South Pacific Board for Educational Assessment
Report on the
Regional Consultation
on
The Pacific Qualifications
Register
28 September – 2 October 2009
Tanoa International Hotel
Nadi, FIJI.
Accreditation Unit
December 2009
Page 1 of 48
Table of Contents
1.0
Introduction
3
2.0
The Consultation Programme
3
3.0
Participants Reflections
4
4.0
Resolutions and Recommendations
5
5.0
Consultation Finances
6
6.0
Conclusion and Next Steps
6
7.0
Appendices
7.1
Consultation Programme
7
7.2
Dr Helen Tavola’s Opening Address
8
7.3
Resource Persons
10
7.4
Summary of Presentations
13
7.5
Summary of Reflections
35
7.6
Communiqué
40
7.7
Finances
42
7.8
List of Participants
43
7.9
PQR Consultation - Group Photo
48
Page 2 of 48
1.0
INTRODUCTION
The Pacific Qualifications Register (PQR) is the outcome of discussions and deliberations that
began in 2001 at the Pacific Islands Forum Ministers of Education meeting in Auckland, New
Zealand. In successive meetings that followed Forum Ministers, Executive Officers and Permanent
Secretaries of Education reaffirmed their commitment to develop a regional qualifications register.
These also set in motion events that resulted in the establishment of the Accreditation Unit within
the South Pacific Board for Educational Assessment (SPBEA) in February 2009 to be responsible
for spearheading the development of the Pacific Qualifications Register (PQR).
This development is financially supported by the Government of Australia for the period 2008 to
2013.
In line with other developments that have been taking place in the education sector within the
region, the PQR will provide supportive mechanisms for other initiatives such as those outlined in
the 2006 Pacific Plan, the Pacific Education Development Framework and the Pacific Island
Countries Trade Agreement (PICTA) Scheme on the Temporary Movement of Natural Persons
(TMNP).
2.0
THE CONSULTATION PROGRAMME
The consultation was held at the Tanoa International Hotel in Nadi, Fiji, from September 28th to
October 2nd, 2009. As part of the official opening on Day 1, the Director of SPBEA gave a brief
opening remark and later introduced and called on Dr Helen Tavola, the Social Policy Adviser with
the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS) to deliver the key note address and officially open the
week long consultation. The full text of Dr Helen Tavola’s opening address is in Appendix 7.2
(page 8).
It was attended by representatives from 14 of 15 member states and 3 CROP Agencies with a total
of 40 participants.
The daily sessions consisted of presentations by guest presenters, question and answer sessions
soon after the presentations and workshop sessions in the afternoon.
Specific themes were identified for each day and each session centered around the themes where
topical issues were covered during the morning presentations and afternoon workshops focused on
pertinent issues that were raised during the presentations. The following daily sessions and topical
themes were covered:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Day 1 - Qualifications Frameworks and Registers
Day 2- Qualifications Frameworks and Developments
Day 3 - Learning and Qualifications Registrations
Day 4 - A Quality Assurance Framework
Day 5 - The Way Forward
It was evident from the discussions, questions and interaction that representatives of member
countries understand and appreciate the implications and benefit the PQR will bring to each country
and the region as a whole. It was also evident that a lot of commitment and perseverance from
national agencies and stakeholders is required for countries to develop and implement an effective
qualifications framework. A copy of the daily programme is attached as Appendix 7.1 (page 7).
Page 3 of 48
2.1 The Presentations
The morning presentations by the guest presenters focused on the theme for each day.
There were seven presenters with each one focusing on a specific topic.
The following topics were addressed:
1) Day 1 – Learning, Pacific Knowledge and Qualifications Framework by Dr Visesio
Pongi, Director UNESCO
2) Day 2 – (a) Qualifications Development by Dr James Keevy, Director International
Liaisons, South African Qualification Authority, (b) The Caribbean Qualifications
Framework – A Regional Example by Ms Myrna Bernard, Director Human
Development, CARICOM
3) Day 3 – (a) Learning, Qualifications and Accreditation by Ms Kathy Maclaren,
Manager Registration, Approval and Accreditation, NZQA, (b) Qualifications
Registration – The TQF Model by Dr Richard Wah
4) Day 4 – (a) Quality Assurance Principles and Practices by Mr Rob E Fearnside, (b)
The Challenges to Assuring Quality by Mr Alan Male
5) Day 5 – The Way Forward – PICTA: Trade in Services and the Temporary Movement
of Natural Persons Scheme by Amitesh Prasad, Trade Policy Officer, ACP/EU, Pacific
Islands Forum Secretariat
Detailed information on the guest presenters is attached as Appendix 7.3 (page 10) and
summaries of the presentations are attached as Appendix 7.4 (page 13).
2.2 The Workshops
The afternoon workshop sessions provided the opportunity for more dialogue and
interaction where participants were able to discuss openly and share their experiences, ideas
and concerns.
Guiding questions were given out to assist in steering discussions and to ensure relevant
feedback is received to enable further development and improvement of the PQR. It was
evident from the discussions that some member countries are quite advanced in the
development of their qualifications frameworks while some have just commenced and
others are yet to decide on what they will do in regards to qualifications accreditation.
As each workshop session was a build up on the previous one, it was evident from the final
session that there were general agreements on a number of key aspects with minor
differences on others. Final recommendations resulting from the discussions are captured in
the Consultation Communiqué.
3.0
PARTICIPANT REFLECTIONS ON THE CONSULTATION
Being the first consultation on the Regional Qualifications Register, it was critical to gather
information on how the participants viewed the programme and the relevancy of the information
that was shared. To enable this, a feedback form was given out to the participants in which they
were to record issues they wanted to commend and any recommendations they felt would assist in
progressing the development of the PQR.
Page 4 of 48
Participants were also asked to identify the kind of assistance their countries would require from the
PQR Secretariat within the next 6 to 12 months and also in the longer term or between 12 to 36
months.
Generally, responses received indicated that the consultation was very relevant and beneficial, it
was well organized and the level of support and service were excellent. There was also an
indication that participants appreciated and valued the wealth of knowledge and experience of the
presenters as well as the level of interaction throughout the week. It was recommended that a follow
up consultation be carried out
While some countries did not indicate the kind of assistance they will require from the PQR
Secretariat, three countries indicated that they will need support and assistance in the development
of their qualifications agencies and qualifications frameworks. One is requesting assistance to
support an initiative that is already being implemented in the country.
In the longer term, one country is requesting for the draft mechanisms of the PQR while one is
requesting assistance with the development of its national qualifications agency.
Most countries indicated that in the shorter and longer term they are expecting the PQR to be fully
developed and be in full operation providing information and assistance to the member countries.
A summary of the participants’ reflections is attached as Appendix 7.5 (page 35).
4.0
RESOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
During the five days of consultation many ideas, suggestions and recommendations were put forth.
These were then looked at in light of the objectives of the consultation, the role of the Secretariat
and SPBEA as a whole and in light of the vision of the Forum Ministers of Education.
The communiqué contains the final decisions and resolutions that were reached at the end of the
consultation together with the list of activities that will need to be undertaken immediately and in
the long term to progress the development of the PQR.
4.1
The outcomes of the consultation
At the end of the consultation the participants agreed on and confirmed the following:
1. The Pacific Qualifications Register will include the following:
•
•
•
Quality assured qualifications offered in member states through the National
Qualifications Authority (NQAs) and relevant ministries; in some cases in
partnership with NZQA or the Western Association of Schools and Colleges
(WASC)
Traditional indigenous knowledge and skills (TIKS)
Professional and Occupational Standards
2. The Pacific Qualifications Register will be based on the following organizing
principles:
•
Quality assurance of qualifications on a national level only
Page 5 of 48
•
•
•
•
•
Support and guidance offered to countries in developing national quality assurance
systems including templates
A unified qualifications system comprising:
- ten levels
- level descriptors
- qualifications types
- qualifications descriptors
- credits (where one credit is equivalent to 10 notional hours of
learning
International benchmarking to facilitate recognition of Pacific qualifications
Format for qualifications including: purpose statement, qualification title, outcome
statement, level, supporting evidence credit value components and entry
requirements
For external quality assurance mechanism to ensure that the organizing principles
as outlines above are adhered to
3. The SPBEA will champion and coordinate the development of the Pacific Qualifications
Register as mandated by the Pacific Forum Ministers of Education
The Communiqué is attached as Appendix 7.6 (page 40).
5.0
THE CONSULTATION BUDGET
To enable the effective staging of the five day consultation, an initial budget of $212, 594.00 was
allocated to cater for the cost of travel, accommodation, per diems, meals and refreshments and
administration.
At the end of the consultation, all expenses totaled $118, 940.00
The profit and loss statement on the PQR Consultation is attached as Appendix 7.7 (page 42).
6.0
CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS
As the consultation came to an end, it was obvious that much had been achieved.
In line with the objectives of the consultation, it was encouraging to note that from diverse
differences in opinions and ideas, there was a significant convergence and agreement on a number
of working principles as captured in 4.1 above. The participants were also able to identify the
follow up activities in the development of the PQR and indicate specific assistance and support
expected by their national agencies. These formed the core of the Communiqué.
The Staff of the Accreditation Unit will now progress the development of the PQR given mutual
understanding agreed to and continue to develop the various domains now confirmed as key areas
of the Pacific Qualifications Register. All in all, the Regional Consultation was indeed
successful as all the expected outcomes were achieved.
Page 6 of 48
7.0
APPENDICES
Appendix 7.1: The PQR Consultation Programme
Monday
28th September
Daily
Theme
Regional Consultation on the Pacific Qualifications Register
28th September – 2nd October 2009
Tanoa International Hotel Nadi, Fiji
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
29th September
30th September
1st October
Qualifications Frameworks
and Registers
Legal Framework and
Policy Development
Learning and
Qualifications
Friday
2nd October
A Quality Assurance
Framework
The Way Forward
Quality Assurance
principles and practices
The Way Forward
Morning Sessions
Welcome
Overview of the Consultation
1
Mrs Ana Raivoce
Director SPBEA
Official Opening Address
2
Brief Presentations by each
Country on Development of
National Qualifications
Agencies.
Fiji, Tonga,
Vanuatu, Samoa
Qualifications
Development
Learning, Qualifications
and Accreditation
Kathy Maclaren
Dr James Keevey
South African
Qualifications Authority
Pacific Learning, Pacific
knowledge and
Qualifications
Frameworks
Dr Visesio Pongi
UNESCO
New Zealand
Qualifications Authority
Qualifications
Registrations: The TQF
Model
Rob E. Fearnside
The Challenges to
Assuring Quality
Summing up
The Quality Assurance
Standard for the PQR
Summing up of the
Week’s Outcomes
Dr Richard Wah
Vice Chair COL-TQF
Afternoon Workshop Sessions
Daily
Expected
Outcome
Finalise the Structure and
Level Descriptors for the
Pacific Framework
Policies, Procedures and
Qualifications
Development
Registration, Approval
and Accreditation
Page 7 of 48
Appendix 7.2:
OPENING ADDRESS FOR THE REGIONAL CONSULTATION ON
THE PACIFIC QUALIFICATIONS REGISTER
28 September 2009
Dr Helen Tavola (Social Policy Adviser - Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat)
Mrs Ana Raivoce, Director of SPBEA and SPBEA staff including Mr Lafi Sanerivi
Dr Visesio Pongi, Director of the UNESCO Office for Pacific States and other resource people
Delegates from Pacific Island Countries
Thank you for the invitation to open this consultation. I bring you greetings from the Secretary General of the Pacific Islands
Forum Secretariat who is unable to be here today.
You may wonder what the connection is between the Forum Secretariat and the Pacific Qualifications Register, so I will start
with a short history lesson to briefly outline the background and the genesis of this process.
In 2001, the Forum Secretariat convened the first ministerial meeting for Forum Education Ministers and at that meeting
Ministers adopted a regional education framework that was known as the Forum Basic Education Action Plan (FBEAP). In
this plan were the following words:
(it was agreed) that Ministers of Education consider the setting up of a regional qualifications framework, covering
basic, primary, secondary, TVET and tertiary education, benchmarked against appropriate international standards
and qualifications
Education officials and partner agencies such as UNESCO, SPBEA, SPC and the Forum Secretariat discussed this issue at
various workshops and meetings in subsequent years and decided to go back to a 2004 meeting of Education Ministers and
propose that they endorse the idea of a qualifications register, rather than a framework. This was deemed to be a more
manageable and realistic option.
It was agreed that SPBEA should be the implementing agency as its mandate was appropriate. In late 2005, the SPBEA
Board agreed to incorporate this process into its work.
Players such as PATVET, the Pacific Association for Technical and Vocational Education and Training, emerged with their
mandate to develop an inventory of courses. This will feed into and contribute to the qualifications register.
A scoping study, funded by AusAID, was undertaken in 2007 whereby consultations were held on a sub-regional basis
around the region to assess whether in fact there was sufficient interest in the development of a regional qualifications
mechanism. Some of you may have been part of these consultations. The result was overwhelming support for the idea,
which lead to a more concerted effort to seek funding for the development of the register.
We are pleased that the Government of Australia saw merit in the proposal and finally agreed to provide funding, which
enabled recruitment to start and the unit within SPBEA finally commenced its work early this year. It is very pleasing that a
competent team of Pacific Island nationals has been recruited for this important task.
If you are not yet familiar with the Pacific Qualifications Register (PQR), you may ask why should we have one and how will
it be used.
People within the Pacific travel a lot and one of the reasons they travel is for study or work. If a student from Kiribati comes
to the Fiji Institute of Technology and has a certificate for say, Carpentry Stage 1 or Computing Stage 2, FIT at the moment
may make him or her start all over again as they have no idea what that certificate or diploma entails. If, however, they can
consult a regional register with a common currency of qualifications, they may be able to give recognition and credit for
study already done.
Some of you may be familiar with qualifications from the International Maritime Organisation that are gained in the various
maritime colleges around the region. These qualifications are internationally recognized and benchmarked and enable
students to move to continue their studies and also to work. While the PQR does not the resources to aspire to do this, it
remains a useful model to bear in mind as to the value of truly portable qualifications.
Page 8 of 48
Some of the countries in the region employ people from other Pacific countries and need to know the type of qualifications
they have. For example, teachers and health workers from Fiji go to the Marshall Islands and some to Palau; teachers from
Papua New Guinea are in Nauru and many Fijian workers in tourism and hospitality work in the Cook Islands.
In fact there is considerable movement of people already in the region and it is increasing as opportunities open up around the
region and is particularly attractive when there are not enough jobs available. Labour mobility is actively encouraged by our
political leaders as a way of improving the livelihoods of Pacific people. Labour mobility could be facilitated with access to
the PQR.
Some of you may have heard of the Pacific Island Countries Trade Agreement or PICTA. This provides for the liberalization
of trade among Forum Island Countries and it includes trade in services, or some level of free movement of labour. While
this area of PICTA is still being worked on, the PQR could potentially play a key role as an enabling mechanism.
Qualifications will be quickly and easily recognized between countries and will be of value to those seeking employment, to
employers and to governments.
The PQR will also give more credibility and status to qualifications in the TVET area as people will be able to ‘staircase’ and
build on their studies. By assigning a designated level, people will be able to easily see what any particular qualification
represents. One of the difficulties with TVET in the region has always been the relatively low status ascribed to it – we hope
that this process will positively assist in raising the status and standards of TVET.
There are exciting possibilities for the recognition of prior learning, which is well established in countries like Australia and
New Zealand. Imagine if you (or your uncle or grandmother for that matter) could apply your traditional indigenous
knowledge in crafts such as mat-weaving, chanting or canoe-building into a qualification. The scope is endless to also
recognize current competencies as well.
Finally, a word about regionalism. The Pacific Plan was endorsed by Leaders in 2005 as a guide to implement their
commitment to increased regional cooperation and integration. The PQR fits in very well to this context and is noted in the
Plan.
As with all regional initiatives, the PQR will not duplicate or replace national developments – i.e. your own national
qualifications mechanisms – it will complement and support them.
Even though there is diversity among the education systems of the Pacific, from the north to the south and west to east, the
PQR can work as a mechanism to tie us together in a truly meaningful way. For very small countries that may never be able
to have their own national qualifications mechanism, the PQR may be still be able to provide a valuable service.
I hope that you will commit to supporting the PQR as you learn more about it over the course of this week. It is a process and
all countries should be part of it.
I view this consultation as a critically significant landmark and I am pleased to be here as I have been involved with this
process almost since its inception.
I wish you a most successful and fruitful consultation and I look forward to hearing the outcomes. I have great pleasure in
declaring the first regional consultation on the Pacific Qualifications Register open!
Helen Tavola
Social Policy Adviser
Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat
Suva, Fiji
Page 9 of 48
Appendix 7.3
The Guest Presenters
Dr Helen Tavola is the Social Policy Adviser at the Pacific Islands Forum
Secretariat. In this capacity, she monitors social issues, in particular education,
disability issues and gender in Pacific Island Countries.
Prior to this, Dr Tavola tutored for the London School of Economics and the Open
University; taught in secondary schools in Fiji and worked as a consultant in the
fields of social development, particularly education, mostly in the Pacific.
She did her undergraduate studies in New Zealand followed by an MSc and PhD at
the London School of Economics.
Mrs Myrna Bernard is the Director, Human Development in the Caribbean Community (CARICOM)
Secretariat. Mrs Bernard is an educator by profession and joined the Secretariat in May 1994 as a Senior Project
Officer in Education. Before taking up her current position as Director in January, 2007
she also served as Programme Manager, Human Resource Development.
As Director, Human Development, Ms Bernard has oversight responsibility for
programme development and implementation in the Directorate of Human and Social
Development. The Programme areas of the Directorate encompass Human Resource
Development, Health Sector Development, Gender and Development, Youth
Development, Culture and Sport Development. She has, over her years at the Secretariat,
gained insights and experience in regional policy and programme development in these
areas.
Before joining the CARICOM Secretariat, Mrs Bernard served as lecturer in Science Education and VicePrincipal, Administration at a The Cyril Potter College of Education for teachers in Guyana and lecturer in
Education Management at the University of Guyana.
Mrs Bernard holds a Bachelor of Science Honors Degree in Physics from the University of the West Indies and
also a Post Graduate Diploma in Science Education and Masters Degree in Education Management from the
University of Guyana.
Kathy Maclaren is the Manager of Registration, Approval and Accreditation within the
New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) and is responsible for the registration of
private training establishments, their accreditation and the quality assurance of their
courses. Kathy’s business unit also works with wananga, and institutes of technology
and polytechnics. Kathy’s other focus for the last five years has been the implementation
and on-going maintenance of New Zealand’s qualifications framework - the New
Zealand Register of Quality Assured Qualifications.
Page 10 of 48
ALAN MALE has been involved in education since 1978 first as a secondary school teacher in New Zealand
then in various roles in the New Zealand Qualifications Authority in the establishment period 1990-1998. Since
1998 Alan has been involved in defining, organising, and leading international
education development projects.
He was involved with several key projects in the Pacific region. He assisted the
development of the Samoa Qualifications Authority and defined the Samoa National
Qualifications Framework. He worked in Fiji with the Fiji Trade and Productivity
Association of Fiji (TPAF) to design the Fiji National Qualifications Framework and
all the quality assurance regulatory systems that were related to the implementation and
maintenance of the FNQF.
Since 2005 he has been involved in a series of projects in Timor Leste. Since 2008 he has been the Senior
Education Liaison Specialist in the World Bank funded Education Sector Support Project (ESSP) with the
responsibility of leadership of the technical assistance inputs.
The responsibilities span all levels of education
including primary, secondary, vocational education and higher education. Currently, as part of this work I am
particularly focused on supervising the development of the tertiary education strategy and funding system, the
NQF and the development of the quality assurance agency.
Dr James Keevy is currently the Director: International Liaison at the South African
Qualification Authority. James has overseen and participated in various qualifications
framework related research projects in South Africa, the Southern African Development
Community, East-Africa and the Commonwealth. James is a teacher by profession and has
the improvement of the status of teachers internationally close at heart.
Rob Fearnside was the Deputy Director of the Victorian Registration and Qualifications
Authority (VRQA) with responsibility for registration and accreditation in VET and Higher
Education and the State Register.
Rob was formerly the Director of the Victorian
Qualifications Authority (VQA). His work at the VQA included major responsibility for
the Victorian Certificate of Applied Learning (VCAL) and the Credit Matrix. Rob was
actively involved in the re development of the Australian Quality Training Framework
(AQTF 2007) and the review of standards for accreditation. Rob was formerly a Director in
the Victorian Auditor General’s Office. His work at the audit office included major studies
on literacy standards in Victorian schools, overseas students in Victorian universities, and teacher work force
planning.
His previous work in education includes the development of the Victorian school accountability
framework and responsibility as Assistant General Manager for the Victorian school review program.
Page 11 of 48
Dr Richard T. U. Wah is currently one of the
Senior Professional Officer (Information Communications
Technology and Research, and Assessment Training and Support), with the South Pacific Board for
Educational Assessment (SPBEA), Suva Fiji. In this role, he coordinates activities related to ICT, research,
assessment training and assessment support for 11 member countries of the Pacific. Richard is a Member of the
Secretariat’s Management Team.
From August 2005 – January 2007, Richard worked as Project Officer Education/Early
Childhood Development, UNICEF – Pacific. This involved coordinating and implementing
educational activities of UNICEF in the Pacific Islands countries, but especially in Kiribati,
Solomon Islands and Vanuatu. Involved work on Tafea and Isabel Islands. He was also the
Office Ombudsman.
Richard was Project Coordinator for the World Health Organisation during April 2003 –
August 2005. Open Learning Health Network for Health Professional of the Pacific. Facilitate and coordinate the
implementation of the main activities of the Pacific Open Learning Health Network for 15 Pacific Forum Islands
Countries. Coordinate with the taskforce and/or focal point the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the
project activities at country level.
Dr Visesio Pongi has been involved in education in the Pacific for over 30 years as a school teacher, principal,
education officer and deputy director in the Tonga Ministry of Education and as a
staff of the South Pacific Board for Educational Assessment (SPBEA) both as its
Deputy Director and later as its Director for 10 years. During his tenure as Director
of SPBEA, he introduced a number of assessment practices and initiatives aimed at
improving the quality of education in the Pacific. These practices are actively being
promoted and enhanced by SPBEA. Dr Pongi left SPBEA in 2005 to become the
Director and Representative of UNESCO to the Pacific States.
Since joining UNESCO Dr. Pongi has continued to promote the issue of the quality
of education in the Pacific and has been instrumental in forging closer collaboration
among education development partners in the Pacific to work together in
implementing initiatives that advocate for the improvement of quality education in the Pacific. Many of these
initiatives are currently being implemented by countries and supported by development partners. These include
the teacher competency and focus on developing strategies that improve the effectiveness of teachers such as
teacher standards and the strategy for assessing and monitoring effectiveness of teachers, the competency modules
for enhancing the competencies of teachers, etc.
Page 12 of 48
Dr. Pongi continues to move UNESCO to continue to be actively involved in working with member states as well
as development partners to improve the overall quality of education in all countries in the Pacific.
Appendix 7.4: Summary of Presentations
1.
MONDAY 28th September: Qualifications Frameworks and Registers
Presentation 1: Pacific Learning (Knowledge and Skills) and the Qualifications Framework, is it a
panacea or a nail in the coffin for Pacific knowledge and skills?:
Dr Visesio Pongi
In making his presentation, Dr Pongi focused on five key areas and elaborated on each one as he
discussed the topic ‘Pacific Learning and Qualifications Framework’
Why are you here?
Reference was made on the purpose of the consultation as stated in the consultation document that had
been earlier circulated to the participants. While it could be assumed that certain things had already been
decided, the consultation would provide the opportunity for discussion on what the final outcome would
be.
The purposes of the Pacific Qualifications Register were highlighted:
a) an instrument that will instill and sustain lifelong learning from basic and primary
education to the highest level attainable by each individual
b) a common reference for establishing regional and international equivalence of Pacific
Forum countries’ qualifications
c) an instrument that will facilitate the mobility of learners and workers amongst the Pacific
Island Nations and into the global labour market
d) an integrated and comprehensive framework for all forms and types of education and
training in the Pacific (secondary, TVET, tertiary, general, academic, etc)
e) a common reference for quality assurance, quality audit and qualifications development
in Pacific education and training
A question was raised on ‘how best to incorporate the purpose’ stated above into both the PQF and PQR
especially when “all forms and types of education and training” are expected to be included. This will
need to be viewed as the challenge and the question that the consultation will need to bring to the
forefront of discussions. Emphasis on including all forms of education and training will also mean not
only capturing learning done in the formal context but also those done in the non-formal context.
So what is needed?
There is a need to ask what needs to be done differently to ensure that the PQF/PQR is unique to the
Pacific and satisfies the need for comparability and portability within and outside the Pacific and also
captures knowledge and skills that are relevant to livelihood in the Pacific.
While it is easy to put in place a PQF/PQR benchmarked against appropriate international standards by
adopting the framework or register of countries we want to align with, the issue of equivalence will need
to be considered.
Caution must also be taken against proposing a PQF/PQR that is comparable to external QFs and QRs
without initial consideration of the specific situation of each country. The focus should be on developing
Page 13 of 48
the NQF and NQR of each country and to make sure that all their qualifications as well as learning
achievements could be accredited so skills are recognized. This is the challenge that the PQF and PQR
will have to address.
So what does it take?
A number of key points were raised when addressing the above question:
•
•
•
•
The need to clarify the division of labour between the NQF/NQR and the PQF/PQR
Depending on the outcome of the above clarification, the need to define what countries
will have to do to meet the requirements of the PQR/PQF
The need to take a broad perspective of the various dimensions of the QF/QR without
having to compromise the key issues of quality, comparability and portability
The need to ensure that the intentions of the processes of the PQR/PQF should guide and
assist the countries to achieve what they want and not be restricted by it
There is a need to clearly understand the challenges associated with recognizing learning undertaken
through other means especially if they are going to be included in such processes as those of the PQF and
PQR.
Another challenge highlighted is the process required to accredit the quality of the processes and the
standard of learning achieved in non-formal and informal learning. This may prove more difficult then the
formal process. Therefore careful and sensitive approaches are needed and must involve dialogue and
participation.
What would then be a way forward?
For a clearly identified relationship between NQF/NQR and PQF/PQR there are certain criteria for
registration that will need to be agreed to. While the criteria may indicate an emphasis on formal system,
it is important that consideration be given to learning that is outside the formal system and critical to the
livelihood of people.
To enable the above, it is suggested that parallel criteria be developed, one for the packaged learning and
the other for un-packaged learning, possibly with criteria for compliance based on outcomes and not on
inputs and processes.
Shifting from input to outcomes
A key challenge countries are likely to face is putting in place an equivalency mechanism that will
establish comparability between learning in the formal context and those in non-formal context.
The shift in focus from content to outcomes based learning provides the opportunity for including all
forms of learning into the QFs/QRs.
Conclusion
In conclusion it was emphasized that the task of developing a NQF/NQR that will include all forms of
learning will be a challenging one and needs to be carefully considered. Even more challenging will be
the development of a regional process that needs to take into account the differences and diversities
between each country’s system.
The usefulness of the PQF/PQR will depend on the level of flexibility of such systems to take into
consideration all learning that is undertaken within the system through whatever means. The issue of
comparability, transparency and portability should be considered as a secondary purpose.
Page 14 of 48
2.
TUESDAY 29th September: Qualifications Frameworks and Developments
Presentation 2: Qualifications Development – the South African experience, Dr James Keevy
Dr James Keevy commenced his presentation with a discussion of the advent of the Qualifications
Framework, highlighting the focus and the characteristics of frameworks that were developed at the end
of the 20th century.
Problems associated with the first generation of QFs were discussed where it was pointed out that NQFs
promised what they could not deliver and South Africa was an example:
•
•
•
•
•
South Africa was looking for an alternative to apartheid education
NQF concept was taken up
NQF promised much to a system that had many challenges
Implementation started in 1995 but on-going review over the years ended in 2008
Despite challenges NQF development and implementation continued at a pace
A point was made that QFs should be viewed as work in progress and that they are frameworks of
collaboration, communication and coordination. It was also pointed out that we need to be cautious and
not too ambitious that the aims become unattainable or too modest that it becomes too technical. Each
country must be able to find the level of balance that will work for them and for the region as well.
Developing Qualifications Frameworks
A number of key aspects will need to be considered:
a) Qualifications Frameworks are global phenomenon with more than 100 countries working on
their frameworks. He, however, posed a challenge that the Pacific will need to have good
reasons why it needs a qualifications framework and register and be clear on the kind of
system it needs.
b) There needs to be a clear definition and understanding of key terms
c) There are different types of frameworks and each one has its own characteristics.
Common understanding of Qualifications Frameworks
To create a common understanding of qualifications frameworks, the following aspects were
highlighted:
a) Architecture
This is the most common aspect about qualifications frameworks but it is not the only one.
There is much more to qualifications frameworks than levels and qualifications definitions.
There seems to be a convergence on the number of qualification levels with most countries
adopting the 10 levels.
b) Governance
Page 15 of 48
This defines the structure under which qualifications frameworks are managed and governed.
For some countries, qualification agencies have been set up while in others, the country’s
Ministry of Education or other relevant ministry may be the responsible agency.
c) Prescriptiveness
There are two possible extremes where one could be strong and very prescriptive while one
could be loose and voluntary. Either one will have both positive and negative consequences.
Each framework will need to determine a level of balance that will ensure maximum benefit
is derived from such a system
d) Purpose
A number of possible purposes for having a qualifications framework were outlined
A point was emphasized on the need to be clear about what the Pacific expects from its
qualifications framework and what will make the framework uniquely Pacific in nature.
e) Philosophy
Developments of QFs have been greatly influenced by previous thinking. When developing
qualifications frameworks it is important to understand the underlying philosophy that
influenced the development of QFs.
f)
Policy breath
Two key points about QF policies were highlighted where one could be intrinsic logic –
referring to the adequacy of the design and institutional logic which refers to the extent of
uptake of the qualifications framework by institutions.
It is desirable to have both high intrinsic logic and high institutional logic where the QF
system developed suits the needs of the country and institutions and supportive of the
development.
g) Incrementalism
This refers to the rate of implementation and it can be seen from two extremes on a
continuum. One is a very rapid implementation and the other, very gradual and there is also
the phased approach.
It is important to understand the best way that will suit the situation in each country and one
that could be supported by the systems and processes already in existence.
The Pacific Qualifications Framework
In conclusion, possible development scenarios were looked at given the varying stages of
development of national qualifications frameworks
Page 16 of 48
Presentation 3: The Caribbean Community - A focus on the Regional Qualifications Framework, Ms
Myrna Bernard
Ms Bernard discussed the Caribbean Community’s journey in its development as a regional body to
facilitate the various regional development initiatives that the Community had undertaken and continues
to undertake.
A brief outline was discussed highlighting the various developments that took place over the years such
as:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1928 – Regional Cricket Team to England
1948 – Regional University: UCWI
1958 – Political Federation (1962)
1968 – Caribbean Free Trade Area (CARIFTA)
1973 – Caribbean Community and Common Market
1989 – Decision to establish the Caribbean Single Market Economy
2006 – Establishment of the CARICOM Single Market
The CARICOM Single Market Economy (CSME)
It was pointed out that the establishment of the CSME was to provide the framework for the
following:
•
•
•
•
•
Greater opportunities for employment, investment, production and trade
Competitive products of better quality and prices
Improved services provided by enterprises and individuals
Greater opportunity for travel for nationals to study and work in CARICOM countries
Increased employment and improved standard of living
The framework is supported by a governance and legal infrastructure that underly the
intergovernmental agreements and treaties that bind the countries together.
The CSME facilitates:
•
•
•
free intra-CARICOM movement of goods
free intra-CARICOM trade in services
free movement of capital and skills
Education in the Community – Regionalism as a Resource
There is regional cooperation at all levels of the education system with a regional framework for
child development and protection, regional standards for ECD and cooperation in curriculum
framework development in selected areas such as physical education, health and family life
education.
Regional Cooperation in TVET and Tertiary Education
This is cooperation that allows for free movement of labour across member countries and this was
seen as a pillar of the CSME process.
It reflects the importance and benefits of a common system and the impact it has on portability of
qualifications and understanding of quality assurance systems at all levels of education including
TVET.
Page 17 of 48
Quality Assurance
A critical process that provides a system of certification and accreditation that ensures the
efficient and effective functioning of an integrated market such as the CSME.
Such a system would improve progression routes for vocational education and training in further
education and in higher education.
Quality Assurance and Accreditation
With the plethora of foreign providers operating in a system that is not yet fully regulated, it is
imperative that a regional quality assurance and accreditation mechanism is in place.
For this, a regional accreditation model was approved by the Council for Human and Social
Development and is premised on the establishment of national bodies.
Examples of such regional cooperation in quality assurance are the Caribbean Accreditation
Authority in Medicine and the Regional Examination for nurse registration.
The Regional Qualifications Framework
The development of the qualifications framework happened at the time other regional initiatives
were being undertaken.
The RQF will allow for equivalences to be established among elements of different qualifications
and facilitate establishments of progression routes, different fields of study, general and
vocational education, learning in initial and further education and qualifications obtained through
formal and non-formal education.
The framework would facilitate lifelong learning and help enterprise and employment agencies,
match skill demand with supply, facilitate credentialing of workforce participants and guide
individuals in their choice of education, training and career.
3
WEDNESDAY 30th September: Learning and Qualification Registration
Presentation 4: Learning, Qualifications, Pathways and Quality, Ms Karen Maclaren
Ms Maclaren’s presentation focused on a number of key aspects aligned to the title of her presentation.
Qualifications – what are they? Their purpose?
The definition of qualification as used by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority is “the
recognition of achievement of a set of learning outcomes for a particular purpose through formal
certification”.
It is important to define such terms as qualifications, course, programme, approval, accreditation
and registration clearly to ensure everyone is using the same language and meaning the same
way.
Qualifications are also used for funding purposes and for reporting student achievements and are
also regarded as catalyst for economic development.
Page 18 of 48
Qualifications Frameworks
A strong point was made on the importance of thinking about the design and characteristics of the
framework in terms of its intended purpose and function. Thoughts must be centered on the
following:
•
•
•
•
Defined purpose
Context of environment
History of qualifications framework development
Intended use
A brief outline of the establishment of the NZQA in 1990 was discussed and how it resulted in
the amalgamation of a number of examination bodies.
While the NZQA was intended to provide a consistent approach to recognizing qualifications, it
did not achieve this initial intention. There was strong resistance from other sectors especially for
the use of standards based approach to defining qualifications.
The result was a highly regulated, specified NQF which did not meet NZQA’s objective.
A meeting of the Inter-Institutional Assurance Bodies consultative group was held in April 2000
which came up with the view of developing and agreeing on a broader framework of
qualifications. This led to sector wide consultations that resulted in the development of the NZ
Register of Quality Assured Qualifications policy. The policy document was approved by the
NZQA Board in May 2001.
Qualifications Frameworks and Qualifications
New Zealand qualifications were described as being outcomes based where level descriptors,
qualifications type definitions and qualifications are described in terms of outcomes. Assessment
standards or methodology and learning pathways are not necessarily specified.
Quality of Design, Delivery and Assessment
The quality assurance system that supports the qualifications framework is based on the premise
that on-going self assessment and periodic external evaluation and review are critical to ensuring
a high trust and accountability environment.
The regulatory framework that supports the qualifications system considers the various processes
associated with course approval and accreditation important in the achievement and maintenance
of quality.
It was noted that in terms of traditional and indigenous knowledge and skills, NZQA does not
specify what should or should not be part of the qualifications system. It is up to the holders of
the knowledge and skills what will be put up for public consumption.
The audit model in New Zealand is changing from being audit and compliance oriented to
evaluating what matters. It is recognizing the importance of working with providers and service
suppliers to focus not on inputs but on outcomes. It is really about evaluating what matters, ‘the
quality of learning and teaching’.
Page 19 of 48
Where to next for New Zealand?
NZQA carried out a targeted review of qualifications in levels 1 – 6. One of the things that came
out of the review is the lack of clarity in the system.
This has resulted in the need to look at qualifications design and the rules around what
qualifications are made of and the need to strengthen stakeholder input in the design process and
to discourage unnecessary qualification duplication. This means that the result will be a unified
system where there is no distinction between qualifications.
Regional Frameworks – one model (European Qualifications Framework – EQF)
It was noted that the EQF is quite straight forward having only levels and descriptors. There are
no qualifications types and qualification definitions.
The EQF is a reference point for National Qualifications Frameworks and is for voluntary
referencing by European Union members
In terms of the PQR there is a need to be clear on what the framework needs to achieve, to ensure
that the structure, criteria, and processes are linked to and will achieve the purpose for which it
was developed.
It needs to have transparency and robustness without being compliance heavy.
Presentation 5: Transnational Qualifications Framework Virtual University of Small States of the Commonwealth (VUSSC) – TQF
Dr Richard Wah
Dr Richard Wah made a presentation on the Commonwealth of Learning’s Transnational Qualifications
Framework discussing its purpose and the philosophy behind its development.
Five key points were highlighted and were the focus of his presentation:
•
•
•
•
•
Why VUSSC?
Why VUSSC – TQF?
Philosophy of TQF
What is TQF?
How it is proposed to work?
Why VUSSC?
It was noted that the establishment of the VUSSC was in response to the needs of small states not
being able to provide the required training within their own borders.
What is VUSSC?
The VUSSC is a growing network committed to the collaborative development of free content
resources for education. An emphasis was made on the fact that it is not a tertiary institution but a
collective mechanism for developing, adapting and sharing courses and learning materials.
VUSSC is also a forum for institutions to build capacity and expertise in online collaboration,
eLearning and ICTs, generally.
It is an initiative of Education Ministers of 32 small countries.
Page 20 of 48
Why VUSSC?
It was noted that there was a request from VUSSC participating countries in March 2007 for the
creation of a mechanism to support accreditation of qualifications and transfer of credits between
countries. It was thus determined that a kind of framework would need to be developed to facilitate
the process.
The VUSSC TQF concept document was based on a review of existing qualifications systems in
small states of the Commonwealth in 2007. It was presented to senior officials in February 2008, and
the updated draft was endorsed by VUSSC interlocutors in July 2008.
The purpose of the TQF is to facilitate the development and effective delivery of relevant and quality
assured VUSSC qualifications. It is an overarching system of levels and credits housed within a web
portal and requiring minimal human and financial resources.
Philosophy of TQF
Five underlying philosophies influencing the TQF were discussed.
It was highlighted that one of the key philosophies is simplicity in design. Development will be
incremental with strong emphasis on local involvement.
Concept – TQF
The Transnational Qualifications Framework is not meant to replace or review existing qualifications
frameworks in the small states. However, the TQF is a translation instrument between the systems in
different countries and regions and is expected to:
•
•
provide momentum to the transfer of courses, qualifications and learners between countries
provide a means by which qualifications frameworks can be compared and related as well as
allows for referencing of all qualifications to the TQF levels.
Advantages of a TQF
A number of advantages were discussed:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mobility of students and workers
Mutual recognition of qualifications
International validity and portability of qualifications
International Cooperation among agencies
Comparability of quality of programmes
Respect other QA systems
Provide accurate / reliable information (Portal)
Way forward after the Top Management Meeting, Singapore 8 – 10 October 2008
A brief overview of the developmental phases that had taken place was presented together with
future planned activities. Soon after the top management meeting in Singapore, a number of cluster
meetings were held in each region of Africa, Caribbean and Asia Pacific. The objectives of the
meetings were:
•
•
•
•
To consult with the cluster members on the draft TQF consultation document
Discuss the comments received from the cluster members prior to the meeting
Formulate proposals for the amendment of the report
Seek buy-in from the cluster members
Page 21 of 48
•
•
Agree on the modus operandi on how best to roll out the TQF
Make recommendations to COL for the consideration of the consideration of the Ministers of
Education
In the discussion of the way forward, it was highlighted that various activities and commitments will
need to be undertaken at various levels of the development process such as:
•
•
Encouraging more institutions to develop VUSSC courses registered on NQF
Focusing on countries which already have the capacities to offer VUSSC courses in the first
instance
Exploring opportunities of including large states
Harmonizing of TQF, EQF, & RQF
Looking at possibility of designing TQF pass similar to EUROpass to allow for mobility
•
•
•
In addition to the above, the Education Minister of each country will have to sign the protocol
accepting the TQF.
The Draft TQF Document
The draft document was discussed with a focus on a number of key issues:
•
Benefits of the VUSSC TQF
•
Concept of TQF Quality Assurance
•
Registering qualifications on the TQF Portal
•
Guidelines for education and training institutions / providers
A point was made on the status of small states in terms in accessing training particularly for those
countries that do not have a qualifications agency. There will need to be some mechanism that
can facilitate registration from these countries.
VUSSC – TQF Portal
The TQF Portal is defined as:
•
•
•
a searchable database of registered qualifications including details as registered on the
TQF as well as details relating to the qualification’s possible registration on another
qualification framework
a searchable database of education and training providers that have been accredited (by
sectoral, national and regional qualifications agencies) to offer TQF registered
qualifications
an interactive site, in the form of a Wiki, where agencies and providers can participate in
informal discussions of TQF procedures and guidelines
The sustainability of the TQF can only be ascertained when the commitment from all member states and
international organizations are obtained.
In the conclusion an emphasis was made on the need to establish linkages between the various national,
regional and international agencies and bodies. The link between national agencies and regional ones may
be established through collaborative arrangement amongst countries in that region.
Page 22 of 48
In the absence of RQFs, it is recommended that initially links can be obtained through consensus amongst
NQAs and then between NQAs and TQF. These agreements could include benchmarks and guidelines for
recognition. It was emphasized that the relationship is enabling and voluntary rather than prescriptive and
regulatory.
Linkage through the RQF (NQAs – RQF – TQF) will include guidelines that have been arrived at through
consensus, negotiations and resolution amongst NQAs/RQF and between RQFs and TQF management.
4
THURSDAY 1st October 2009 – A Quality Assurance Framework
Presentation 6: Quality Assurance - Principles and Practices,
Mr Rob E Fearnside
Mr Fearnside commenced his presentation with an overview of the Victorian Registration and
Qualifications Authority (VRQA). The VRQA was set up in 2007 and brought together a number of
qualifications agencies especially those involved in the registration of providers.
It was given a number of responsibilities:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Accredit courses and register qualifications
Monitor the effectiveness of Victoria’s qualifications system
Register home schooling, all schools, registered training organizations, non self-accrediting
higher education providers and providers of courses for overseas students
Ensure minimum standards are maintained by registered providers in all sectors and in home
schooling
Conduct audits and reviews
Ensure public availability of data on providers compliance with registration standards
Maintain the State Register of providers and courses
The Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF)
In the last 15 years, the AQF has been sector based and in 2008 the Ministerial Council set up a
new AQF Council whose responsibility is to advice on strategic strengthening of the AQF “to
improve contemporary relevance and national and international portability of qualifications”.
In May 2009 AQFC released a consultation paper “to inform a revised and enhanced AQF”. The
paper discusses a number of things:
•
•
•
A common taxonomy of learning outcomes
A hierarchy of qualifications based on explicit reference levels
A measurement of the volume of learning for each qualification type at each level
An interesting point made was the move the AQF is taking in changing from a sectoral based
framework to an integrated framework. This is already happening where some schools are now
offering VET qualifications and some vocational institutions are offering either senior secondary or
higher education qualifications.
The drivers for the reform taking place are the changes happening in the education and training sector
in terms of what the providers are doing.
This convergence has also led to convergence in quality assurance.
Page 23 of 48
National Qualifications Agency
The AQF currently mandates the requirements of each AQF qualification type. It was noted that the
accrediting authorities in each state and territory accredit qualifications and authorize providers /
institutions in each state to issue qualifications while universities are authorized to self-accredit.
Enormous changes are taking place in Australia. In 2009 a National Senior Secondary Curriculum
Board has been set up and its mandate is to develop senior secondary curriculum for Australia.
There is also the new National Tertiary Education Standards Authority (TEQSA). It will be a
national body for regulation and quality assurance in higher education Iit will replace the Australian
Universities Quality Agency and the State and Territory Government Accreditation Authorities
(GAAs).
TEQSA is expected to be set up in 2010 – 2011 and by 2013 will absorb the VET Quality Assurance
currently undertaken by the state and territories. It is also expected that the AQF Council will also be
absorbed into TEQSA sometime in the future.
These changes are indicative of where Australia is headed and the purpose is to provide the highest
quality education it can and to encourage people to articulate, integrate and continue learning. This
has resulted in the push for an integrated system.
A Regional Qualifications Framework?
On the question of a Regional Qualifications Framework, various responses were raised on the need
for and benefit of such a framework, the extent to which it would be voluntary, the cost of such a
framework and whether there were alternatives to developing a new framework.
Conclusions were drawn that there is a strong case for having a framework as a voluntary reference
point for Asia-Pacific economies, the cost to be fairly modest and to be referenced against the
European Qualifications Framework.
National Qualifications Frameworks
It was pointed out that an NQF could be a policy lever or catalyst for economic development and
lifelong learning.
The shape of an NQF and the nature of its qualifications should not necessarily be identical from
country to country. It was also noted that there is a move from national qualifications frameworks
to regional qualifications frameworks.
Regional Qualifications Frameworks – A logical extension of NQFs?
Key considerations are:
•
•
•
Purpose – translator and neutral reference point or catalyst for harmonization
Ownership
Making it work – the framework will have to be comprehendible, simple, consistent and will
need to be applied to all facets of features of arrangements that have been put in place including
national standards and credit system.
Page 24 of 48
Depending on what is developed PQF/PQR there are number of things that will need to be agreed
on by all:
•
•
•
•
•
Purpose and priority
Management
Nature of the framework and its parameters
Quality assurance system
Stakeholders, resources, promotion, professional development
Quality Assurance
A brief definition of ‘quality assurance’ was given as “the planned and systematic processes that
provide confidence in educational services provided by education and training organizations”.
A lot of the criteria that might need to be used in getting mutual recognition of the regional quality
system is already out there and may just need to be adjusted to suit what the region requires.
A qualification system can loose credibility if it does not have a strong quality assurance system
supporting it. The system should address the ‘assurance of qualifications as meeting the requirements
of the descriptors in the framework and of the providers awarding the qualifications’.
The transparency of quality assurance of providers and qualifications is an important safeguard.
Being registered and listed in the register of quality assured qualifications can be a safeguard in itself.
Quality assurance processes can be regulatory or enabling.
For recognition of qualifications the best option is to establish mutual recognition of quality assurance
agencies where there is strong demonstration of the requirements being met – set standards are met,
robust system of accreditation and registration, regular monitoring and auditing and transparency.
The proposal for the PQR/PQF do not include in the framework an element of rating qualifications
against a set of standards for the level of quality assurance that supports the integrity of the
qualification, one that focuses attention non reliability and validity of assessments.
The PQR/PQF framework has a good account of the front end mechanisms but is proposing an
element that will explicitly consider the level of quality assurance (of qualifications and the agencies
that award them) would be helpful when considering an application for recognition of a new
qualification under the PQF/R. The applicant would have to show evidence about the qualifications
level, volume and quality assurance processes.
The inclusion of such element would:
•
•
Stimulate those developing and providing qualifications to focus on this critical element
Support development and enhancement of mechanisms for the recognition of mechanisms for the
recognition of informal and non-formal learning
With the above a proposed interim process was discussed.
An example was given where a level IV qualification has been submitted and the proposed criteria
would include the following:
•
•
•
Nature of the evidence of achievement
Reliability / precision of the evidence
Validity / truth of the evidence
Page 25 of 48
Depending on the evidence provided for each criterion, a statement will be given to indicate the
extent to which the criterion has been met.
Emphasizing that what has been proposed are suggestions; countries need to ensure that there is a
match between quality assurance and the framework and register. Countries were also encouraged to
develop some mutual recognition and agreement about QA in their own countries.
Presentation 7: The Challenges to Assuring Quality, Mr Alan Male
Mr Male commenced his presentation by posing a question “Can we assure the quality of the PQR/F?
And also gave the answer as “Yes we can!”
More of the challenges of assuring qualities are associated with the intangibles than the tangibles. They
have more to do with our thoughts, attitudes and mindsets rather than to do with formal structures. Also it
has to do with vocabulary.
An analogy was given on wine tasting not being about wine but learning to describe the wine and learning
to discriminate the different tastes. And the way to do that is to learn the vocabulary. This he said is
similar to what has happened over the last couple of days where the discussions and deliberations may
have seemed frustrating but were necessary in establishing understanding and building vocabulary.
Four key issues were covered in the presentation:
•
•
•
•
Scope
Responsibility
Systems
Capacity
Scope
Existing frameworks and activities being undertaken were discussed such as the Pacific Education
Development Framework, the Forum Education Ministers’ vision of education for all covering basic
education agenda which covers the foundation of education. There is also the
training/employment/economic agenda. This provides the background and a part of the playing field the
Pacific is in right now.
On top of this is the Pacific Qualifications Registration Framework which according to the Forum
Ministers is required to cover basic, primary, secondary, TVET and tertiary education benchmarked
against appropriate international standards and qualifications.
According to what is there in the background, the scope covers two interconnected levels of education –
school and post school and two interconnected levels of quality assurance – national and regional.
The various characteristics of the ‘school’ and ‘post school’ systems were discussed:
•
School
-
generally exist wholly inside national territory
overall purpose is to deliver a population that has good general level of education
where individuals have gained foundational skills for later use
aims at a universal socializing experience
Page 26 of 48
Quality Assurance of schools: Usually government has control over this function through various
means:
•
Post school
-
control / regulation of budget and funding
control / regulation of curriculum
control / regulation of teacher quality and supply
control / regulation of establishment of schools
national examination systems
building regulation
inspection and review activities
public accountability systems
international reporting and comparison
is much more diverse
is not aimed at providing a universal experience
supplies education for all sorts of situation
national government may not be the only regulator
autonomy from government may in fact be a significant factor in validating the
process and the product
it may be transnational
has much higher private interest
new systems of quality assurance are being developed
Balancing the post-school quality assurance system
A point was made on the need to balance the interest of the different parties:
a) Student – need to balance the student interests, student rights, focus on qualifications
b) Stakeholders in the qualifications – we need to balance the interests of the stakeholders in the
qualifications as they are the ones that will employ and consume the skills of the graduates
c) The national interest
d) International opportunities available
e) The stage of development of everything
National Environment
There was a brief discussion on national environment and the various systems that make them
what they are and how they influence
a) Constitution – plays an important in determining the kind of environment that will exist in
any country – religious freedom etc, educational system
b) Fair trading legislation – is about trading fairly and honestly whether you are trading a
product or a service and it applies to education as it does to anything else
c) Education legislation
- Government agencies and delegation
- Institutions
- Funding systems
d) Employment regulations
e) Existing international agreements
- Bilateral
- Multilateral
If countries are going to be building quality assurance systems, then it is worthwhile to do a
research to see what is already available and can be built upon or might need to change.
Page 27 of 48
International Environment
There was a brief discussion of the various levels of agreements and networks that could exist
nationally, and internationally. While various systems may exist nationally, there are also
different kinds of networks and association that one could be a part of such as professional
associations and networks like INQAAHE etc.
Then there are various regional and global agreements that countries may have signed up to. Mr
Male commented that very often the temptation is to jump right to the top level forgetting what is
there at the lower levels. It is also safe to just stay around the bottom level and not think about the
upper levels. So there is a need to balance our feelings and desires where there are plenty of
opportunities but there are also risks.
Regional Environment
Looking at the regional environment, it was pointed out that a lot of the discussions that have
already taken place have been about national qualifications frameworks and how they need to link
into the regional framework.
But there are other things that will have to be considered one of which is the quality assurance
relationship and requirements between regional registering and the national state. Also
understanding the systems, purpose and processes at the national level and the systems, purpose
and processes at the regional level.
Each level needs to understand and clarify what its purpose for its system is and the processes
that go along with that and work out the quality assurance at both the regional national levels.
And all these are part of the Pacific Forum regulatory environment.
When thinking about the whole system, we have to realize that some of the enabling environment
and some of the restricting environment are found in other places or legislative environment.
Quality Assurance Arrangements
When talking about quality assurance, it was emphasized that we need to think about the student
first and foremost. The student has a point of engagement with the training institution and quality
assurance of both the validity of qualifications and delivery of education and training should be
the main focus of that institution.
Then there is a role for the national external regulatory body, verifying that the education services
are meeting prescribed standards by some quality assurance agency. Also the national body itself
should come under eternal audit.
Interrelationship of Quality Assurance Levels
A point was made on the international best practice where the educational provider at the first
level develops and operates an effective internal quality assurance process.
Then the National External Quality Assurance Agency develops and operates an effective
external quality assurance process and the two agencies relate to each other. And then there is an
external evaluation of the External Quality Agency against agreed international quality assurance
standards.
Page 28 of 48
This is part of a whole system and there is certainly a relationship between the national and the
international levels of quality assurance.
It is at the first level that bulk of the work takes place. The other levels are also important but they
have less direct impact on the quality of what is happening.
So what are the challenges to Quality Assurance?
The challenges are: We need to keep thinking about whole systems, coming down from the global
level and focusing on the detail.
Quality Assurance Management System
A quality assurance management system needs to only include all of those things that are
necessary to ensure quality (fitness for purpose).
It was noted that what we are putting into the system is what we think is relevant at this time but
may be taken out later as other things become more relevant in the future.
There are things that can be looked at and one is the “process principle”. We have to start with
minimum standards but we do not have to stay there as time will bring change.
Thinking about the “basic process principle” there was emphasis on ensuring that the system that
is developed will have series of iterations in it. Taking each iteration at a time the quality
assurance process of planning, doing, reviewing and learning should operate to ensure progress
and not regress resulting in the movement up a level where the process is repeated again and there
is further movement. If this process is deemed appropriate then it can be built in to the quality
management system. If it is not appropriate then it does not have to be included.
The same process can be applied in the quality assurance of qualifications. The first step will be
the identification of the need for the qualification:
•
•
•
Identify the need for the qualification
Identify the national and international standards
Define its characteristics, components and relationships
Then there is the provision of training or some assessment the positive result of which will be the
award of the qualification and the graduates receive their certificates. This is not the end as next
comes the need to gain some feedback from those who have consumed this qualification – the
graduates themselves, their employers and we keep a track of their acceptance.
This starts to outline part of the issue of a whole system as various factors have been considered:
•
•
•
•
•
The environment
The context
The regulation
The purpose
The system – has been constructed
With all the above we are starting to see a machinery being built and we are seeing the need to have
something that has a cycle about it so we can continue to move up.
Page 29 of 48
The Requirement Principle
The requirement principle is about focusing on ‘the purpose’ (goal / product). When setting out to look at
quality assurance criteria, they need to be carefully considered in light of the purpose and characteristics.
When thinking about requirements, it is critical to think about ‘the purpose’ and then start to set out the
criteria and critique them.
It was pointed out that a good quality system is a system that should have quality standards and purposes
in it that are part of the measure of the standard or the system.
Operational Relationships of an NQF Quality Assurance System
There was a brief discussion on the relationship of an NQF Quality Assurance where the National
Qualifications Agency establishes and operates levels, criteria and descriptions.
•
Qualifications are developed through qualifications standards procedures.
•
Qualifications are approved and placed on the NQF by NQA if they meet the criteria.
•
Providers of education, training and assessment services are accredited to deliver.
•
Assessments are moderated through appropriate moderation systems at national and provider
level.
•
Learners are certificated when they meet the outcomes standards of the qualification.
All the above processes link into a feedback loop to ensure that they are operating effectively and
achieving their purposes. This is the machinery that is supposed to make the whole system run.
PQR/F Quality Assurance Concept
An emphasis was made on the need to bring both the national and regional level in order to understand
the link between quality assurance at the national level and its link to the regional level.
Each level has its own cycle and they engage. The regional should be simple, straight forward and not
overbearing. They will be like two wheels that should be meshed together to make the system work and
keep improving it.
Looking at the regional and national requirements, consultation document provides two sets of
requirement:
•
•
The Quality Assurance Framework (8.3: p13 – 14) plus Appendix C
The Criteria for registration of qualifications on the PQR
The first one is aimed at the provider and the second one is for the qualifications. Mr Male commented
that these are fine but are they sufficient?
A series of relevant questions will need to be considered: How should the whole system work together?
•
Should there be a small Quality Assurance Framework of the requirements that NQAs
need to be able to show that the yare well founded? It does not have to be big.
Page 30 of 48
•
Should there be a small Quality Assurance Framework of the requirements that PQR
needs to be able to show that it is following?
•
It was further noted that now there is a lot of experience with dealing with whole systems
at the National level, but there is now a need to think about whole systems at the regional
and international level.
With regards to the ‘quality audit of the system’, an emphasis was made that the whole of the system at
both national and regional level need to be subject to periodic review or audit.
This has to involve investigation of:
-
achievement of purpose
evidence that processes are working
evidence that qualifications are being accepted, used and valued
The overarching challenges to the assurance of quality is the need to see it as a system and as a whole
system that works together. So it is critical to think about our goals and purpose at the regional level, the
kind of structure that we need, how the process would work and what would the requirements be.
The final point discussed was capacity building and it was pointed out that capacity comes in three forms:
•
•
•
institutional arrangements – legal frameworks, defined organization, delegations etc.
processes that make it work
capabilities of the people that are involved
Another big challenge highlighted in the assurance of quality within the regional system is adopting
something from a regional workshop and not explaining to people what it is and bringing people along
with it. It is important to determine which groups of people need to be involved, what sort of training and
information do they need to have.
a) There are some people who will need to be involved in a general kind of way – they don’t need to
know the details. Mostly they would be top level people.
b) There are those both at national and regional level who actually need to know more about the
machinery and to be able to have access to on going support.
c) The users of the system who need to know what the system is about and what they are getting out of it
such as employer groups, professional associations and students as well.
These are necessary for building human capacity in the system, carrying out an analysis of who is
involved, analysis of what to know and some programme of information and a programme of on-going
support.
The biggest challenge is keeping a whole systems view and not seeing things as discreet unrelated
processes.
A final comment given was that ‘it will crash and burn on more than one occasion’ but it is not
something to be embarrassed about.
Page 31 of 48
5
FRIDAY 2nd October 2009: Summing Up and the Way Forward
Presentation 8: Pacific Island Countries Trade Agreement (PICTA) – Trade in Services and the
Temporary Movement of Natural Persons (TMNP) Scheme, Mr Amitesh Prasad
Mr Prasad commenced his presentation by looking at the establishment of the TMNP Scheme and other
factors that have contributed to the development of the scheme.
It was noted that currently there are seven (7) countries participating in the PICTA. With the PICTA trade
in goods now in operation, the Forum Trade Ministers decided to look at trade in services.
In 2005 – Ministers decided to prepare a legal PICTA – TIS or what is called the PICTA TIS Legal Tax.
In 2008 – Pacific ACP Trade Ministers directed the Forum Secretariat to “facilitate a detailed assessment
of the possible introduction of a two-tier approach for the Pacific Island Countries Trade Agreement
(PICTA) Temporary Movement of Natural Persons (TMNP) Scheme. Under this scheme recognize
professionals would be allowed to move freely amongst Forum Island Countries and semi – skilled and
trades professionals would be subject to a quota mechanism”.
A framework has already been developed for PICTA - TMNP and negotiations will continue to be
undertaken with countries to explore how it can be best implemented.
Why a TMNP Scheme?
The scheme is being established for a number of reasons:
-
strengthen regional economic integration
strengthen negotiation positions with trading partners
promote FICs integration into the world economy
meet skills shortage from within region
retain expertise within FICs
retain remittances within FICs
Main features of the scheme
The main features of the scheme were outlined:
•
definition of the
tiers
•
economic needs
test
•
TMNP visa
•
•
eligibility
•
quotas:
minimum quotas
•
duration of stay
•
access to other
immigrants
categories
limits on return
•
qualifications
requirements
licensing
•
certification and
certificates
fees
•
bonds
•
family rights
•
switching
employers
•
enforcement
•
•
Definition of Tiers
Tier 1 – professionals who have a minimum of a Bachelors degree from a recognized university,
appropriate minimum number of years of work experience.
Page 32 of 48
Tier 2 – semi skilled professionals who have a minimum of Diploma and Certificate with an
appropriate number of years of work experience.
Qualifications recognition
SPBEA is in the process of developing a Pacific Regional Qualifications Register. Whilst awaiting
this development it is recommended that FICs undertake mutual recognition agreements (MRAs) to
ascertain the minimum qualification and work experience required for the two tiers.
The point was made that as first step in the process, FICs should:
-
create a list of institutions in the region that have been accorded the recognition
arrive at a consensus on the technical institutions and universities in the region that are
already or should be accorded the recognition
prepare a list of overseas institutions especially those in Australia, New Zealand and
other countries, Europe, USA with qualifications that are currently recognized in the
FICs.
Notion of minimum under the proposed scheme
minimum qualification of a Bachelors degree with 3 years experience and for regulated
Tier 1 professions, be a member of the appropriate regulatory body and be in possession of the required
license to practice
Tier 2 minimum qualifications of Diploma with three years relevant experience or a Certificate
with five years relevant work experience and a license to practice if this is a requirement
Minimum quotas
Each FIC to determine annual minimum quota of TMNP workers under Tier 2
- confirm communication to the TMNP Scheme
- quotas based on labour market data
- quota will avoid impact on domestic labour market
- number of TMNP workers should be manageable for national institutions
Why should there be a quota?
- because of ministerial mandate
- the quota indicates the available opportunities in the host countries
- the scheme if successful could be used as a bargaining and negotiating tool for other possible
schemes with potential programmes and partners
a) Calculation of the quota will be worked out using available statistics and data on FICs such as the
Population and Wages and Salaries Earning Statistics.
TMNP Certification
i) Certification
Both for Tier 1 and Tier 2, there will be the use of a Card or Certificate
Validity (same for both tiers)
The card or certificate will be valid for the duration of the employment contract for a maximum
of 3 years
Page 33 of 48
ii) Fees (same for both tiers)
Fees will be confined to administrative costs only
iii) Visa and duration of stay (same for both tiers)
The Visa and called PICTA TMNP Visa will be issued upon arrival in the host country.
PICTA TMNP visa will also serve as the work permit and will be valid for the same period
iv) Switching employers (same for both tiers)
Switching employers is disallowed as the job offer was for a particular employer
v) Access to other immigration categories (same for both tiers)
This will not be allowed
vi) Family rights (same for both tiers)
Card holder has the right to be joined by his or her spouse and dependent children
Wife can be granted permission to work inline with the original applicant’s period of permitted
work
Regional Stakeholders
The South Pacific Board for Educational Assessment (SPBEA)
The roles that the SPBEA would be expected to play in the facilitating the and supporting the
PICTA TMNP scheme:
-
registry for national, regional and international benchmarks for occupations
develop comprehensive list of accredited education and technical institutions
assess qualifications of individuals in the scheme
collaborate with designated national authorities on implementation of the scheme
Implementation Process
On the implementation of the process, a brief outline was given on how the scheme will work and the
various processes that will need to happen at the national and regional level to facilitate and support the
on-going implementation of the Temporary Movement of Natural Persons Scheme.
Page 34 of 48
Appendix 7.5:
Summary of Participants Reflections
SUMMARY OF REFLECTIONS
1.0
Introduction
The total number of participants at the consultation was 40 comprising 21 country representatives, 8 resource speakers, 4
CROP agencies representatives and 7 SPBEA officers.
Even though all participants were given reflection sheets, only 16 were returned.
It must also be noted that out of the 14 countries represented, only 8 countries actually indicated what they think the role of
SPBEA should be in the immediate and medium term and what they expect SPBEA to do to assist and support them.
A brief summary of key issues raised is given below:
2.0
Summary of feedback on key issues raised:
2.1
Commendations
2.1.1
-
2.1.2
-
2.1.3
-
2.2
Organization and administration of the consultation
It was felt that the consultation was well organized and there was excellent support and service
provided by the Secretariat staff
Participants and participation
It was highlighted that the involvement and interaction between participants brought excitement
and created a healthy environment for discussion.
Presentations and Resource Personnel
There was a strong indication that the consultation was very relevant and beneficial as it provided
the opportunity for exchange of ideas, sharing of information and learning.
It was evident also that most participants appreciated the range and mix of resource personnel in
terms of their experiences and knowledge of qualifications frameworks.
Recommendations
2.2.1
Follow up by SPBEA
-
2.2.2
Support and action by SPBEA
-
-
2.3
It has been recommended that a follow up consultation be carried out possibly with the same
participants to monitor progress of developments at both the national and regional levels.
It has also been recommended that SPBEA follow up with the NQAs and assist them in the
development of their NQF/NQR
A recommendation has been raised on the possibility of carrying out a pilot survey on accredited
programmes
It has also been recommended that a report be compiled on the status of development / non
development of NQAs or quality assurance agencies in each country. This would assist SPBEA in
progressing work on the PQR.
It has also been recommended that the PQR template be worked immediately to be endorsement
by the countries and to be trialed.
How can SPBEA assist your country / NQA / Institution in the next:
2.3.1
a)
6 – 12 months
Page 35 of 48
-
b)
12 – 36 months
-
2.4
Vanuatu, Kiribati & FSM have indicated that they need assistance and support in the development
of NQA and NQF
Solomon Islands is requesting assistance for their Technical Working Group in the development of
the National Qualifications Framework
PNG is requesting for the revised level descriptors
Cook Islands is requesting that its Ministry of Education be updated on the development of the
PQR
PNG requesting the draft mechanisms for the development of the PQR
Kiribati is requesting assistance with NQA development
What do you want to see SPBEA engage in, in the next:
2.4.1
a)
6- 12 months
Vanuatu - to receive definition of elements to be included in the NQF and PQR
Cook Islands - to see the consultation document completed
PNG - expecting the format of the register to be completed
Tonga - the PQR contain quality assured qualifications from member countries on online and be
able to have access to the information
v) Nauru - expecting the PQR template to have been sent to member countries
vi) Solomon Islands – SPBEA to provide information and back up support
vii) Collection of relevant data and information from NQFs
viii) Ensure proper legislation and policy mechanisms are in place for the PQR
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
2.4.2
b)
12 – 36 months
i) Tonga – PQR to have undergone Quality Audit of its qualifications database by an external auditor
ii) Nauru – PQR to have been completed and filled
iii) Surveys and feasibility studies – how to progress the PQR
The table below outlines the feedback received for the four issues the participants were requested to respond to:
Write your thoughts on any issue discussed, raised or of interest.
1
COMMENDATIONS
Organization and Administration
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Good organization on accommodation, food
SPBEA is commended for the excellent organization of the consultation
Commend SPBEA for a well organized consultation
Excellent service by the support staff
Excellent venue
Appreciation also extended to the hardworking SPBEA team for ensuring a smooth and trouble free
experience and for the sponsorship of AusAID
Well conducted consultation by SPBEA resulting in a very fruitful week of deliberations as witnessed in the
content of the outcome document
Participants and Participation
• Very good forum
• Exciting and active participants
• A healthy environment for discussion
Presentations / Resource Personnel
• Good presentation of education systems in the Pacific
• The consultation objective, the sharing and the learnings from country representatives and resource personnel
has provided the need for where to next and how towards the development of the NQF from one level to the
Page 36 of 48
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2
next
The consultation meeting was beneficial in terms of obtaining a national and regional perspective on the
formation of and development of the NQF and PQR
Very informative presentations by the speakers and the country representatives
Appreciations are extended to the resource personnel for the international perspective
The inputs from resource personnel and CROP agencies representatives shed a lot of light and paved the way
for us to arrive at consensus at the end of the week
Good mix of consultants - very resourceful and experience people
Special commendation to the resource people especially James Keevy on his very clear and comprehensive
presentation
Good exercise as it is a learning experience that is recognized as additional approach to learning improvement
and intervention to on going work in our country’s qualifications framework
Great resource personnel to provide an objective overview to countries on shaping ideas
Summaries of daily outcomes was very comprehensive
Good range of resource people and experiences
RECOMMENDATIONS
Follow up by SPBEA
•
•
•
A follow up consultation
A follow up consultation with the same participants in the future to take stock of progress and developments
Need for follow up work on assisting the development of the NQF/NQR
Support and action by SPBEA
•
•
•
•
•
Support may be sought from SPBEA or other once country direction is established to determine way forward
Possibility of pilot surveys to be trialed within the next year on information on accredited programmes
A 5 page hard fact report on all countries on the progress of the quality assurance authorities and work being
done / not done (assumption that it looks good on paper but realistically not much has been done. SPBEA
needs to know this in order to bench mark work on PQR
For Secretariat to supply a list of qualified personnel to be in the body that will assure the quality of
qualifications on PQR
Need for templates for register to be worked on as soon by SPBEA and countries to agree and trial
General recommendations
• Discussion groups should have been maintained to avoid discussing the same point
• The issue of quality assurance should be at both the NQA and the PQR levels for credibility purpose.
Internationally, credibility at the PQR level will be crucial
• It is recommended that higher institutions be included in the consultations as qualifications discussed are at
their institutions
• Country reports were weak
3
How can SPBEA assist
your country / NQA/
institution in the next
a) 6 – 12 months
b) 12 – 36 months
Vanuatu (MOE)
a) 6 – 12 months
- to develop NQF
Cook Islands
a) 6 – 12 months
- provide / update MOE Cook Islands on the development of the PQR
- Act as critical friend in development of MOE Cook Islands NQF policies and
assist us in research
PNG (Office of Higher Education)
a) 6 – 12 months
- please send us the revised level descriptors
Page 37 of 48
b) Draft of mechanism for the development of the PQR
Tonga
a) 6 – 12 months
- After a year from now, may seek assistance
Kiribati (Min of Education & Min of Labour & HRD
a) 6 – 12 months
- Development of NQA
b) 12 – 36 months
- Assistance with NQA progress and working with PQR
Solomon Islands
a) 6 – 12 months
- Assist the Technical Working Group for the development of the National
Qualifications Framework
Nauru
a) 6 – 12 months
- Qualifications database
- Quality assurance
- NQR finalized
FSM Education
a) 6 – 12 months
- Need SPBEA support and technical assistance in the development of
guidelines for NQR and NQF
4
What do you want to see
PQR engage in, in the next:
a) 6 – 12 months
b) 12 – 36 months
Vanuatu (MOE)
a) 6 -12 months
- Elements needed for the development on issues to do with the inclusion of NQF into
the PQR
Cook Islands
a) 6 – 12 months
- Complete consultation document
- Inform Cook Islands MOE on progress of pilot project
- Work through “next steps” in Communiqué document
PNG (Office of Higher Education)
a) 6 – 12 months)
- Format of the register
b) 12 – 36 months
- Development of PQF
Tonga
a) 6 – 12 months
- We want to see the PQR contain the quality assured qualifications from member
countries on line so we can have access to other member states qualifications
b) 12 – 36 months
- PQR to have undergone Quality Audit of its qualifications database by an external
auditor
Solomon Islands
a) 6 – 12 months
- Provide information and back up support
Page 38 of 48
Nauru
a) 6 – 12 months
- Template to be sent to member countries
b) 12 – 36 months
- PQR completed and filled
Other comments (country not indicated)
a) 6 -12 months
- templates for register
- 5 page report on countries position on NQA
- finalize structure of PQR
- ensure that proper legislation and policy mechanism are in place for the PQR
- begin to collect relevant information and data from NQFs
b) 12 – 36 months
- to begin surveys / feasibility studies needed to arrive at informed decision on how to
progress the PQR
Page 39 of 48
Appendix 7.6:
Communiqué
Regional Consultation on the Pacific Qualifications Register
28 September – 2 October 2009
Tanoa International Hotel, Nadi
Introduction
The Pacific Forum Island Countries Ministers of Education at a meeting in Auckland in 2001 agreed to
the setting up of a Pacific Regional Qualifications Framework. In the course of discussions from 2001 to
2007, which also included a review by UNESCO1, it was further agreed by Ministers that:
•
A Pacific Qualifications Register is developed as a first step towards a Pacific Regional
Qualifications Framework (2004)
•
The South Pacific Board for Educational Assessment (SPBEA) is tasked to coordinate the
development of the Pacific Qualifications Register (2005)
It was confirmed that member states supported the initiative based on a SPBEA scoping study in 2007.
Financial support for development of the Pacific Qualifications Register was subsequently obtained
from the Australian government for the SPBEA scoping study followed by a five-year period (20092013).
A regional consultation was arranged by the SPBEA from 28 September to 2 October 2009 in Fiji to
discuss and finalise a draft template for the Register. The consultation was attended by 14 member states
and representatives from Council of Regional Organizations in the Pacific (CROP) agencies. Resource
persons from the Caribbean, South Africa, New Zealand, Pacific Islands and Australia were also invited
to share their experiences and contribute to the deliberations.
Outcomes of the regional consultation
By the end of the consultation the participants agreed on and confirmed the following:
1. The review conducted by UNESCO (Pacific States) included consultations in the region and
concluded that the PQF
might be problematic in the short term, recommending that work should rather begin on the PQR.
2. The Pacific Qualifications Register will include the following:
a. Quality assured qualifications offered in member states through the National Qualifications
Authorities (NQAs) and relevant ministries; in some cases in partnership with NZQA or the
Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC).
b. Traditional indigenous knowledges and skills (TIKS)
c. Professional and occupational standards
3. The Pacific Qualifications Register will be based on the following organizing principles:
a. Quality assurance of qualifications on a national level only
b. Support and guidance offered to countries in developing national quality assurance systems,
including templates
c. A unified qualifications system comprising:
i. ten levels
ii. level descriptors
iii. qualification types
iv. qualifications descriptors
Page 40 of 48
v. credits (where one credit is equivalent to 10 notional hours of
learning)
d. International benchmarking to facilitate recognition of Pacific qualifications
e. Format for qualifications, including: purpose statement, qualification title, outcome
statement, level, supporting evidence, credit value, components and entry requirements
f. An external quality assurance mechanism to ensure that the organizing principles as outlined
above are adhered to
4. The SPBEA will champion and coordinate the development of the Pacific Qualifications Register as
mandated by the Pacific Forum Ministers of Education.
Next steps
Participants further agreed that in order to facilitate the development of the Pacific
Qualifications Register the following steps will be undertaken between November 2009 and July 2010:
1.
The Pacific Qualifications Register Consultation Document will be reworked by the SPBEA to
reflect the conceptual clarity achieved through the regional consultation
2.
A pilot project including a selection of qualifications from Tonga, Fiji, Vanuatu, a country from
Northern Pacific and Samoa, will be undertaken by the SPBEA to refine the draft level
descriptors, qualifications descriptors.
The current PATVET inventory will be explored as a source of information for the Pacific
Qualifications Register.
3.
4.
Closer alignment with labour mobility initiatives, such as the Pacific Island
Countries Trade Agreement (PICTA) Temporary Movement of Natural Persons
(TMNP) Scheme, will be pursued.
5.
Consider the feasibility of supporting mechanisms for the Pacific Qualifications
Register:
a. Forum of representatives from member states to oversee the registration of qualifications on
the Pacific Qualifications Register
b. Pacific network of NQFs/NQAs
c. Independent review panels to conduct external quality assurance
6.
Work will be done to compare the Pacific Qualifications Register with similar international
developments to ensure educational portability and labour mobility.
7.
An initial online version of the Pacific Qualifications Register will be developed and trialed,
after which it will be presented to members states by mid-2011.
8.
Ministers and senior officials of member states will be briefed on progress.
2 October 2009
Page 41 of 48
Appendix 7.7:
The Profit and Loss Statement on the PQR Consultation
PROFIT AND LOSS STATEMENT ON THE PQR CONSULTATION
Budget
$ Over Budget
% of Budget
Travel
101,584.00
(41,093.70)
59.55%
Accommodation
Cost
26,000.00
(13,000.00)
50.0%
Conference
functions
2,500.00
(2,500.00)
0.0%
Venue Hire
9,600.00
(4,800.00)
50.0%
Regional
Workshop
58,310.00
(26,945.00)
53.79%
5,000.00
(1,714.65)
65.71%
Total Expenses
Net Income
212,594.00
0.00
Page 42 of 48
(93,653.35)
118,940.65
55.95%
100.0%
Appendix 7.8:
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
Countries
Details
Cook Islands
Mr Terry Utanga,
Acting Director of Audit and Quality Assurance,
PO BOX 97,
C1 MoE,
Rarotonga,
Cook Islands
Ph: (682) 29357
Fax: (682) 28357
Email: terry@education.gov.ck
Federated States of
Micronesia
Burnis Danis,
Chief of Basic Education,
FSM Department of Education Pohnpei,
FM 96941,
Phone: (691) 320-2091
Fax: (691) 320-5356
Email: Burnis.Danis@fsmed.fm
Mrs. Rokobua Naiyana
Deputy Secretary (Professional)
Ministry of Education, Culture & Arts, Youth & Sports,
Marela House
Suva
Email: rokobua.naiyaga@govnet.gov.fj
Fiji
Mr Eci Naisele,
NQF – Project Officer (Fiji),
TPAF,
P.O Box 6890
Nasinu
Phone: 3392000
Fax: 3340184
Email: eci_n@tpaf.ac.fj
Mrs Salote Rabuka,
Chief Project Officer,
Higher Education Commission,
PO BOX 2583,
Government Building,
Suva
Phone:
Fax:
Email: SRabuka001@govnet.gov.fj
Kiribati
Ms Riiti Uriam,
Senior Assistant Secretary
Ministry of Labour and Human Resources Development
Phone: (686) 22736, 21097
Fax: (686) 21452
Email: miss.u.reiti@gmail.com
Page 43 of 48
Nauru
Mrs Floria Detabene,
Senior Curriculum Manager,
Republic of Nauru.
Phone:
Fax:
Email: floria.detabene@naurugov.nr
Niue
Mrs Janet Sipeli Tasmania
Deputy Director – Education
Niue Education Department
Halamahaga,
Alofi,
Niue Island
Phone: (683) 4702
Fax: (683) 4301
Email: educ.deputy@mail.gov.nu
Palau
Mr Emery Wenty
Director of Education
Ministry of Education
PO Box 189
Koror
Palau
Phone: (680) 488-2952/4589
Fax: (680) 488-8465
Email: ewenty@palaumoe.net
Papua New Guinea
Dr Pongie Kichawen
Director Policy Development,
Office of Higher Education
PO BOX 5117,
Boroko,
NCD
Phone: 3012072
Fax: 3258356
Email: pkichawen@ohe.gov.pg
Website: www.ohe.gov.pg
Papua New Guinea
Mr George Arua
Director
National Training Council
Papua New Guinea
Email: george.arua@ntc.gov.pg
Samoa
Mrs Sinapi Moli,
Samoa Qualifications Authority (SQA)
Apia
Samoa
Phone: (0685) 20976 (0685) 28446
Facsimile: (0685) 26314
Mobile: (0685)752-0976
Email: sinapi.moli@sqa.gov.ws
Page 44 of 48
Samoa
Mrs Kovi Fonoti-Aiolupotea
Samoa Qualifications Authority (SQA)
Apia
Samoa
Email: kovi.aiolupotea@sqa.gov.ws
Solomon Islands
Mr. Donald Malasa
Under Secretary Tertiary.
Ministry of Education,
Solomon Islands.
Phone: 7492829
Fax: 22042
Email: dmalasa@mehrd.gov.sb
Solomon Islands
Mr. Norman Scott Hatigeva
Dean of Academic Services.
SICHE,
PO BOX R113,
Honiara.
Phone: 00-677-39515
Fax: 00-677-30390
Email: das@siche.edu.sb
Tokelau
Ms Elaine Lameta
Curriculum and Assessment Adviser
Tokelau Department of Education,
Tokelau Apia Liaison Office,
PO BOX 865,
Apia, Samoa.
Ph: +685 20822/20823
Fax: +685 21761
Email: lametaelaine@samoa.ws
Tonga
Ms. Pauline Moa,
Principal Education Officer,
TNQAB PO BOX 65,
New City,
Nuku’alofa
Phone: (676) 28136
Fax: (676) 28138
Email: Pauline.moa@tnqab.to
Tonga
Dr ‘Uhila-moe-Langi Fasi,
Chief Executive Officer,
Tonga National Qualifications and Accreditation Board,
Nuku’alofa,
TONGA
Phone: 676-28136
Fax: 676-28138
Email: ceo@tnqab.to
Tuvalu
Michael Noa,
Senior Education Officer (Assessment & Examination)
Phone:
Fax:
Email: mnoa@gov.tv
Page 45 of 48
Vanuatu
Mr John Niroa
Senior Education Officer,
Ministry of Education,
PMB 9028,
Vila,
Vanuatu
Phone: (678) 22309
Fax: (678) 27671
Email: jniroa@vanuatu.gov.vu
Vanuatu
David Lambukly,
Chief Executive Officer,
Vanuatu National Training Council/Conseil National de la Formation de
Vanuatu,
Port Vila,
Vanuatu
Phone: 678-22134
Fax:
Email: dlambukly@vanuatu.gov.vu
Resource Personnel
Country
1.
Alan Male
Timor – Leste
2.
Dr Helen Tavola
Fiji
3.
Dr James Keevy
South Africa
4.
Dr Richard Wah
Fiji
5.
Dr Visesio Pongi
Samoa
6.
Kathryn Maclaren
New Zealand
7.
Myrna Bernard
Jamaica
8.
Robert Fearnside
Australia
Details
Senior Education Liaison Specialist
Education Sector Support Project
Email: amale@xtra.co.nz
Social Policy Adviser
Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat
Email: helent@forumsec.org.fj
Director: International Liaisons
South African Qualifications Authority
Email: jkeevy@saqa.org.za
Senior Professional Officer - SPBEA
Vice Chair - COL-TQF
Email: rwah@spbea.org.fj
Head of UNESCO
UNESCO Office for Pacific States
Email: v.pongi@unesco.org
Manager: Registration, Approval and Accreditation
New Zealand Qualifications Authority
Email: kathy.maclaren@nzqa.govt.nz
Director: Human Development
CARICOM
Email: mbernard@caricom.org
Former Deputy Director
The Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority
Email: fearnsides@bigpond.com
Page 46 of 48
CROP Agencies
Forum Secretariat
University of the South Pacific
PATVET
Details
Amitesh Prasad
Trade Policy Officer - ACP/EU
Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat
Private Mail Bag, Suva
Ph: (679) 322 0289 Fax: 3220 286
Email: amiteshp@forumsec.org.fj
Website: www.forumsec.org.fj
Dr Akanisi Kedrayate
Acting Dean,
Faculty of Arts and Law,
University of the South Pacific,
Lacala Campus, Suva
Phone: 3232370
Fax: 3231550
Email: Kedrayate_a@usp.ac.fj
Dr Sereana Kubuabola
Senior Quality Assurance Coordinator
Quality Office
Telephone: (679) 323 2702 (w) (679) 339 5420 (h)
Fax: (679) 323 1504 (w)
Email: kubuabola_s@usp.ac.fj
Emily Hazelman-Elliott
PATVET Co-ordinator
Email: emilyh@spc.int
SPBEA Staff
Mrs Ana Raivoce
Mr Richard Wah
Details
Director
South Pacific Board for Educational Assessment
Box 2083
Government Building
Suva Fiji
Phone: 3315600
Fax: 3302898
Email: araivoce@spbea.org.fj
Senior Professional Officer (ICT/ATS)
Email: rwah@spbea.org.fj
Lemalu Lafi Sanerivi
Senior Professional Officer (Accreditation)
Email: lsanerivi@spbea.org.fj
Mrs Selai Qereqeretabua
Professional Officer( Qualifications Services)
Email: sqereqeretabua@spbea.org.fj
Mrs Tuifua Takapautolo
Professional Officer( Qualifications Services)
Email: ttakapautolo@spbea.org.fj
Mrs Seni Wainiqolo
Senior Administrative Officer
Email: swainiqolo@spbea.org.fj
Ms Charmaine Kwan
Administrative Officer
Email: ckwan@spbea.org.fj
Page 47 of 48
Appendix 7.9:
GROUP PHOTO
Back Row: Dr Uhila Fasi (Tonga); Norman Hatigeva (Solomon); Tere Utanga (Cook Is); Donald Malasa (Solomon); Lemalu Lafi Sanerivi (SPBEA); Burnis Danis (FSM); Amitesh Prasad (PIFS);
John Niroa (Vanuatu); Eci Naisele (Fiji); Michael Noa (Tuvalu); David Lambuckly (Vanuatu); George Arua (PNG); Emery Wenty (Palau)
Second Row: Selai Qereqeretabua (SPBEA); Sisilia Takapautolo (SPBEA); Charmaine Kwan (SPBEA); Dr Sereana Kubuabola (USP); Paulina Moa (Tonga); Dr Pongie Kichawen (PNG); Elaine
Lameta (Tokelau); Dr Akanisi Kedrayate (USP); Kovi Aiolupotea (Samoa); Salote Rabuka (Fiji); Floria (Nauru); Riiti Uriam (Kiribati)
Front Row: Dr James Keevy (South Africa); Janet Tasmania (Niue); Robert Fearnside (Australia); Kathy Maclaren (New Zealand); Alan Male (New Zealand); Anaseini Raivoce (Director –
SPBEA); Dr Helen Tavola (PIFS); Myrna Bernard (Caribbean Community); Rokobua Naiyaga (Fiji); Fepulea’i Sinapi Moli (Samoa); Dr Visesio Pongi (UNESCO)
Page 48 of 48