentials for the placement of holders of these credentials in US educational institutions. The membership of the Council reflects the diversity of US education institutions for which recommendations are made. Council recommendations are not directives, nor do they make judgments about the quality of programs and schools.

2.

U.S. educational institutions: The following evaluators volunteered to evaluate the educational credentials appearing in this newsletter: x

Jeannie Bell, Senior Assistant Director of International Admissions, University of Colorado at Boulder x

Malinda Yorkovich, Assistant Director of Admissions, University of Illinois at Chicago x

Evelyn Koine, Assistant Director, International Programs and Services, Southern Illinois University—

Carbondale x

Michael Ickowitz, Assistant Director, Office of Graduate and International Admissions, University of

Tennessee

3.

Credential evaluation service: In this issue, we have invited Josh Trevors of Globe Language Services in

New York to evaluate the educational credentials.


A BriefOverview ofthe EducationalSystem ofthe Philippines

By Josh Trevors,Globe Language Services

Primary education in the Philippines lasts for six years and is free and compulsory. Secondary education is four years in length. The majority of Philippine students attend academic high schools, although vocational options are available.

Since completion of elementary and secondary education requires only ten years of study, it is entirely possible for students to graduate from high school by the age of 16 or 17. Secondary education is closely supervised by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports.

University study in the Philippines is quite similar to that of the United States. Admission requires a high school diploma and a passing grade on the National College Entrance Examination. Undergraduate degrees are typically four years in in addition to courses in the major field of study. With the exception of required courses in Spanish and Filipino languages, the language of study is usually English, resulting in a high level of English proficiency among Philippine university graduates.

Master’s Degree programs require two years of full time study, although many students take longer. English is the langree.

University accreditation is the responsibility of three independent accrediting agencies: accredits approximately 80 percent of Filipino institutions. The two smaller agencies are the Philippines Association of

Colleges and Universities Commission of Accreditation (PACU-COA), accrediting mostly private institutions, and the Association of Christian Schools and Colleges Accrediting Agency (ACSC-AA), focusing on private religious schools.

University transcripts are usually issued in English and official copies should be readily available for admissions purposes.

Most transcripts clearly indicate the name and date of the degree awarded.

Grading scales vary widely in the Philippines. In addition to the A-E grading scale, the following scales are commonly used:

0-100 Scale:

90 - 100 A

83 - 90 B

75 - 82

Below 75

C

F

– 5.0 Scale:

1.0 - 1.75 A

2.0 - 2.5

2.75 -3.0

B

C

5.0 F

Sources :

The New CountryIndex , IERF, 2004.

CountryEducation Profiles:The Philippines,NationalOffice ofOverseas Skills Recognition, Second Addition 1995.

Philippines W orkshop Report , PIER World Education Series, 2001.

A Guide to EducationalSystem s ofthe W orld , NAFSA, 1999.


C R E D E N T I A L E VA L U AT I O N : P H I L I P P I N E S

H I G H S C H O O L D I P L O M A & B . S . I N P H Y S I C A L T H E R A P Y

























G E N E R A L C R E D E N T I A L I N F O R M A T I O N

Credential name in original language

Country

1) Diploma; 2) Bachelor of Science in Physical Therapy; 3) Certificate of

Internship

Philippines

Institution

Recognition/accreditation body

Prior level of education required

Official length of program

Time period covered

Program type

1) University of Santo Tomas High School; 2) University of Santo Tomas; 3)

University of Santo Tomas

Commission on Higher Education (CHED)

1) Elementary education (six years); 2) Completion of high school

1) Four years of study; 2) Five-year program including a one-year internship

1) 1982—1992; 2) 1992—1997

Academic / Professional

E V A L U A T I O N F R O M : N A T I O N A L C O U N C I L O N T H E E V A L U A T I O N O F

F O R E I G N E D U C A T I O N A L C R E D E N T I A L S

Bachelor’s degree in a program recognized by Commission on Higher Education (CHED) or offered by a state university or college. May be considered for graduate admission.

E V A L U A T I O N F R O M : U . S . E D U C A T I O N A L I N S T I T U T I O N S

University of Illinois at Chicago

(Selective)

May be considered for graduate admission with no advanced standing; the certificate is part of the 5-year B.S. in Physical Therapy program.

University of Colorado at Boulder

(Competitive)

Equivalent to a U.S. bachelor degree. (If applying to a graduate program, the department makes the admission decision.) Grades might not be high enough.

Southern Illinois University -

Carbondale

(Selective)

Eligible for admission to a second bachelor's degree or master's degree program. COMMENT: The Certificate of Internship - Departmental course equivalency review, with a maximum of 12 hours Clinical Experience

University of Tennessee

(Selective)

Applicant is eligible for either undergraduate transfer, for a second degree, or for graduate studies.

E V A L U A T I O N F R O M : E V A L U A T I O N S E R V I C E

Josh Trevors, Globe Language

Services

Equivalent: High school diploma and bachelor's degree. No credit for the certificate. The program requires the completion of a one-year internship.



H I G H S C H O O L T R A N S C R I P T O F R E C O R D S





C R E D E N T I A L E V A L U A T I O N : P H I L I P P I N E S




Country

Institution



Transcript of Records

Philippines

Ateneo de Manila - High School Department

Department of Education, Culture and Sport (DECS)

Elementary education (six years)



Program type

Four years (total of ten years)

1987-1991

Academic



Consideration for freshman admission should be based on an analysis of the quality of the secondary programs, voluntary accreditation status, and student achievement.



(Selective)

May be considered for freshman admission


(Competitive)

High school graduation. Grades and coursework make this a possible admit.

College preparatory curriculum. Would need an SAT or ACT for admission decision.

Freshman admission. COMMENT: Need to submit official transcript, notarized copies are not acceptable.


Carbondale

(Selective)


(Selective)

Eligible for freshman admission. Applicant would need to provide final diploma.



Services

Equivalent: High school diploma



O F F I C I A L T R A N S C R I P T O F R E C O R D









Country

Official Transcript of Record - INTARMED Program

Philippines

Institution


University of the Philippines Manila

State University/Program under Commission of Higher Education (CHED)




Program type

Completion of secondary school

INTARMED Program is seven years in length leading the degree of doctor

1995-1998




May be considered for undergraduate admission, with transfer credit determined on a course-by-course basis.



(Selective)

May be considered for undergraduate admission as a transfer student


(Competitive)

High school graduation. Grades and coursework make this a possible admit.

College preparatory curriculum. Would need an SAT or ACT for admission decision.


Carbondale

(Selective)


(Selective)

Three years of transfer credit. Unlikely to admit because of strong downward trend in last year, unless essay lists extenuating circumstances. If admitted, transfer credit would depend on the type of course and the grade.

Admit as transfer student with junior standing. Would need a minimum of 40 semester credits to complete SIUC bachelor's degree.



Services

Equivalent: Three years of undergraduate study in medical sciences



M A S T E R O F A R T S I N E D U C A T I O N T R A N S C R I P T



M A S T E R O F A R T S I N E D U C A T I O N T R A N S C R I P T



Country

Institution





Program type

Master of Arts in Education

Philippines

University of the Philippines - Dilliman

State university

Bachelor’s degree

Two years

1999-2002




Master’s degree recognized by the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) or offered by a state university of college. May be considered comparable to a master’s degree from a U.S. institution.



(Selective)

May be considered for graduate admission with possible advanced standing based on a course-by-course analysis


(Competitive)

Highest degree is equivalent to a U.S. master’s. However, the graduate department makes the admission decision.


Carbondale

(Selective)


(Selective)

May be considered for graduate school admission.

Eligible for graduate or doctoral programs. Student would need to provide official undergraduate transcripts.



Services

Equivalent: Master’s degree in education



S E C O N D A R Y S T U D E N T ’ S P E R M A N E N T R E C O R D



S E C O N D A R Y S T U D E N T ’ S P E R M A N E N T R E C O R D



T R A N S C R I P T O F C O L L E G I A T E R E C O R D









1) Secondary Student’s Permanent Record; 2) Transcript of Collegiate Record

Country

Institution


Philippines

1) Philippine High School of the Arts; 2) St. Scholastic’s College

1) Department of Education, Culture & Sports (DECS); 2) Commission on

Higher Education (CHED)

Prior level of education required 1) Completion of elementary school; 2) Completion of high school



Program type

1) Four years; 2) Four years (incomplete program)

1) 1984-1988; 2) 1988-1992

Academic



May be considered for undergraduate admission with transfer credit determined on a course-by-course basis.



(Selective)

The Student Record would qualify for consideration for freshman admission; the transcript would merit consideration for undergraduate transfer credit.


(Competitive)

The Student Record designates high school graduation. Grades and coursework make this a possible admit. The transcript would allow consideration as a transfer student with transfer credit depending on type of course and grade. Possible admit to School of Music only - we'd base an admit to another school/college on high school.


Carbondale

(Selective)

Transfer admission with 43 hours of credit


(Selective)

Eligible for admission as a transfer student. Grades above 2.5 would not be eligible for transfer.



Services

High school diploma and one and one-half years of undergraduate study in music


Newsletter Team

Editorial Board: Mary Fetterly

Office of Graduate Admissions of

maryf@u.washington.edu

Jahn

International Credential

jahnlinda@hotmail.com

Nancy Katz

International Educational Consultant nkatz1@hotmail.com

Alan Margolis

Consultant in Higher Education

CUNY Office of Academic Affairs alanmargolis@aol.com

Pat Parker

Assistant Director of Admissions

Iowa State University pjparke@iastate.edu

Marjorie Smith

Associate Dean, International Student Admissions

University of Denver msmith@du.edu

Kate Trayte

Executive Director, International Students and Scholars Services

Drexel University trayte@drexel.edu

Special thanks to the

Content Committee:

Indiana

Senior Associate Director of Admissions

University cfoley@indiana.edu

Independent Consultant

DeborahHefferon@verizon.net

Doug McBean

Senior Policy Coordinator of

dmcbean@adm.utoronto.ca

Special thanks to the

Columnists:

Educational Credential Evaluators, Inc.

jimfrey@ece.org

Questions? Feedback? E-mail: alanmargolis@aol.com

What credentials would you like evaluated?

What topics would you like covered?

What did you like about this newsletter?

What can we improve upon?


credential evaluation: philippines

Admission and Credential Evaluation

Admissions wRAP-Up Newsletter,

March 2006

Admissions, Recruitment, and

Preparation Knowledge Community

March 17

News You Can Use

Building a Transfer

Articulation Database

A View from the

Armchair

Letter to the Editor

New Zealand

Secondary Education

Q & A with Jim Frey

Credentials Evaluation:

The Philippines

Admissions

Coordinator

Update

Featured country for credentials evaluation in this issue:

The

Philippines

News You Can Use

Building a

Transfer

Articulation

Database

A View from the

Armchair

Letter to the

Editor

A Brief

Description of

Secondary

Education in

New Zealand

Q & A with Jim

Frey

A BriefOverview ofthe EducationalSystem ofthe Philippines

Newsletter Team

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib