Minutes of the meeting of the Governance Group for Mandatory Review of Foundation and Bridging Qualifications

Transcription

1 Minutes of the meeting of the Governane Group for Mandatory Review of Foundation and Bridging Qualifiations Held on 27 November 2014, at Terrae Conferene Centre, 114 the Terrae, Wellington. GG members present: Nyk Huntington (hair), Anthony Campbell, Tony Cartner, Anne Greenhalgh, Janet Hay, Paul Hursthouse, Andrew Kear, Mary Manderson, Graeme Marshall (from 11 am 2.15 pm). Attendees: Denise Holling, Kolose Lagavale, Mihele Miller, Peter Sherwin Apologies: Lindsay Spedding, Helen Anderson, Mino Cleverley, Denise Holling, Janet Hay (for lateness), Pete Sherwin (for lateness). 1 Meeting opened at 9.30 am with karakia and welome. The risk register was updated. 2 Minutes or summaries of previous meetings - June (previously irulated and published online). - September meeting with NZQA staff in response to signifiant questions raised during analysis. - Otober meeting to disuss the evaluation report of the appliation for Approval to Develop. (see Appendix 1). Confirmed as true and aurate reord. AGREED. 3 Matters arising Note speifially that non-english speaking International students are required to study 120 redits as a transition qualifiation. Some level one learners may need longer than 20 weeks to ahieve 60 redits. Both FRSWSNZ and Cornerstone Eduation (previously Adventure Eduation) have been sent the analyst s report. Representatives from FRSWSNZ met with Mihele for larifiation and are gathering the evidene of stakeholder onsultation whih was required. Ation list Refer to Appendix 2. Most items from June meeting are ompleted. Add Communiate to NZQA re new timeline. Minutes GG 27 November Foundation and Bridging Review Page 1

2 4 Correspondene reeived (previously irulated) - Universities NZ letter of support, reeived 21 July - Business NZ letter of support, reeived 29 September - NZQA report re appliation for approval to develop, reeived 22 Otober Reminder to submit both these letters with the appliation for approval to list. See also ation list. 5 Additional stakeholder feedbak was reeived after lose of last onsultation from: Bridgepoint Unite, South Paifi Eduational Courses Ltd, Nelson Marlborough Institute of Tehnology, Salvation Army Eduation and Employment, Te Wananga o Aotearoa, Valley Eduation & Training Enterprises Ltd, YWCA, Chair of Governane Group for Business review, BCITO, MITO, Employers and Manufaturers Assoiation, Infratrain, Industry Training Federation, Careerfore, Competenz, Skills Org, Trade and Commere Centre, NZ Counil of Trade Unions, Tertiary Eduators Union. The following points were disussed: Most respondents agreed that the graduate outomes would omplement other pathways and allow students to progress to the next level of study or training. Although these omments were reeived after the last onsultation losed, they were refleted in the summary of onsultation presented with the appliation to approval to develop. Strategi purpose statements and graduate profile outomes are being revised as a result of the analyst s report. This will address some of the points raised, for example, overlap between some GPO, lak of speifiity in redit alloation, alignment with NZQF and NCEA. Several industry groups ommented that speifi fous needed by industry is not provided. Suggest examples of programmes (not templates) ould be put into an aompanying doument. Add to ation list. Ensure lear progression between these qualifiations and lear target groups Credits from NC Foundation Skills an be diretly used for NCEA if they are gained from standards listed on the Diretory. Some topis are more suited to inlusion in programme douments. Flexibility in assessment and reognition of prior learning was also promoted. Stakeholder onern about the redibility of the new qualifiations how will they be marketed? Minutes GG 27 November Foundation and Bridging Review Page 2

3 6 Summary of omments on the submitted NZQF 2 and 6 forms. Note these forms were submitted to the NZQA analysts and informed part of the analyst s report. The following points were disussed: The majority (35/45 NZQF2, 47/55 NZQF 6) indiated their support for the qualifiations. GG need to provide evidene that effort has been made to address onerns, evidene of s have been sent. Some of the issues are outside the ontrol of GG, for example, the timing of olletion of the forms. Needs of international students have wider impliations for NZ. A more detailed explanation an be sent with the next NZQF 6. 7 Response to analyst s report on stage 1. - Reword strategi purpose statements - Rewrite graduate profile outome statements to higher level - Alloate speifi redits to outome statements Drafts were disussed in detail. Refer to separate douments. G. Marshall, P. Hursthouse, A. Greenhalgh and A. Campbell left the meeting before this disussion was onluded. Agreed to onfirm the draft qualifiations by . Minutes GG 27 November Foundation and Bridging Review Page 3

4 8 Plan for stage 2 of development. Due to the holiday season, the next opportunity for working groups is late January. The proposed timeline was disussed: DELIVERABLES TIMELINE 1 Preliminary Phase Completed 2 Review Phase Completed Review Report, Needs Analysis and Pre- Development Approval appliations submitted 3 Qualifiation Development Phase 30 June Governane Group meets to plan stage 2 27 November 3.2 Website update; Working groups reonvened Deember 3.3 Working groups add speifiations and onditions added to qualifiations 3.4 Governane Group approves qualifiations for onsultation January 2015 (to be onfirmed) 4 February (to be onfirmed) 3.5 Consultation with setor mid February to mid- Marh 3.6 Disussion of onsultation feedbak and final versions of all qualifiations agreed by Governane Group 3.7 Colletion of attestations and NZQF 6 forms Marh 3.8 Final versions of all qualifiations submitted to NZQA for approval 3.9 Foundation and bridging qualifiations registered on NZQF and Governane Group disbanded Regarding Marh (to be onfirmed) Week of 2 April August (to be onfirmed) Website update to inlude the proposed timeline so stakeholders are aware of Members of previous working groups to be invited to join the panels. Also invite other interested parties. Panel seletion based on experiene and representation. Panels need to operate within given parameters (see item 9). Agreed to onfirm plan by . 9 Guidane for working groups on speifiations and onditions (deferred). 10 Next meeting will be a teleonferene in mid-deember. Meeting losed at 3.45 pm. Minutes GG 27 November Foundation and Bridging Review Page 4

5 Appendix 1: Mandatory Review of Foundation and Bridging Qualifiations Governane Group Meeting Date: 29 Otober 2014 Loation: NZQA Time: Governane Group Members: 10.15am-2.30pm 125 The Terrae Nyk Huntington (Chair), Mary Manderson, Helen Anderson, Janet Hay, Lindsay Spedding, Tony Cartner, Andrew Kear Via EIT Video Conferene Paul Hursthouse, Anne Greenhaigh Via TWoA Te Awamutu Video Conferene from 11.00am to 1.45pm Anthony Campbell Other Attendees: NZQA Staff: Apologies: Denise Holling (minute-taker) Co-failitator Peter Sherwin NZQA Professional Advisor Via EIT Video Conferene Gianetta Lapsley EIT Senior Eduation Advisor (Quality) From am to pm Helen Seaver-Cross (NZQA Business Analyst) Dale Pierson (NZQA Team Leader) Mihelle Miller, Mino Cleverley, Graham Marshall Meeting Notes: 1 Welome. Options for ways of working were disussed and deided. The key points from the Business Analyst s Report needing further larifiation were identified as follows: 1. What is expeted from CUAP as evidene of support for the qualifiations? 2. What are the key issues relating to the Steiner Certifiates? (Not approved to Develop). 3. Why is it not aeptable to assign redits under a general ompeteny as indiated for the Working Groups? 4. Why no annotations on the Level 2 and Level 4 draft qualifiations? 5. What are the onsequenes of a mandatory stakeholder not signing the NZQF6 form (agreement to expire existing qualifiations?) 6. Requirement for GG sign off of NZQF2 and NZQF6 forms. What is the expetation are they required in addition to Institutional sign off? 2 Helen Seaver-Cross and Dale Pierson joined the group. Helen provided an overview of the appliation and identified areas of weakness. The questions listed above were posed. 1. The hallenge of getting universities to reognise the qualifiations was anowledged. CUAP s letter of support was tabled. It was reommended that this be submitted with other douments at the Approval to List stage as evidene. Minutes GG 27 November Foundation and Bridging Review Page 5

6 2. The lak of onsultation and stakeholder input as well as lak of evidene of a review proess were the areas of onern for the Steiner Certifiates. Existing qualifiations had been repakaged with hanged redit values but no rationale provided. The GG were reassured that low numbers of graduates from existing qualifiations was not a reason for not approving qualifiations. Dale agreed that if an was reeived from the GG onfirming the approah to be used to address the onerns of the analyst a resubmission of the Certifiates that they would be onsidered, rather than a new appliation. A tight timeline was set by NZQA for a resubmission ie end of November. Rationale needed for why different from NCEA. Strategi Purpose Statement ritial. One pager of key points plus supporting evidene reommended for submission. 3. All graduate profile statements must have redit values assigned this is an NZQA requirement. It was suggested that the graduate profiles should be reworked to move them to a higher level. 4. An NZQA time onstraint was the reason for no annotations being reeived on the Level 2 and Level 4 qualifiations. At the Approval to List stage it is expeted that all qualifiations would be annotated where appropriate. 5. Failure to gain NZQF6 sign off will ultimately result in NZQA expiring the qualifiations. It is important that key stakeholders endorse new qualifiations. If gaps exist it is important to outline the rationale of how they were involved and what opportunities were provided to gain sign off. 6. Sign off by GG members is expeted. 3 The Governane Group identified the resubmission of Steiner Shool Certifiates as a key priority. To failitate this, the Group agreed to provide ative support to Rudolf Steiner Waldorf Shools in NZ where neessary. The Key Evaluation Questions from the Analysts Report were then onsidered in turn. See Ation list below. Other ations arising from this disussion were: Urgently send analyst s report to Steiner Shool and establish whether the deadline of end of November is ahievable. (Mihele) Communiate hanged timeline to NZQA. (Mihele and Nyk) Shedule next meeting of Governane Group for mid-late November. (Mihele and Nyk) Nyk noted that, with Mihele now bak from leave, he would be arranging a meeting with her during the week beginning November 3 to disuss these issues/ations and the next steps in the proess. The Governane Group would be provided with notes from this meeting. Minutes GG 27 November Foundation and Bridging Review Page 6

7 Key points from evaluation report on appliation for Approval to Develop Ref Desription Comments/ By Whom Page 5 Qualifiation Developers be identified for three groups of qualifiations. Suggested: Foundation/Bridging potential arrangements in the absene of an obvious developer inlude NQS (supported by an advisory group), or a onsortium of providers. Steiner Rudolf Steiner Waldorf Shools NZ Biyle Adventure Eduation Ltd Nyk/Mihele will larify requirements for a developer (e.g. must it be a speifi legal entity). GG will identify suggested riteria for seletion following an Expression of Interest phase. KEQ1 Stakeholder Consultation and Input 1 Evidene of further onsultation and endorsement with relevant representatives following further development to the proposed qualifiations aross the suite. This should show how stakeholders feedbak (both negative and positive) has informed the final proposed qualifiation design. 2 Submit all remaining NZQF6 forms from stakeholders who will be affeted by this review regarding the proposed foundation and bridging qualifiations 3 Evidene of onsultation with Māori and Pasifika for the biyle qualifiations, and onfirmation that the ultural and soial aspirations of Māori and Pasifika learners have been onsidered by the developer for both the foundation and bridging, and biyle suites, or an explanation if this is not neessary KEQ1 Industry need for the proposed suite of qualifiations 4 Evidene from CUAP that the bridging qualifiations will meet university requirements for entry degree programmes and that graduates will be aepted into bahelor degrees (for example). 5 Clarifiation regarding where data was soured from in the needs analysis for the biyle qualifiations in relation to biyle import and biyle retail/hire statistis. Mihele Nyk - Consult with Maori/Pasifika groups via Ako networks Mihele Adventure Ed Nyk - Consult with Maori/Pasifika groups via Ako networks Mihele - Inlude CUAP letter with appliation to List. During approval to list proess, ask providers with existing arrangements with Universities to seek attestations from destination providers that new qualifiations/programmes will be reognised as they are now. Mihele/ Adventure Ed. Minutes GG 27 November Foundation and Bridging Review Page 7

8 KEQ 2 How well do the qualifiations strategi purpose, graduate profiles, and general design address the identified needs of employers, industry and/or ommunities? 1 Titles bridging qualifiations further onsideration alternative areer ould be work preparation 2 Indiative redit values for eah graduate profiles - Foundation and Bridging qualifiations at this point 3 Further development to the titles, strategi purpose statements. See below 3) Helen to draft revised graduate profile statements with indiative redit values and distribute to GG for feedbak Nyk to draft and distribute for feedbak ensuring the differenes from NCEA and are learly artiulated. 4 Detailed hange report transition arrangements Diretion required for working group to ensure differenes between NCEA literay and numeray requirements and progressions for ALNAT are expliit. Mihele new programmes from the beginning 2017 is realisti. Minutes GG 27 November Foundation and Bridging Review Page 8

9 Appendix 2: Ation list Ations from meetings held June, September, and Otober ( = ompleted) Ation Delegate Result 1 A disussion paper to CUAP about the UE All GG by Letter finalised issue sent to GG June 2 Letter is drafted to reommend a review of the results of the Mandatory Reviews to align qualifiations esp. level 1 & 2. All GG send input by . Letter finalised 13 June 3 Seek involvement of industry groups and urrent learners via providers in next onsultation. 4 Letter drafted for Manager of TROQ to inform NZQA of issues whih arose regarding TAFY and international students. 5 Draft qualifiations with agreed hanges irulated. 6 Do NZQA programme rules state a programme an lead to two or more qualifiations? Mihele All GG send input by . All GG Mihele Additional sent to industry groups 7 June Letter finalised 13 June Send by by 10 June Investigated. 7 Reply to NZCDI regarding their request All GG by . Letter finalised 13 June 8 Questions posed by NZQA staff prior to All GG Meeting held 30 analyst s report September 9 Communiate with FRSWSNZ and Mihele s and Cornerstone Eduation re analyst s report meeting. 10 Communiate hanges in timeline with NZQA Mihele 11 Further develop strategi purpose statements - Nyk Cirulated, on - inlude target group, differentiate from NCEA Nov agenda. 12 Revise graduate profile statements with Helen Cirulated, on indiative redit values Nov agenda. To be inluded in appliation for approval to Mihele list: Consultation and endorsement from stakeholders inluding letter of support from CUAP. Show how feedbak (both negative and positive) has informed the final proposed qualifiation design. Evidene of support from industry Evidene of support from Māori and Pasifika (Nyk) Evidene of support from universities All remaining NZQF6 forms Detailed hange reports 13 Qualifiation Developers reommended GG 14 Seek reply to letter to NZQA sent 13 June Mihele, Nyk 15 Reommend the provision of examples or GG to Qual vignettes to illustrate possible programmes Developer leading to these qualifiations in partiular ontexts. Minutes GG 27 November Foundation and Bridging Review Page 9

10 Minutes GG 27 November Foundation and Bridging Review Page 10