PACIFIC QUALIFICATIONS REGISTER CONSULTATION

of 48

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

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

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) Day 1 - Qualifications Frameworks and Registers b) Day 2- Qualifications Frameworks and Developments c) Day 3 - Learning and Qualifications Registrations d) Day 4 - A Quality Assurance Framework e) 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).

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.

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

of 48

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.

7.0 APPENDICES

Appendix 7.1: The PQR Consultation Programme Regional Consultation on the Pacific Qualifications Register

28th September – 2nd October 2009 Tanoa International Hotel Nadi, Fiji

Monday 28th September

Tuesday 29th September

Wednesday 30th September

Thursday 1st October

Friday 2nd October

Daily Theme

Qualifications Frameworks and Registers

Legal Framework and Policy Development

Learning and Qualifications

A Quality Assurance Framework

The Way Forward

Morning Sessions

1

Welcome

Overview of the Consultation

Mrs Ana RaivoceDirector SPBEA

Official Opening Address

Qualifications Development

Dr James Keevey

South African Qualifications Authority

Learning, Qualifications and Accreditation

Kathy Maclaren

New Zealand Qualifications Authority

Quality Assurance principles and practices

Rob E. Fearnside

The Way Forward

2

Brief Presentations by each Country on Development of

National Qualifications Agencies.

Fiji, Tonga, Vanuatu, Samoa

Pacific Learning, Pacific knowledge and Qualifications Frameworks

Dr Visesio PongiUNESCO

Qualifications Registrations: The TQF

Model

Dr Richard Wah Vice Chair COL-TQF

The Challenges to Assuring Quality

Summing up

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

The Quality Assurance Standard for the PQR

Summing up of the Week’s Outcomes

of 48

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.

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

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.

of 48

ce Development.

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 Resour

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 Vice-

Principal, 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.

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.

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.

of 48

a school teacher, principal,

i has continued to promote the issue of the quality

for enhancing the competencies of teachers, etc.

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

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. Pong

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

of 48

ove the overall quality of education in all countries in the Pacific.

. MONDAY 28

Dr. Pongi continues to move UNESCO to continue to be actively involved in working with member states as well

as development partners to impr

Appendix 7.4: Summary of Presentations 1 th September: Qualifications Frameworks and Registers

Presentation 1: Pacific Learning (Knowledge and Skills) and the Qualifications Framework, is it a

he consultation document that had ed to the participants. While it could be assumed that certain things had already been ation would provide the opportunity for discussion on what the final outcome would

a) an instrument that will instill and sustain lifelong learning from basic and primary dual nternational equivalence of Pacific

A question especially w

eed to be view stion that the consultation will need to bring to the

here is a need to ask what needs to be done differently to ensure that the PQF/PQR is unique to the the need for comparability and portability within and outside the Pacific and also and skills that are relevant to livelihood in the Pacific.

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

‘Pacific Learning and Qualifications Framework’discussed the topic Why are you here?

eference was made on the purpose of the consultation as stated in tRbeen earlier circulat

ecided, the consultdbe. The purposes of the Pacific Qualifications Register were highlighted:

education to the highest level attainable by each indivib) a common reference for establishing regional and i

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

was raised on ‘how best to incorporate the purpose’ stated above into both the PQF and PQR hen “all forms and types of education and training” are expected to be included. This will

ed as the challenge and the quenforefront 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? TPacific and satisfiesaptures knowledge c

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 o be considered. t

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

of 48

e NQF and NQR of each country and to make sure that all their qualifications as well as learning

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 need to define what countries

will have to do to meet the requirements of the PQR/PQF hout

• e PQR/PQF should guide and

There is a through other m e of the PQF and PQR.

rd of learning achieved in non-formal and informal learning. This may prove more difficult then the rmal process. Therefore careful and sensitive approaches are needed and must involve dialogue and

For a clearly identified relationship between NQF/NQR and PQF/PQR there are certain criteria for d 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

ged learning, possibly with criteria for compliance based on outcomes and not on puts and processes.

A key challenge countries are likely to face is putting in place an equivalency mechanism that will earning in the formal context and those in non-formal context.

In conclusion it was emphasized that the task of developing a NQF/NQR that will include all forms of be a challenging one and needs to be carefully considered. Even more challenging will be

e development of a regional process that needs to take into account the differences and diversities

undertaken within the system through whatever means. The issue of omparability, transparency and portability should be considered as a secondary purpose.

thachievements 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?

• Depending on the outcome of the above clarification, the

• The need to take a broad perspective of the various dimensions of the QF/QR withaving to compromise the key issues of quality, comparability and portability The need to ensure that the intentions of the processes of thassist the countries to achieve what they want and not be restricted by it

need to clearly understand the challenges associated with recognizing learning undertaken eans especially if they are going to be included in such processes as thos

Another challenge highlighted is the process required to accredit the quality of the processes and the standafoparticipation.

What would then be a way forward?

registration that will need to be agree

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-packain

Shifting from input to outcomes

establish comparability between l The shift in focus from content to outcomes based learning provides the opportunity for including all forms of learning into the QFs/QRs.

Conclusion

learning willthbetween 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 isc

of 48

. TUESDAY 292 th September: Qualifications Frameworks and Developments

Presentation 2: Qualifications Development – the South African experience, Dr James Keevy

nt of the Qualifications Framework, highlighting the focus and the characteristics of frameworks that were developed at the end

• South Africa was looking for an alternative to apartheid education

• Implementation started in 1995 but on-going review over the years ended in 2008 d at a pace

A p ss and that they are frameworks of coll e cautious and not o technical. Each country must be able to find the level of balance that will work for them and for the region as well.

re global phenomenon with more than 100 countries working on

their frameworks. He, however, posed a challenge that the Pacific will need to have good k and register and be clear on the kind of

system it needs.

c)

Commo

To create a common understanding of qualifications frameworks, the following aspects were highlighted:

) Architecture

ost common aspect about qualifications frameworks but it is not the only one. here is much more to qualifications frameworks than levels and qualifications definitions.

here seems to be a convergence on the number of qualification levels with most countries

) Governance

Dr James Keevy commenced his presentation with a discussion of the adve

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:

• NQF concept was taken up • NQF promised much to a system that had many challenges

• Despite challenges NQF development and implementation continue

oint was made that QFs should be viewed as work in progreaboration, communication and coordination. It was also pointed out that we need to btoo ambitious that the aims become unattainable or too modest that it becomes to

Developing Qualifications Frameworks

A number of key aspects will need to be considered:

a) Qualifications Frameworks a

reasons why it needs a qualifications framewor

b) There needs to be a clear definition and understanding of key terms There are different types of frameworks and each one has its own characteristics.

n understanding of Qualifications Frameworks

a This is the mT Tadopting the 10 levels.

b

of 48

ructure under which qualifications frameworks are managed and governed. or some countries, qualification agencies have been set up while in others, the country’s

) Prescriptiveness

e extremes where one could be strong and very prescriptive while one ould be loose and voluntary. Either one will have both positive and negative consequences.

ossible purposes for having a qualifications framework were outlined

from its ualifications framework and what will make the framework uniquely Pacific in nature.

f QFs have been greatly influenced by previous thinking. When developing ualifications frameworks it is important to understand the underlying philosophy that

out QF policies were highlighted where one could be intrinsic logic – ferring to the adequacy of the design and institutional logic which refers to the extent of

igh institutional logic where the QF ystem developed suits the needs of the country and institutions and supportive of the

lism

rate of implementation and it can be seen from two extremes on a ontinuum. One is a very rapid implementation and the other, very gradual and there is also

rstand the best way that will suit the situation in each country and one at could be supported by the systems and processes already in existence.

The Pacific Qualifications Framework

cenarios were looked at given the varying stages of development of national qualifications frameworks

This defines the stFMinistry of Education or other relevant ministry may be the responsible agency. c There are two possiblcEach 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 p A point was emphasized on the need to be clear about what the Pacific expects q e) Philosophy Developments oqinfluenced the development of QFs. f) Policy breath Two key points abreuptake of the qualifications framework by institutions. It is desirable to have both high intrinsic logic and hsdevelopment. g) Incrementa This refers to the cthe phased approach. It is important to undeth

In conclusion, possible development s

of 48

Presentation 3: The Caribbean Community - A focus on the Regional Qualifications Framework, Ms Myrna Bernard

M ssed the Caribbean Community’s journey in its development as a regional body to

cilitate the various regional development initiatives that the Community had undertaken and continues

was discussed highlighting the various developments that took place over the years such s:

• 1928 – Regional Cricket Team to England • 1948 – Regional University: UCWI

ARIFTA) ommon Market

e Market Economy

CSME was to provide the framework for the

llowing:

ater opportunities for employment, investment, production and trade • Competitive products of better quality and prices

and work in CARICOM countries

The ra infrastructure that underly the intergovernmental agreements and treaties that bind the countries together.

COM movement of goods • free intra-CARICOM trade in services

Edu ti s a Resource

ystem with a regional framework for hild development and protection, regional standards for ECD and cooperation in curriculum

operation in TVET and Tertiary Education

ur across member countries and this was een as a pillar of the CSME process.

of a common system and the impact it has on portability of ualifications and understanding of quality assurance systems at all levels of education including

TVET.

s Bernard discufato undertake. A brief outlinea

• 1958 – Political Federation (1962) • 1968 – Caribbean Free Trade Area (C• 1973 – Caribbean Community and C• 1989 – Decision to establish the Caribbean Singl• 2006 – Establishment of the CARICOM Single Market

The CARICOM Single Market Economy (CSME)

It was pointed out that the establishment of thefo

• Gre

• Improved services provided by enterprises and individuals • Greater opportunity for travel for nationals to study• Increased employment and improved standard of living

f mework is supported by a governance and legal

The CSME facilitates:

• free intra-CARI

• free movement of capital and skills

ca on in the Community – Regionalism a

There is regional cooperation at all levels of the education scframework development in selected areas such as physical education, health and family life education. Regional Co This is cooperation that allows for free movement of labos It reflects the importance and benefits q

of 48

al process that provides a system of certification and accreditation that ensures the efficient and effective functioning of an integrated market such as the CSME.

uch a system would improve progression routes for vocational education and training in further

ith the plethora of foreign providers operating in a system that is not yet fully regulated, it is perative that a regional quality assurance and accreditation mechanism is in place.

or this, a regional accreditation model was approved by the Council for Human and Social

xamples of such regional cooperation in quality assurance are the Caribbean Accreditation

onal Qualifications Framework

er regional initiatives ere being undertaken.

he RQF will allow for equivalences to be established among elements of different qualifications

rning in initial and further education and qualifications obtained through formal and non-formal education.

tion, training and career. 3 WEDN

Quality Assurance A critic

Seducation and in higher education. Quality Assurance and Accreditation Wim FDevelopment and is premised on the establishment of national bodies. EAuthority in Medicine and the Regional Examination for nurse registration. The Regi The development of the qualifications framework happened at the time othw

Tand facilitate establishments of progression routes, different fields of study, general and vocational education, lea

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 educa

ESDAY 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.

e

recognition of achievement of a set of learning outcomes for a particular purpose through formal

Qualifications – what are they? Their purpose?

The definition of qualification as used by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority is “th

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.

of 48

point was made on the importance of thinking about the design and characteristics of the amework in terms of its intended purpose and function. Thoughts must be centered on the

tory 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 ama

hile the NZQA was intended to provide a consistent approach to recognizing qualifications, it

ations.

tive group was held in April 2000

hich came up with the view of developing and agreeing on a broader framework of the NZ

Register of Quality Assured Qualifications policy. The policy document was approved by the

were described as being outcomes based where level descriptors, qualifications type definitions and qualifications are described in terms of outcomes. Assessment

are not necessarily specified.

ed on the premise that on-going self assessment and periodic external evaluation and review are critical to ensuring

ge and skills what will be put up for public consumption.

aluating what matters, ‘the quality of learning and teaching’.

Qualifications Frameworks A strongfrfollowing:

• Defined purpose • Context of environment • His

lgamation of a number of examination bodies.

Wdid not achieve this initial intention. There was strong resistance from other sectors especially for the use of standards based approach to defining qualific The result was a highly regulated, specified NQF which did not meet NZQA’s objective.

A meeting of the Inter-Institutional Assurance Bodies consultawqualifications. This led to sector wide consultations that resulted in the development of

NZQA Board in May 2001.

Qualifications Frameworks and Qualifications New Zealand qualifications

standards or methodology and learning pathways

Quality of Design, Delivery and Assessment The quality assurance system that supports the qualifications framework is bas

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 knowled

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 ev

of 48

here to next for New Zealand?

ZQA carried out a targeted review of qualifications in levels 1 – 6. One of the things that came ut of the review is the lack of clarity in the system.

his has resulted in the need to look at qualifications design and the rules around what

This means that the result will be a unified ystem where there is no distinction between qualifications.

nly levels and descriptors. There are no qualifications types and qualification definitions.

he EQF is a reference point for National Qualifications Frameworks and is for voluntary

terms of the PQR there is a need to be clear on what the framework needs to achieve, to ensure

Presentation 5: Transnational Qualifications Framework - VirtualDr Richard Wah

of Learning’s Transnational Qualifications

ive key points were highlighted and were the focus of his presentation:

• Why VUSSC – TQF?

• What is TQF? ed to work?

nt of the VUSSC was in response to the needs of small states not being able to provide the required training within their own borders.

hat is VUSSC?

development of free content resources for education. An emphasis was made on the fact that it is not a tertiary institution but a

ism for developing, adapting and sharing courses and learning materials.

is an initiative of Education Ministers of 32 small countries.

W No Tqualifications are made of and the need to strengthen stakeholder input in the design process and to discourage unnecessary qualification duplication. s

Regional Frameworks – one model (European Qualifications Framework – EQF) It was noted that the EQF is quite straight forward having o

Treferencing by European Union members Inthat 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.

University of Small States of the Commonwealth (VUSSC) – TQF

Dr Richard Wah made a presentation on the CommonwealthFramework discussing its purpose and the philosophy behind its development. F

• Why VUSSC?

• Philosophy of TQF

• How it is propos

Why VUSSC? It was noted that the establishme

W The VUSSC is a growing network committed to the collaborative

collective mechan VUSSC is also a forum for institutions to build capacity and expertise in online collaboration, eLearning and ICTs, generally. It

of 48

was noted that there was a request from VUSSC participating countries in March 2007 for the tions and transfer of credits between

s thus determined that a kind of framework would need to be developed to facilitate e process.

raft was endorsed by VUSSC interlocutors in July 2008.

ssed. was highlighted that one of the key philosophies is simplicity in design. Development will be

ng emphasis on local involvement.

to replace or review existing qualifications ameworks in the small states. However, the TQF is a translation instrument between the systems in

s and regions and is expected to:

to the TQF levels.

Adv ta A numb

orkers • Mutual recognition of qualifications

ity of qualifications • International Cooperation among agencies

mes

Wa r Singapore 8 – 10 October 2008 A b f ad taken place was presented together with future planned activities. Soon after the top management meeting in Singapore, a number of cluster

objectives of the eetings were:

te proposals for the amendment of the report • Seek buy-in from the cluster members

Why VUSSC? Itcreation of a mechanism to support accreditation of qualificacountries. It wath

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 d

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 discuItincremental with stro Concept – TQF The Transnational Qualifications Framework is not meantfrdifferent countrie

• 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

an ges of a TQF

er of advantages were discussed:

• Mobility of students and w

• International validity and portabil

• Comparability of quality of program• Respect other QA systems • Provide accurate / reliable information (Portal)

y fo ward after the Top Management Meeting,

rie overview of the developmental phases that h

meetings were held in each region of Africa, Caribbean and Asia Pacific. Them

• To consult with the cluster members on the draft TQF consultation document • Discuss the comments received from the cluster members prior to the meeting • Formula

of 48

Ministers of

In t d tivities and commitments will nee

• Encouraging more institutions to develop VUSSC courses registered on NQF

• Exploring opportunities of including large states

In i h country will have to sign the protocol acc in

he Dra

as discussed with a focus on a number of key issues:

USSC TQF

he TQF Portal

institutions / providers

A int cessing training particularly for those countries that do not have a qualifications agency. There will need to be some mechanism that ca aci

tabase of registered qualifications including details as registered on the TQF as well as details relating to the qualification’s possible registration on another

k • a searchable database of education and training providers that have been accredited (by

• orm of a Wiki, where agencies and providers can participate in

The sustainabili an only be ascertained when the commitment from all member states and internationa In the conclusion an emphasis was made on the need to establish linkages between the various national,

• 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

Education

he iscussion of the way forward, it was highlighted that various acd to be undertaken at various levels of the development process such as:

• Focusing on countries which already have the capacities to offer VUSSC courses in the first instance

• Harmonizing of TQF, EQF, & RQF • Looking at possibility of designing TQF pass similar to EUROpass to allow for mobility

add tion to the above, the Education Minister of eacept g the TQF.

T ft TQF Document The draft document w

• Benefits of the V

• Concept of TQF Quality Assurance

• Registering qualifications on t

• Guidelines for education and training

po was made on the status of small states in terms in ac

n f litate registration from these countries.

VUSSC – TQF Portal The TQF Portal is defined as:

• a searchable da

qualification framewor

sectoral, national and regional qualifications agencies) to offer TQF registered qualifications an interactive site, in the finformal discussions of TQF procedures and guidelines

ty of the TQF cl organizations are obtained.

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.

of 48

r than prescriptive and gulatory.

4 THURSDAY 1

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 rathere 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.

st October 2009 – A Quality Assurance Framework

r Rob E Fearnside

Mr Fearnside commenced his presentation with an overview of the Victorian Registration and 2007 and brought together a number of

s especially those involved in the registration of providers.

• Monitor the effectiveness of Victoria’s qualifications system hools, registered training organizations, non self-accrediting

higher education providers and providers of courses for overseas students by registered providers in all sectors and in home

• standards

mework (AQF)

nd in 2008 the Ministerial Council set up a

new AQF Council whose responsibility is to advice on strategic strengthening of the AQF “to and international portability of qualifications”.

• A common taxonomy of learning outcomes • • ning for each qualification type at each level

AQF is taking in changing from a sectoral based

g where some schools are now r secondary or

higher education qualifications.

This convergence has also led to convergence in quality assurance.

Presentation 6: Quality Assurance - Principles and Practices, M

Qualifications Authority (VRQA). The VRQA was set up in qualifications agencie

It was given a number of responsibilities:

• Accredit courses and register qualifications

• Register home schooling, all sc

• Ensure minimum standards are maintained schooling

• Conduct audits and reviews Ensure public availability of data on providers compliance with registration

• Maintain the State Register of providers and courses

The Australian Qualifications Fra

In the last 15 years, the AQF has been sector based a

improve contemporary relevance and national

In May 2009 AQFC released a consultation paper “to inform a revised and enhanced AQF”. The paper discusses a number of things:

A hierarchy of qualifications based on explicit reference levels A measurement of the volume of lear

An interesting point made was the move the framework to an integrated framework. This is already happeninoffering VET qualifications and some vocational institutions are offering either senio

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.

of 48

he AQF currently mandates the requirements of each AQF qualification type. It was noted that the ccrediting authorities in each state and territory accredit qualifications and authorize providers /

ualifications while universities are authorized to self-accredit.

There is also the new National Tertiary Education Standards Authority (TEQSA). It will be a

rities (GAAs).

into TEQSA sometime in the future.

.

mework, 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 atives to developing a new framework.

ld 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

ations frameworks.

•• Ownership • 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 Qualifications Agency

Tainstitutions in each state to issue q

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.

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 Autho

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

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 Fra

framework and whether there were altern

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 cou

country to country. It was also noted that there is a move from national qualifications frameworks to regional qualific

Regional Qualifications Frameworks – A logical extension of NQFs?

Key considerations are:

Purpose – translator and neutral reference point or catalyst for harmonization

Making it work – the

national standards and credit system.

of 48

Depending on what is developed PQF/PQR there are number of things that will need to be agreed on by all:

•• ent • Nature of the framework and its parameters

esources, promotion, professional development

brief definition of ‘quality assurance’ was given as “the planned and systematic processes that

n educational services provided by education and training organizations”.

irements f the descriptors in the framework and of the providers awarding the qualifications’.

guard in itself.

or recognition of qualifications the best option is to establish mutual recognition of quality assurance ments being met – set standards are met,

bust system of accreditation and registration, regular monitoring and auditing and transparency.

e ualification, one that focuses attention non reliability and validity of assessments.

and the agencies at award them) would be helpful when considering an application for recognition of a new

Stimulate those developing and providing qualifications to focus on this critical element

ment of mechanisms for the recognition of mechanisms for the recognition of informal and non-formal learning

An example was given where a level IV qualification has been submitted and the proposed criteria

e evidence • alidity / truth of the evidence

Purpose and priority Managem • Quality assurance system• Stakeholders, r Quality Assurance

Aprovide confidence i

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 requo 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 safe Quality assurance processes can be regulatory or enabling. Fagencies where there is strong demonstration of the requirero 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 thq 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 qualificationsthqualification 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:

•• Support development and enhance

With the above a proposed interim process was discussed.

would include the following:

• Nature of the evidence of achievement • Reliability / precision of th

V

of 48

p each criterion, a statement will be given to indicate the te met.

amework and register. Countries were also encouraged to evelop some mutual recognition and agreement about QA in their own countries.

Pre

Mr Male commenced his presentation by posing a question “Can we assure the quality of the PQR/F?

and mindsets rather than to do with formal structures. Also it as to do with vocabulary.

t tastes. And the way to do that is to learn the vocabulary. This he said is imilar to what has happened over the last couple of days where the discussions and deliberations may

• Scope

• Systems

Scope

xisting frameworks and activities being undertaken were discussed such as the Pacific Education pment Framework, the Forum Education Ministers’ vision of education for all covering basic

ducation agenda which covers the foundation of education. There is also the

cover basic, primary, secondary, TVET and tertiary education benchmarked gainst appropriate international standards and qualifications.

assurance – national and regional.

• School - generally exist wholly inside national territory al level of education

where individuals have gained foundational skills for later use

De ending on the evidence provided for ex nt to which the criterion has been

Emphasizing that what has been proposed are suggestions; countries need to ensure that there is a match between quality assurance and the frd

sentation 7: The Challenges to Assuring Quality, Mr Alan Male

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 h An analogy was given on wine tasting not being about wine but learning to describe the wine and learning to discriminate the differenshave seemed frustrating but were necessary in establishing understanding and building vocabulary. Four key issues were covered in the presentation:

• Responsibility

• Capacity

EDeveloetraining/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 toa 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 The various characteristics of the ‘school’ and ‘post school’ systems were discussed:

- overall purpose is to deliver a population that has good gener

- aims at a universal socializing experience

of 48

Quality ools: Usually government has control over this function through various means:

- control / regulation of curriculum - control / regulation of teacher quality and supply

ols

g and comparison

• Post scho

- is not aimed at providing a universal experience supplies education for all sorts of situation

ay not be the only regulator ignificant factor in validating the

- surance are being developed

Balancing the tem A point was made on the need to balance the interest of the different parties:

) Student – need to balance the student interests, student rights, focus on qualifications e stakeholders in the

qualifications as they are the ones that will employ and consume the skills of the graduates

e)

There was a brief discussion on national environment and the various systems that make them

hey influence

, educational system b) Fair trading legislation – is about trading fairly and honestly whether you are trading a

c)

ems d) Emploe) Existing international agreements

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.

Assurance of sch

- control / regulation of budget and funding

- control / regulation of establishment of scho- national examination systems - building regulation - inspection and review activities - public accountability systems - international reportin

ol - is much more diverse

- - national government m- autonomy from government may in fact be a s

process and the product - it may be transnational - has much higher private interest

new systems of quality as

post-school quality assurance sys

ab) Stakeholders in the qualifications – we need to balance the interests of th

c) The national interest d) International opportunities available

The stage of development of everything

National Environment

what they are and how t

a) Constitution – plays an important in determining the kind of environment that will exist in any country – religious freedom etc

product or a service and it applies to education as it does to anything else Education legislation

- Government agencies and delegation - Institutions - Funding systyment regulations

- Bilateral - Multilateral

If countries are going to be building

of 48

here was a brief discussion of the various levels of agreements and networks that could exist lly. 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

is to jump right to the top level forgetting what is ere at the lower levels. It is also safe to just stay around the bottom level and not think about the

Looking at the regional environment, it was pointed out that a lot of the discussions that have

been about national qualifications frameworks and how they need to link into the regional framework.

ts between regional registering and the national state. Also nderstanding the systems, purpose and processes at the national level and the systems, purpose

ut the quality assurance at both the regional national levels. nd all these are part of the Pacific Forum regulatory environment.

egislative environment.

When talking about quality assurance, it was emphasized that we need to think about the student

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

y some quality assurance agency. Also the national body itself hould come under eternal audit.

point was made on the international best practice where the educational provider at the first

l quality assurance process.

. And then there is an external evaluation of the External Quality Agency against agreed international quality assurance

International Environment

Tnationally, and internationa

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 temptationthupper 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

already taken place have

But there are other things that will have to be considered one of which is the quality assurance relationship and requiremenuand 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 oA 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 l

Quality Assurance Arrangements

first and foremost. The student has

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 bs Interrelationship of Quality Assurance Levels

Alevel develops and operates an effective interna

Then the National External Quality Assurance Agency develops and operates an effective external quality assurance process and the two agencies relate to each other

standards.

of 48

l levels of quality assurance.

hat is happening.

he challenges are: We need to keep thinking about whole systems, coming down from the global

quality assurance management system needs to only include all of those things that are

rpose).

re relevant in the future.

ge.

time the quality ssurance process of planning, doing, reviewing and learning should operate to ensure progress

s • Define its characteristics, components and relationships

ment the positive result of which will be the

rtificates. This is not the end as next comes the need to gain some feedback from those who have consumed this qualification – the

The environment

The regulation

has been constructed With all the above we are starting to see a machinery being built and we are seeing the need to have some a nue to move up.

This is part of a whole system and there is certainly a relationship between the national and the internationa 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 w So what are the challenges to Quality Assurance? Tlevel and focusing on the detail. Quality Assurance Management System

Anecessary to ensure quality (fitness for pu

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 mo 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 chan 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 aaand 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 standard

Then there is the provision of training or some assessaward of the qualification and the graduates receive their ce

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 context •• The purpose • The system –

thing th t has a cycle about it so we can conti

of 48

T

he requirement principle is about focusing on ‘the purpose’ (goal / product). When setting out to look at uality assurance criteria, they need to be carefully considered in light of the purpose and characteristics.

hen thinking about requirements, it is critical to think about ‘the purpose’ and then start to set out the

was pointed out that a good quality system is a system that should have quality standards and purposes

here was a brief discussion on the relationship of an NQF Quality Assurance where the National ualifications Agency establishes and operates levels, criteria and descriptions.

• Qualifications are developed through qualifications standards procedures.

t the criteria.

d 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 chieving their purposes. This is the machinery that is supposed to make the whole system run.

QR/F Quality Assurance Concept

nderstand e link between quality assurance at the national level and its link to the regional level.

ach level has its own cycle and they engage. The regional should be simple, straight forward and not

• The Quality Assurance Framework (8.3: p13 – 14) plus Appendix C

he first one is aimed at the provider and the second one is for the qualifications. Mr Male commented that these ar A series of relevant questions will need to be considered: How should the whole system work together?

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.

he Requirement Principle

Tq Wcriteria and critique them. Itin it that are part of the measure of the standard or the system. Operational Relationships of an NQF Quality Assurance System TQ

• Qualifications are approved and placed on the NQF by NQA if they mee

• Providers of education, training and assessment services are accredited to deliver.

• Assessments are moderated through appropriate moderation systems at national an

a

P An emphasis was made on the need to bring both the national and regional level in order to uth Eoverbearing. 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 Criteria for registration of qualifications on the PQR

Te fine but are they sufficient?

• Should there be a small Quality

of 48

• Should there be a small Quality Assurance Framework of the requirements that PQR

• It was further noted that now there is a lot of experience with dealing with whole systems

With regard oboth national an This has to involve investigation of:

evidence that processes are working re being accepted, used and valued

he ov e assurance of quality is the need to see it as a system and as a whole stem think about our goals and purpose at the regional level, the nd of ld the requirements be.

tc. • processes that make it work

Another big ting something from t explaining to people what it is and bringing people along with it. It is p eed to be involved, what sort of training and information do they need to have.

nal and regional level who actually need to know more about the machinery and to be able to have access to on going support.

ents as well.

The , carrying out an analysis of who is

sup

final comment given was that ‘it will crash and burn on more than one occasion’ but it is not

needs to be able to show that it is following?

at the National level, but there is now a need to think about whole systems at the regional and international level.

s t the ‘quality audit of the system’, an emphasis was made that the whole of the system at

d regional level need to be subject to periodic review or audit.

- achievement of purpose - - evidence that qualifications a T erarching challenges to thsy that works together. So it is critical toki structure that we need, how the process would work and what wou 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 e

• capabilities of the people that are involved

challenge highlighted in the assurance of quality within the regional system is adop a regional workshop and no

im ortant to determine which groups of people n

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 natio

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 stud

se are necessary for building human capacity in the system

involved, analysis of what to know and some programme of information and a programme of on-going port.

The biggest challenge is keeping a whole systems view and not seeing things as discreet unrelated processes. Asomething to be embarrassed about.

of 48

FRIDAY 2 5 nd 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

nt of the TMNP Scheme and other ctors that have contributed to the development of the scheme.

With the PICTA trade goods now in operation, the Forum Trade Ministers decided to look at trade in services.

hat is called the PICTA TIS Legal Tax.

de Agreement ICTA) Temporary Movement of Natural Persons (TMNP) Scheme. Under this scheme recognize

ades professionals would be subject to a quota mechanism”.

- strengthen regional economic integration egotiation positions with trading partners

- promote FICs integration into the world economy

- retain expertise within FICs

Main features of t sc The main features t

• definition of the • economic needs test

• TMNP visa

• access to other immigrants categories

minimum quotas

• duration of stay

• limits on return

• ications requirements

• ication and certificates

• bonds •

employers D in

T r ssionals who v inimum of a Bac l from a reco zappropriate minimum nu ber of years of work experience.

Mr Prasad commenced his presentation by looking at the establishmefa It was noted that currently there are seven (7) countries participating in the PICTA. in In 2005 – Ministers decided to prepare a legal PICTA – TIS or w 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 Tra(Pprofessionals would be allowed to move freely amongst Forum Island Countries and semi – skilled andtr

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 n

- meet skills shortage from within region

- retain remittances within FICs

he heme

of he scheme were outlined:

tiers

• eligibility • quotas:

qualif certif family rights

• licensing • fees • switching • enforcement

ef ition of Tiers

ie 1 – profe ha e a m he ors degree gni ed university, m

of 48

led professionals who have a minimum of Diploma and Certificate with an appropriate number of years of work experience.

dertake 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:

e region that are already or should be accorded the recognition

se in Australia, New Zealand and other countries, Europe, USA with qualifications that are currently recognized in the

Notion of m

Tier 1 - professions ember 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 ye

- quotas based on labour market data id impact on domestic labour market

- number of TMNP workers should be manageable for national institutions

host countries ool for other possible

schemes with potential programmes and partners

a) l rked out using available statistics and data on FICs such as the

TM

Card or Certificate

both tiers) The card or certificate will be valid for the duration of the employment contract for a maximum

Tier 2 – semi skil

Qualifications recognition

SPBEA is in the process of developing a Pacific Regional Qualifications Register. Whilst awaiting this development it is recommended that FICs un

- 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 th

- prepare a list of overseas institutions especially tho

FICs.

inimum under the proposed scheme

minimum qualification of a Bachelors degree with 3 years experience and for regulated , be a m

with five ars 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

- quota will avo

Why should there be a quota? - because of ministerial mandate - the quota indicates the available opportunities in the - the scheme if successful could be used as a bargaining and negotiating t

Ca culation of the quota will be woPopulation and Wages and Salaries Earning Statistics.

NP Certification

i) Certification Both for Tier 1 and Tier 2, there will be the use of a

Validity (same for

of 3 years

of 48

ii) confined to administrative costs only

i) 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. o serve as the work permit and will be valid for the same period

iv) Switching employers (same for both tiers)

ffer was for a particular employer v) A

This will not be allowed vi)

Card holder has the right to be joined by his or her spouse and dependent children iginal applicant’s period of permitted

les that the SPBEA would be expected to play in the facilitating the and supporting the PICTA TMNP scheme:

nchmarks for occupations - develop comprehensive list of accredited education and technical institutions

with designated national authorities on implementation of the scheme Implementation P e

On the implemen io the scheme will work and the various processes at e

n-going implementation of the Temporary Movement of Natural Persons Scheme.

Fees (same for both tiers) Fees will be

ii

PICTA TMNP visa will als

Switching employers is disallowed as the job o

ccess to other immigration categories (same for both tiers)

Family rights (same for both tiers)

Wife can be granted permission to work inline with the orwork

Regional Stakeholders The South Pacific Board for Educational Assessment (SPBEA) The ro

- registry for national, regional and international be

- assess qualifications of individuals in the scheme - collaborate

roc ss

tat n of the process, a brief outline was given on how th will need to happen at the national and regional level to facilitate and support th

o

of 48

Appendix 7.5: Summary of Participants Reflections

SUMMARY OF REFLECTIONS 1.0 Introduction

f parti country representatives, 8 resource speakers, 4 CROP agencies representatives and 7 SP

ven though all participants were given reflection sheets, only 16 were returned.

must also be noted that out of the 14 countries represented, only 8 countries actually indicated what they think the role of

brief summary of key issues raised is given below:

.0 Summary of feedback on key issues raised:

ation of the consultation

n was well organized and there was excellent support and service

provided by the Secretariat staff

2.1.2 Participants and participation

- It was highlighted that the involvement and interaction between participants brought excitement

2.1.3 Presentations and Resource Personnel

- There was a strong indication that the consultation was very relevant and beneficial as it provided

- the range and mix of resource personnel in terms of their experiences and knowledge of qualifications frameworks.

2.2 Recommenda n

2.2.1 Follow u

- ly 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

evelopment of their NQF/NQR

.2.2 Support and action by SPBEA

- edited

- 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

e PQR. - It has also been recommended that the PQR template be worked immediately to be endorsement

2.3 How can B

2.3.1 a)

The total number o cipants at the consultation was 40 comprising 21

BEA officers.

E ItSPBEA should be in the immediate and medium term and what they expect SPBEA to do to assist and support them. A 2

2.1 Commendations

2.1.1 Organization and administr

- It was felt that the consultatio

and created a healthy environment for discussion.

the opportunity for exchange of ideas, sharing of information and learning. It was evident also that most participants appreciated

tio s p by SPBEA

It has been recommended that a follow up consultation be carried out possib

- d

2

A recommendation has been raised on the possibility of carrying out a pilot survey on accrprogrammes It has also been recommended that

progressing work on th

by the countries and to be trialed.

SP EA assist your country / NQA / Institution in the next:

6 – 12 months

of 48

t

- Solomon Islands is requesting assistance for their Technical Working Group in the development of

- PNG is requesting for the revised level descriptors - questing that its Ministry of Education be updated on the development of the

PQR

b)

ment of the PQR

2.4 What do you want to see SPBEA engage in, in the next: 2.4.1

i) Vanuatu - to receive definition of elements to be included in the NQF and PQR )

iv) Tonga - the PQR contain quality assured qualifications from member countries on online and be

v) Nauru - expecting the PQR template to have been sent to member countries vi) ds – SPBEA to provide information and back up support

) for the PQR

2.4.2 b)

y an external auditor

R

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 COMMENDA O

Organization a

- Vanuatu, Kiribati & FSM have indicated that they need assistance and support in the developmenof NQA and NQF

the National Qualifications Framework

Cook Islands is re

12 – 36 months

- PNG requesting the draft mechanisms for the develop- Kiribati is requesting assistance with NQA development

a) 6- 12 months

ii) Cook Islands - to see the consultation document completed iii PNG - expecting the format of the register to be completed

able to have access to the information

Solomon Islanvii Collection of relevant data and information from NQFs viii) Ensure proper legislation and policy mechanisms are in place

12 – 36 months

i) Tonga – PQR to have undergone Quality Audit of its qualifications database bii) Nauru – PQR to have been completed and filled iii) Surveys and feasibility studies – how to progress the PQ

TI NS

nd Administration

• SPBEA is commended for the excellent organization of the consultation • Commend SPBE

the support staff

e hardworking SPBEA team for ensuring a smooth and trouble free

f deliberations as witnessed in the

Participa

• Good organization on accommodation, food

A for a well organized consultation • Excellent service by• Excellent venue • Appreciation also extended to th

experience and for the sponsorship of AusAID • Well conducted consultation by SPBEA resulting in a very fruitful week o

content of the outcome document

nts and Participation • Very good forum

•

esentations / Resource Personnel

• Exciting and active participants A healthy environment for discussion

Pr ducation systems in the Pacific

haring and the learnings from country representatives and resource personnel to next and how towards the development of the NQF from one level to the

• Good presentation of e• The consultation objective, the s

has provided the need for where

of 48

• 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

ns by the speakers and the country representatives r the international perspective

• mix of consultants - very resourceful and experience people e

ach to learning improvement

• ive

2

RECOM NS

Foll

next

• Very informative presentatio• Appreciations are extended to the resource personnel fo• 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

• Special commendation to the resource people especially James Keevy on his very clear and comprehensivpresentation

• Good exercise as it is a learning experience that is recognized as additional approand 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 comprehens

• Good range of resource people and experiences

MENDATIO

ow 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 sting the development of the NQF/NQR

Support and action by SPBEA

assi

Support may be sought from SPBEA or other once country direction is established to determine way forward to be trialed within the next year on information on accredited programmes

ot much has been done. SPBEA needs to know this in order to bench mark work on PQR

list of qualified personnel to be in the body that will assure the quality of qualifications on PQR

•• Possibility of pilot surveys• 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 n

• For Secretariat to supply a

• 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.

• higher institutions be included in the consultations as qualifications discussed are at

Country reports were weak 3

How anyou ouinstituti a) 6 – 12

) 12 – 36 months

Cook Islands 12 months

provide / update MOE Cook Islands on the development of the PQR tical friend in development of MOE Cook Islands NQF policies and n research

gher Education) a) 6 – 12

Internationally, credibility at the PQR level will be crucial It is recommended that their institutions

•

c SPBEA assist Vanuatu (MOE) r c ntry / NQA/

on in the next a) 6 – 12 months - to develop NQF

months a) 6 – -b

- Act as criassist us i

PNG (Office of Hi

months - please send us the revised level descriptors

of 48

) Draft of mechanism for the development of the PQR

onga

ar from now, may seek assistance

iribati (Min of Education & Min of Labour & HRD

- Development of NQA

- As ta R

rking Group for the development of the National Qualifications Framework

) 6 – 12 months ions database surance

SM Education

months EA support and technical assistance in the development of

QF

4 What do you want to see

PQR engage in, in the next:

a) 6 – 12 months b) 12 – 36 months

anuatu (MOE)

for the development on issues to do with the inclusion of NQF into the PQR Coo Islands ) 6 – 12 months

document s MOE on progress of pilot project

NG (Office of Higher Education)

ister

contain the quality assured qualifications from member ountries on line so we can have access to other member states qualifications

PQR to have undergone Quality Audit of its qualifications database by an external

b Ta) 6 – 12 months

- After a ye

Ka) 6 – 12 months

b) 12 – 36 months

sis nce with NQA progress and working with PQ Solomon Islands a) 6 – 12 months

- Assist the Technical Wo

Nauru a

- Qualificat- Quality as- NQR finalized

Fa) 6 – 12

- Need SPBguidelines for NQR and N

Va) 6 -12 months - Elements needed

ka- Complete consultation- Inform Cook Island- Work through “next steps” in Communiqué document Pa) 6 – 12 months) - Format of the reg b) 12 – 36 months - Development of PQF Tonga a) 6 – 12 months - We want to see the PQRc b) 12 – 36 months - auditor Solomon Islands a) 6 – 12 months - Provide information and back up support

of 48

te to be sent to member countries

mments (country not indicated)

templates for register untries position on NQA

ensure that proper legislation and policy mechanism are in place for the PQR data from NQFs

bility studies needed to arrive at informed decision on how to

Nauru a) 6 – 12 months - Templa b) 12 – 36 months - PQR completed and filled Other co a) 6 -12 months - - 5 page report on co- finalize structure of PQR - - begin to collect relevant information and b) 12 – 36 months- to begin surveys / feasiprogress the PQR

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 (2009-2013). 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

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.

3. The current PATVET inventory will be explored as a source of information for the Pacific Qualifications Register.

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

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 212,594.00 (93,653.35) 55.95% Net Income 0.00 118,940.65 100.0%

of 48

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected] Mrs. Rokobua Naiyana Deputy Secretary (Professional) Ministry of Education, Culture & Arts, Youth & Sports, Marela House Suva Email: [email protected] Mr Eci Naisele, NQF – Project Officer (Fiji), TPAF, P.O Box 6890 Nasinu Phone: 3392000 Fax: 3340184 Email: [email protected]

Fiji

Mrs Salote Rabuka, Chief Project Officer, Higher Education Commission, PO BOX 2583, Government Building, Suva Phone: Fax: Email: [email protected]

Kiribati Ms Riiti Uriam, Senior Assistant Secretary Ministry of Labour and Human Resources Development Phone: (686) 22736, 21097 Fax: (686) 21452 Email: [email protected]

of 48

Nauru Mrs Floria Detabene, Senior Curriculum Manager, Republic of Nauru. Phone: Fax: Email: [email protected]

Niue Mrs Janet Sipeli Tasmania Deputy Director – Education Niue Education Department Halamahaga, Alofi, Niue Island Phone: (683) 4702 Fax: (683) 4301 Email: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

Papua New Guinea Dr Pongie Kichawen Director Policy Development, Office of Higher Education PO BOX 5117, Boroko, NCD Phone: 3012072 Fax: 3258356 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ohe.gov.pg

Papua New Guinea

Mr George Arua Director National Training Council Papua New Guinea Email: [email protected]

Samoa Mrs Sinapi Moli, Samoa Qualifications Authority (SQA) Apia Samoa Phone: (0685) 20976 (0685) 28446 Facsimile: (0685) 26314 Mobile: (0685)752-0976 Email: [email protected]

of 48

Samoa

Mrs Kovi Fonoti-Aiolupotea Samoa Qualifications Authority (SQA) Apia Samoa Email: [email protected]

Solomon Islands Mr. Donald Malasa Under Secretary Tertiary. Ministry of Education, Solomon Islands. Phone: 7492829 Fax: 22042 Email: [email protected]

Solomon Islands

Mr. Norman Scott Hatigeva Dean of Academic Services. SICHE, PO BOX R113, Honiara. Phone: 00-677-39515 Fax: 00-677-30390 Email: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

Tonga Ms. Pauline Moa, Principal Education Officer, TNQAB PO BOX 65, New City, Nuku’alofa Phone: (676) 28136 Fax: (676) 28138 Email: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

Tuvalu Michael Noa, Senior Education Officer (Assessment & Examination) Phone: Fax: Email: [email protected]

of 48

Vanuatu Mr John Niroa Senior Education Officer, Ministry of Education, PMB 9028, Vila, Vanuatu Phone: (678) 22309 Fax: (678) 27671 Email: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

Resource Personnel

Country Details

1. Alan Male Timor – Leste Senior Education Liaison Specialist Education Sector Support Project Email: [email protected]

2. Dr Helen Tavola Fiji Social Policy Adviser Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat Email: [email protected]

3. Dr James Keevy South Africa Director: International Liaisons South African Qualifications Authority Email: [email protected]

4. Dr Richard Wah Fiji Senior Professional Officer - SPBEA Vice Chair - COL-TQF Email: [email protected]

5. Dr Visesio Pongi Samoa Head of UNESCO UNESCO Office for Pacific States Email: [email protected]

6. Kathryn Maclaren New Zealand Manager: Registration, Approval and Accreditation New Zealand Qualifications Authority Email: [email protected]

7. Myrna Bernard Jamaica Director: Human Development CARICOM Email: [email protected]

8. Robert Fearnside Australia Former Deputy Director The Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority Email: [email protected]

of 48

CROP Agencies Details

Forum Secretariat Amitesh Prasad Trade Policy Officer - ACP/EU Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat Private Mail Bag, Suva Ph: (679) 322 0289 Fax: 3220 286 Email: [email protected] 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: [email protected] University of the South Pacific Dr Sereana Kubuabola Senior Quality Assurance Coordinator Quality Office Telephone: (679) 323 2702 (w) (679) 339 5420 (h) Fax: (679) 323 1504 (w) Email: [email protected]

PATVET Emily Hazelman-Elliott PATVET Co-ordinator Email: [email protected]

SPBEA Staff Details Mrs Ana Raivoce

Director South Pacific Board for Educational Assessment Box 2083 Government Building Suva Fiji Phone: 3315600 Fax: 3302898 Email: [email protected]

Mr Richard Wah

Senior Professional Officer (ICT/ATS) Email: [email protected]

Lemalu Lafi Sanerivi Senior Professional Officer (Accreditation) Email: [email protected]

Mrs Selai Qereqeretabua

Professional Officer( Qualifications Services) Email: [email protected]

Mrs Tuifua Takapautolo

Professional Officer( Qualifications Services) Email: [email protected]

Mrs Seni Wainiqolo

Senior Administrative Officer Email: [email protected]

Ms Charmaine Kwan

Administrative Officer Email: [email protected]

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)

of 48

PACIFIC QUALIFICATIONS REGISTER CONSULTATION

Documents

Transcript of PACIFIC QUALIFICATIONS REGISTER CONSULTATION