29 November 2004

The National Qualifications Framework is no longer of use to us:

• It is not national, in that it does not embrace all formally assessed training, public and private, in this country - not even the bulk of it.
• It does not function as a strategic national template for the creation of knowledge and skill.
• And it is not a comprehensive assemblage of qualifications, because despite its size it doesn't encompass many of them, nor is it able universally to assure their quality.

It has been built up over time by the accretion of qualifications developed in different sectors and through different awarding body conventions.

It is multi-layered, complex and confused, with content massively duplicated across qualifications and units.
It is inconsistent, in that similar qualifications have different titles and different levels of demand.

And for many qualifications, such as vendor-specific qualifications, it is irrelevant.

• Nor is it a framework, in that it is not a coherent and accessible and intelligible map, with which to navigate, to guide learners and employers along paths that lead to skills, knowledge, competence, personal fulfilment and national wealth.
• It is not directly market driven, by employers and employees in industry, nor informed by a clear view of what it means to be qualified or competent in each particular sector of the economy.
• It cannot be wielded as a strategic instrument for building the human capital of this country, and hence increasing our national competitiveness.

It cannot even be sensibly drawn as a diagram.

It is the Pitt Rivers Museum of skills development:

• a collection of almost 5000 qualifications and more than forty thousand units,
• assembled over the years by intrepid explorers in the archaeology and anthropology of vocational training,
• its artefacts preserved under glass for inspection on a wet Sunday afternoon,
• but of no use as a strategic instrument for national reform.

What we are launching this evening, for national discussion and consideration, is the necessary alternative.

We are proposing that there should be a framework of qualifications defined by only two dimensions - the level of the qualification, and its size.

On your seat you will have found two pages - the top one shows what this might look like.

The diagram is not part of the consultation document, because we want the consultation to be about matters of concept and principle rather than worked detail - but this shows one way the framework might look if the broad principles are adopted.

This illustration is of a framework built as a set of shelves:

• nine levels of increasing challenge or demand, from entry level to level 8,
• and each level having three sizes of qualification - for example:
• a Level 2 Award might be gained after completing units totalling 12 credits,
• a Level 2 Certificate with 40 credits,
• and a Level 2 Diploma with 90 credits.

The objective would be to populate this framework - to place on these shelves - qualifications:

• which are developed with the Skills for Business Network;
• which are market led, verified by industry and supported by employers;
• and which clearly signal what it takes to be qualified, that is competent, in each industry sector.

These qualifications would be the national occupational qualifications for a particular sector, branded nationally by the name of the industry sector rather than by the name of the awarding bodies delivering them.

They would be described simply by level and size: for example, Level 2 Certificate in Hairdressing, a Level 4 Award in Engineering Technology.

The qualifications themselves would be made up of units, each carrying a credit value.

This principle is illustrated on the second page.

So, a qualification in engineering, for example, might be made up of:

• some core units of a generic nature applicable to all engineering (health and safety would be one)
• optional units, which would be the bulk of the qualification, and which would relate to a particular branch of engineering (for example, chemical, electrical, mechanical engineering)
• and elective (or open) units, which might be specifically related to the needs of the employer (for example, project management skills), or to the needs of the individual learner (for example, small business management).

Most of these electives would come from units in other qualifications.

And the qualification would be continually updated by withdrawal of units that had passed their sell-by date, and their replacement with fresh units, without having to review and revise the qualification as a whole.

In responding to the remits on vocational qualifications and credit which have been given to us by Government, we - together with our partners in the Learning and Skills Council and the Skills for Business Network - believe that the concept and principles we are advancing for consultation have the potential to give England (indeed the United Kingdom) the set of levers so urgently needed to drive the Skills Strategy forward.

National ... because the units in the qualifications would be nationally held, owned and sponsored by industry itself, rather than by the awarding bodies which deliver them.

National ... because the units would be transferable across qualifications and awarding bodies.

National ... because there would be no dead ends and no learning lost.

National ... because the framework has the potential to recognise all learning, both publicly and privately funded, and to place quality-assured national credit recognition in the hands of employers who want their employees trained to meet specific job requirements, but not necessarily to complete whole qualifications.

National ... because the framework has the capacity to embrace high-quality short course training which is suitably assessed.

• It has the reach to include a wide range of learning not currently recognised.
• It would bring out into the vocational sunshine the type of community provision offered by the Open College Networks, and ensure that this learning is not only formally recognised but also has the potential to contribute to a qualification.

And finally, national ... because it can accommodate growth and imminent change:

• the redesign of apprenticeships as qualifications, and
• the provision of accessible learning pathways not just 14-19, but 14-90.

These proposals would open many doors for learners and for employers. But they will also present challenges for awarding bodies, for providers and for funding.

That is why this consultation is so important.

And getting the back-office end of the reform right is probably the most important key to success.

One vital ingredient will be the ability to record learner achievements centrally, and for this we need the Unique Learner Number.

The concept of accumulating units over time and transferring them freely between relevant qualifications and awarding bodies will be impossible using paper-based records held by the learner.

I therefore commend to you not just the document which you will take away this evening, but also the many events which we and our partners will be running over the next twelve weeks. Their details are in the consultation pack.

I also join with Ian Ferguson in emphasizing how productive has been our partnership with Chris Banks and Mark Haysom and the Learning and Skills Council, and with Margaret Salmon and Christopher Duff at the Sector Skills Development Agency.

One final thought: the framework of shelves I have described this evening is being built from solid English oak.

That's because the remit we have to develop the Framework for Achievement is from Ivan Lewis and Charles Clarke.

Yet the National Qualifications Framework, for all its deficiencies, is shared with Wales and Northern Ireland, and articulates with Scotland.

Our new framework can and must be built in such a way that all four countries can use it, with their qualifications and credit systems being accessed seamlessly across it – and indeed articulating with qualifications in Europe.

Our view is that these English shelves should be British shelves, and that they can be adjusted to hold the Welsh Baccalaureate and Scottish Highers, just as they could hold English A Levels now, and could hold whatever new qualifications might arise from the forthcoming White Paper.

That outcome of course can only be reached, as I believe it will be, by discussion and reason and where necessary, compromise. There is certainly goodwill on the part of all governments and regulatory authorities to engage constructively in this work.

If our approach to skills development is genuinely to be across the United Kingdom and internationally competitive, the most fundamental test of our success must be that a person beginning a qualification in Aberystwyth should be able to complete it in Aberdeen, Acton or Armagh, and have it recognised in Amsterdam, Avignon, Azerbaijan and even Australia.

Ken Boston