Ireland-Australia Qualiﬁ cations Frameworks Project Rec Australia... · Existing comparisons or...

Ireland-Australia Qualifi cations Frameworks Project

Comparison of the Irish National Framework of Quali� cations (NFQ) and the Australian Quali� cations Framework (AQF)

Context of the Project 2

Methodology of the Project 3

Analysis of the frameworks

General features 5

Purpose, origins and development 5

Context of the frameworks 6

Governance 7

Scope and range 8

Existing comparisons or alignments 8

Framework architecture 9

The description of learning outcomes 11

The description of levels 13

The description of award/quali� cation types 14

Quality assurance in the frameworks 16

Conclusions from the analysis 18

Next Steps 19

References 20

Appendices

1. Table: summary of key features of (Irish) NFQ and AQF 21

2. Education and training and the quali� cations system in Ireland – an overview 22

3. Education and training and the quali� cations system in Australia – an overview 25

4. Explanation of acronyms 28

Contents

1Comparison of the Irish National Framework of Qualifi cations (NFQ) and the Australian Qualifi cations Framework (AQF)

Introduction

The objective of the Ireland-Australia Qualifi cations Frameworks Project is to explore the possibility of a formal alignment of the Irish National Framework of Qualifi cations (NFQ) with the Australian Qualifi cations Framework (AQF). The Project was initiated following an invitation by the Australian Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR), to the National Qualifi cations Authority of Ireland (NQAI – an agency of the Irish Department of Education and Skills) to undertake a mapping exercise of the Irish and Australian qualifi cations frameworks. Within this context the Project has set out to map a range of aspects of each framework in order to achieve a meaningful comparison between them. This report presents the outcome of the comparison process.

The Project takes into account the current work of the AQF Council to strengthen the AQF and, as far as possible, makes comparisons by reference to the proposed revised architecture of the AQF.

Project Report prepared by Edwin Mernagh, Consultant on behalf of the Australian Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations and the National Qualifi cations Authority of Ireland

July 2010

The Project is undertaken against a backdrop of rapid development in recent times in establishing alignments between national qualifi cations frameworks and in referencing national frameworks to regional ‘meta-frameworks’. In Europe, two regional frameworks have now been introduced: the European Qualifi cations Framework for Lifelong Learning (EQF), a structure of eight levels, is designed to serve as a translation device to make qualifi cations more readable and understandable across different countries and systems; the Framework for Qualifi cations of the European Higher Education Area (FQEHEA – the so-called ‘Bologna Framework’) is another overarching structure, setting out cycles that provide benchmarks for achievement in higher education. Ireland completed and published the certifi cation of compatibility of the NFQ with the FQEHEA in 200�1. Also, in 2009, Ireland completed the referencing of its NFQ to the EQF2. The NQAI has already mapped Irish qualifi cations against those of the UK countries3, and New Zealand is in the process of mapping its qualifi cations framework against the Irish qualifi cations framework.

In the context of these developments, the Ireland-Australia Qualifi cations Frameworks Project is both timely and potentially of signifi cant benefi t to both partners. In particular, the fact that the Irish NFQ has already been referenced to both EQF and FQEHEA, and the mapping of Irish and UK qualifi cations, give grounds for suggesting that the outcomes of this project could assist the mapping of the AQF against the FQEHEA and the EQF, and against the qualifi cations frameworks of the UK countries and New Zealand. However, this project would not fulfi l the protocols necessary to formally align the AQF with the FQEHEA or the EQF or to other national frameworks to which the Irish NFQ has already been aligned.

For Ireland, the Project is consistent with the commitment of NQAI to increasing the transparency and recognition abroad of the qualifi cations in the Irish NFQ and to increasing the recognition in Ireland of international qualifi cations.

For Australia, the Project is consistent with DEEWR’s commitment to achieving a number of outcomes related to International Education including:

creating the environment for sustainable development of Australia’s international education engagement;

partnering with key stakeholders and allies to advance Australia’s international education objectives; and

encouraging more Australians to study abroad as part of their education experience.

In addition, the Project is consistent with the Australian Qualifi cations Framework Council’s terms of reference. The AQFC is currently undertaking a project to review and strengthen the AQF, under the direction of Australia’s Ministerial Council for Tertiary Education and Employment (MCTEE). The mapping exercise in this Project has been undertaken using the proposed AQF architecture (as at March 2010), rather than the existing AQF. It is expected that MCTEE will consider the structure of a strengthened AQF later in 2010.

1 http://www.nqai.ie/publication_nov2006.html2 http://www.nqai.ie/documents/EQFReferencingReportfi nalJune2009.pdf3 See Qualifi cations can cross boundaries – a rough guide to comparing qualifi cations in the UK and Ireland,

at www.qcda.gov.uk/22197.aspx

2 Ireland-Australia Qualifi cations Frameworks Project

Context of the Project

�Comparison of the Irish National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ) and the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF)

It is observed that the comparison of qualifications frameworks may, in general, be undertaken on the basis of:

framework levels

key ‘qualification types’ or ‘generic qualifications’

vocational relevance or occupational association of awards/qualifications

The Irish framework is comparable with other frameworks on the basis of levels or award/qualification types. It has been referenced to EQF on the basis of levels. It has been referenced to the ‘Bologna’ framework on the basis of award types. It has been aligned with the UK frameworks on the basis of a combination of level and award type factors. It is not feasible to identify occupational or vocational relevance factors that offer a realistic basis for comparison of the Irish framework.

Which approach to comparison is most appropriate to the Australian framework and to the task of relating the Australian framework to the Irish one? As the AQF provides both level descriptors and qualification type descriptors it would appear to be feasible that a comparison be made on the basis of a combination of level and award type factors.

An initial scoping exercise indicated that there are many points of similarity between the Irish and Australian frameworks, so that there are grounds for suggesting that a meaningful comparison between these frameworks can be established. The comparison process needs to be based on accurate and precise understandings of the two frameworks, how they operate and how they relate to the education and training systems in which they are situated. The Project therefore began by establishing a comprehensive description of each framework and its context. The description of each framework seeks to clarify

its scope – national, regional, sectoral?

its range – all qualifications, or limited to certain sectors?

its context – how it fits into the system of qualifications

its purpose, origins and development track

its governance arrangements

existing references to other frameworks, or comparisons established

the architecture of the framework

what is defined – levels? award types?

how levels and/or award types are defined

the range of levels

the technical structure of the level descriptors

dimensions or strands in the descriptors

other aspects of how descriptors are constructed

other information about awards available through the framework, e.g.

volume indicators or credit arrangements

articulation and progression arrangements

how the framework relates to the labour market

arrangements for quality assurance.

Methodology of the Project


All of this information is readily available for the Irish framework, having been assembled recently for the EQF referencing which was completed and published in 2009. All of the technical specifi cations for the Irish framework are set out in defi nitive, published policy papers. At present the main sources of information about the Australian framework are the AQF Implementation Handbook (Fourth Edition, 200�) and the AQFC Consultation Paper4 on ‘Strengthening the AQF’ (2009). In addition, information was sourced from a range of draft documents associated with the review of the AQF.

The information gathered from these sources was verifi ed and elaborated through direct consultation with the Australian authorities undertaken in March 2010.

It is realised that the specifi cations for a revised AQF, as set out, are not yet defi nitive. However, it is considered by the Australian authorities that the policies and criteria for AQF emerging from the current development process are suffi ciently developed to support the proposed comparison. The analysis of the Irish framework presented here has been agreed with the Irish framework authority. All in all, the body of information assembled is suffi cient to enable the comparison of the NFQ and the AQF in terms of a range of meaningful factors, providing a fi rm basis for a possible future alignment of the two frameworks.

4 http://www.aqf.edu.au/Portals/0/Strengthening%20the%20AQF%20-%20An%20Architecture%20for%20Australias%20Qualifi cations.pdf


Purpose, origins and development of the frameworks

Irish NFQ AQF

The National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ) was introduced in 2003 as the key element in a broad reform of the system of qualifications in Ireland, arising out of the 1999 Qualifications (Education and Training) Act. The initial process of developing the framework had been under way from 2001 to 2003.

The NFQ is the single structure in the Irish education and training system through which learning achievements are measured and related to one another; it defines the relationship between all education and training awards.

The process of implementing the NFQ has been under way since 2003 and by 2010 is very far advanced. The Framework now accommodates the vast majority of awards made for learning in Ireland, including most ‘legacy’ awards made under former systems.

The Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) was introduced on 1 January 1995 and was phased in over five years, with full implementation by the year 2000. It replaced the previous Register of Australian Tertiary Education (1990-1995) that referenced qualifications in the VET and higher education sectors. The AQF was developed at the request of State, Territory and Commonwealth Education and Training Ministers meeting as the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA), now the Ministerial Council for Tertiary Education and Employment (MCTEE), in response to the emergence of the VET sector and Australia’s economic and social needs for skilled workers and paraprofessionals with qualifications.

The AQF is a policy matrix bringing all of Australia’s education and training qualifications into one comprehensive framework which underpins the Australian qualification system.

In 2009-2010 a process has been undertaken to strengthen the AQF by developing and introducing a more contemporary architecture for the framework.

There is significant comparability between the two frameworks in their origins and in their development processes to date. Both frameworks originate in government policies designed to reform systems for the recognition of learning achievements: in particular, to orient the qualifications system more strongly to support lifelong learning and workforce mobility, widen opportunities for access to qualifications and improve pathways of progression for learners. Both frameworks identify as target groups: learners, employers, providers of education and training and awarding bodies or accrediting authorities. The enhanced framework emerging from the current process to strengthen AQF could be described as a ‘second generation’ framework.

Analysis of the Frameworks – general features

� Ireland-Australia Qualifications Frameworks Project

Context of the frameworks

See Appendices 2 and 3 for descriptions of the general education and training system contexts in which the NFQ and AQF function

Irish NFQ AQF

The National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ) operates in the context of an education and training system that is quite centralised.

The NFQ is the key element in a reformed system of qualifications introduced in Ireland in recent years. The legislation that enabled the development of the NFQ also rationalised the range of ‘awarding bodies’ with power to award qualifications. It set out the roles and responsibilities of awarding bodies and established two dedicated ‘awards councils’.

The policy matrix associated with the NFQ includes policies and criteria for access, transfer and progression for learners, but the Framework does not itself create or define pathways.

AQF operates in the context of Australia as a federal country, in which responsibility for education and training is shared between the Australian Government and state and territory governments.

The AQF defines the relationships and pathways between qualifications through descriptors and guidelines for each qualification and through policies regarding issuance of qualifications and credit arrangements. However, the use of AQF qualifications and adherence to AQF requirements is underpinned by legislation in each state and territory for the accreditation of qualifications and the registration of institutions to issue the qualifications. Under the proposed new arrangements, accreditation and registration functions will be undertaken by new Commonwealth Government agencies, underpinned by legislation.

The two frameworks differ in the way they interface with other elements of the education and training system in their respective countries. AQF sets out policies in relation to implementation matters such as issuance of qualifications and credit arrangements. Adherence to the AQF is currently underpinned by legislation in each state and territory for the accreditation of qualifications and the registration of institutions to issue the qualifications. However, current reform work will result in accreditation and registration being undertaken by national regulatory bodies for VET and higher education. In Ireland, the primary ‘users’ of the NFQ are the awarding bodies, who develop and implement their awards systems, including policies and criteria in relation to operational matters such as provider accreditation and certificate issuance, within guidelines set in the legislation and in the NFQ criteria. Planning is under way to amalgamate the functions of the awards councils and the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland, which will further rationalise the already small range of awarding bodies.

These differences between the frameworks have to do with how they operate in context: they relate to differences between the qualifications systems generally in the two countries. In terms of the factors that would support or inhibit an alignment process of the frameworks themselves and the qualifications they contain, the AQF and NFQ are inherently similar.


Governance of the frameworks

Irish NFQ AQF

The National Qualifications Authority of Ireland (NQAI) was established on a statutory basis in 2001, under the Qualifications (Education and Training) Act 19995. This legislation was proposed by the Minister for Education and Science now Department of Education and Skills, whose responsibilities cover general education, further education and higher education in Ireland. The Authority also operates under the aegis of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation.

The Authority has three principal objects under the Qualifications Act: to establish and maintain a framework of qualifications; to establish and promote the maintenance and improvement of the standards of awards; and to promote and facilitate access, transfer and progression.6

NQAI has been designated as the National Coordination Point for EQF in Ireland and was thus responsible for overseeing the referencing of the NFQ to EQF. NQAI is also the Irish centre for the recognition of international qualifications, known as Qualifications Recognition – Ireland.

When the AQF was introduced in 1995, the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) established an AQF Advisory Board, which was replaced in 2008 by the Australian Qualifications Framework Council. Following changes in 2009, the AQF Council is now responsible to the Ministerial Council for Tertiary Education and Employment (MCTEE) and, for matters related to school education, to the Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs (MCEECDYA).

The role of the Council is to provide Education and Training Ministers with authoritative advice on the strategic strengthening of the AQF; on developing flexible qualification linkages and pathways; on national and international issues with implications for national qualifications policy; and on national and international recognition, comparability of qualification standards and alignment of qualifications standards/frameworks. The Council also has a range of functions relevant to the management and implementation of the AQF7.

There are many similarities between the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland (NQAI) and the Australian Qualifications Framework Council (AQFC), both in terms of their roles and responsibilities. Both are national bodies with a remit specifically focused on the development of the qualifications system. However, there are also significant differences between these two bodies:

While NQAI operates under the aegis of two Irish ministries, it is in itself a body established under statute and is the representative body for Ireland in relation to qualifications matters internationally; it incorporates the ENIC and NARIC functions for Ireland in the form of the Qualifications Recognition – Ireland service.

The AQF Council itself is not an Authority and has no legal basis. It is an advisory Council of MCTEE which operates under a joint agreement by the Commonwealth, state and territory jurisdictions; its functions relate to the technical development and management of the qualifications system in Australia and to provision of expert advice to the Ministerial Council. The use of AQF qualifications and adherence to AQF requirements is underpinned by legislation in each state and territory for the accreditation of qualifications and the registration of institutions to issue the qualifications. Current reform work will result in accreditation and registration being undertaken by national regulatory bodies for VET and higher education. Responsibility for international matters in relation to Australian qualifications resides with the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR).

Taking into account the various roles and responsibilities of AQFC and DEEWR in relation to AQF and to Australian qualifications, it is clear that NQAI and DEEWR are the bodies with the appropriate remit in their respective countries to engage in a process of framework comparison and, if this is considered necessary, to establish an alignment between the Irish NFQ and the AQF. However, the comparison process and any future alignment undertaking are reliant on the technical support of AQFC, and the Council has been a key partner for NQAI in implementing the Ireland-Australia Qualifications Frameworks Project.

� The legislation can be found at http://www.nqai.ie/documents/qualificationsact1999.pdf� Additional information on the role of the Qualifications Authority is available at http://www.nqai.ie/about_role.html� The terms of reference of AQFC can be found at http://www.aqf.edu.au/Portals/0/AQF%20Council%20Terms%20of%20Reference

%20July%202009.pdf

� Ireland-Australia Qualifications Frameworks Project

Scope and range of the frameworks

Irish NFQ AQF

The Irish NFQ is a national framework of qualifications. The NFQ accommodates awards made for achievement in all sectors of education and training, including general education, further education and training and higher education and training.

The AQF is a single quality assured national framework of qualifications in the schools, vocational education and training (VET), and higher education sectors in Australia.

It is clearly evident that the two frameworks are national in scope and comprehensive in range.

Existing comparisons or alignments

Irish NFQ AQF

Ireland completed and published the certification of compatibility of the NFQ with the FQEHEA in 2006.

Ireland completed and published the referencing of the NFQ to the EQF in 2009.

Irish qualifications have been mapped against those of the UK countries.

The process of mapping Irish qualifications against those of New Zealand has recently been completed.

No formal mapping processes have been undertaken to make direct comparisons between Australian and international qualifications. However the AQF is used extensively by AEI-NOOSR (Australian Education International – National Office of Overseas Skills Recognition), professional associations and other agencies when assessing overseas qualifications, largely for the purpose of comparing individual’s overseas qualifications for work or migration to Australia. A considerable body of case-study data has been gathered by AEI-NOOSR, and many one-to-one relationships between Australian and international qualifications have been identified.

NQAI is the body responsible for the mapping of Irish qualifications against those of other countries and for the establishment of comparisons and alignments between the Irish framework and international qualifications structures. Several significant comparison exercises have been undertaken to date. The Australian Government takes the lead on matters of international engagement and, as such, DEEWR would lead any work on international comparison of qualifications, in consultation with the AQFC. While no comparisons or alignments of AQF have been undertaken to date, it is noted that the work of AEI-NOOSR has established a considerable body of evidence in relation to the international comparison of specific Australian qualifications and it is reasonable to expect that some of this data would inform any possible future process of aligning the Australian AQF and the Irish NFQ.


The architecture for the AQF described here is the proposed model, as at March 2010, set out in the current work of the AQF Council to strengthen the AQF.

Irish NFQ AQF

10 Levels, defined on the basis of learning outcomes to be achieved

10 Levels, defined on the basis of learning outcomes to be achieved

Level indicators Level summaries

Level criteria

16 major award-types 15 qualification types

A ‘notional duration of student learning’ range has been developed for each qualification type

Classes of award-type: major, minor, supplemental and special purpose

It is clearly evident that the Irish NFQ and the AQF share some core design features:

Both are structures of levels, defined on the basis of learning outcomes to be achieved.

Each comprises 10 levels.

Both frameworks define generic award-types or qualification types and provide descriptors for these.

However, there are also evident differences between them:

In the NFQ, levels are defined by ‘level indicators’; AQF describes its levels in terms of ‘level summaries’ and ‘level criteria’ (the distinction between the frameworks in the ways they describe their levels is further discussed in the section on ‘the description of levels’ below).

In the NFQ, award-type descriptors were developed using level indicator ‘statements’ as building blocks; in the AQF, the new ‘revised’ qualification type descriptors have been developed from types already in use, taking into account the taxonomy of learning outcomes via the relevant level descriptors.

The AQF has developed a measurement of the volume of learning, based on the notional duration of student learning, to augment the learning outcomes descriptors for the qualification types; the NFQ offers only a small/medium/large guideline in this respect.

The NFQ structure includes a system for classifying awards as major, minor, supplemental or special-purpose, enabling more limited or specialised sets of learning outcomes to be recognised in awards that are included in the framework, in addition to the sixteen major award-types for which descriptors are provided as part of the framework architecture. The AQF architecture does not have a similar feature. However it does allow for accredited short courses provided they lead to an AQF qualification. These courses are defined as ‘a program of learning accredited by an authority that comprises two or more components leading to an AQF qualification’. The AQF also allows for acknowledgement of partial completion of a qualification through the issuance of ‘statements of attainment’ and academic transcripts.

Framework architecture – overview


Neither of these frameworks includes in its architecture a coherent credit system – certainly not in the sense that credit has been incorporated into the fabric of the UK frameworks. The Irish NFQ policy matrix sets out guidelines for the use of credit and the recommended credit metric can also be used as a volume measure, but this is not part of the actual structure of the framework. In the AQF, there is an existing policy on credit arrangements. The need for further information on credit and articulation is being considered as part of the current strengthening project.

Taking account of all of these similarities and dissimilarities, there are clear grounds for a further investigation of the comparability of the framework architecture of the AQF and the Irish NFQ, concentrating on the core design features that they have in common. The next step is therefore to look more closely at

how the two frameworks describe and classify learning outcomes

how the levels structures of the two frameworks are designed and presented

how award-types or qualifi cation types are described.

11Comparison of the Irish National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ) and the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF)

Framework architecture – the description of learning outcomes

In both the Irish NFQ and the AQF, the framework architecture is based on levels defined in terms of the learning outcomes expected from a learner who is to receive an award. The way learning outcomes are described is therefore a crucial characteristic of these frameworks, and each sets out explicitly the taxonomy of learning outcomes used as the basis of the levels definitions.

Irish NFQ AQF

Knowledge

Knowledge is the cognitive representation of ideas, events or happenings; it can be derived from practical or professional experience as well as from formal instruction or study.

Knowledge is described in separate substrands terms of ‘Breadth’ and ‘Kind’

Knowledge

Knowledge is what a graduate8 knows and understands.

Knowledge can be described in terms of depth, breadth, kinds of knowledge and complexity.

Know-how and skill

Skill is the goal-directed performance of a task in interaction with the environment. Know-how is the procedural knowledge required to carry out a task.

Know-how and skill are described in separate substrands in terms of ‘Range’ and ‘Selectivity’

Skills

Skills refer to what a graduate can do, including cognitive skills, technical skills, creative skills and generic skills.

Skills can be described in terms of kinds and complexity.

Competence

Competence is the effective and creative demonstration and deployment of knowledge and skill in human situations.

Competence is described in separate substrands in terms of ‘Context’, ‘Role’, ‘Learning to Learn’ and ‘Insight’

Application

Application of knowledge and/or skills refers to how a graduate applies knowledge and skills in context

Application is expressed in terms of autonomy, responsibility and accountability.

There are striking similarities in the way the two frameworks address the task of describing learning outcomes. The taxonomy of learning outcomes for AQF, as set out in the AQFC consultation paper on An Architecture for Australia’s Qualifications (2009), is succinct and concise, as are the definitions of the levels criteria set out to accompany Version � of the framework descriptors. The definitions of knowledge, skill and competence as the outcomes of learning set out in the policies and criteria for the Irish NFQ9 are somewhat more expansive. Both taxonomies are neutral in relation to specific occupational relevance and to ‘fields of learning’, setting out three ‘strands’ or ‘dimensions’ of learning outcomes: knowledge, skill and application/competence.

� A ‘graduate’ is an individual who has completed a qualification9 Policies and Criteria for the Establishment of the National Framework of Qualifications, NQAI, 2003, (pp21-22)

12 Ireland-Australia Qualifications Frameworks Project

There are also significant variations in approach in the two frameworks. The AQF explains how generic skills are embedded in the three core dimensions. While the AQF itself is sector neutral, for historical reasons, the generic skills are described somewhat differently in the various education and training sectors although they have the same general features10. Perhaps more significantly, while the AQF elaborates the terms in which the three core dimensions of learning outcomes are described, the NFQ sets out separate, distinct ‘substrands’ of knowledge, skill and competence which are followed through in the structure of the indicators for the levels in the framework. Both the NFQ and AQF avoid direct reference to learning mode or institutional setting.

KnowledgeBoth frameworks define level-progression strands for knowledge in broadly similar terms. Both set out to describe the kind of knowledge involved at each level, referring to progression from concrete to theory, or abstraction, and to increasingly cumulative knowledge. The NFQ offers a substrand that describes the breadth of knowledge, referring to progressive diversity and complexity. The AQF draws these concepts out more explicitly, describing knowledge in terms of the depth, breadth, kind and complexity involved. There are clear parallels in the underlying concepts on which these different approaches to the description of knowledge are based, and many common keywords are used.

SkillThis aspect of learning outcomes is referred to as ‘Skills’ in the AQF, whereas NFQ refers to ‘Know-how and Skill’. The AQF taxonomy sets out that skills are to be described in terms of kind and complexity; it elaborates the kinds of skill involved, listing cognitive, technical, creative and generic skills. The NFQ avoids any listing of skill types. It proposes the differentiation of levels in terms of the range or diversity of skills involved, including the concepts of a progression from the commonplace to the innovative and the ‘completeness’ of the set of skills. The NFQ also offers as a substrand the selectivity or procedural responsiveness associated with a level, through which the judgement the learner exercises in carrying out procedures is described. The elaboration of cognitive and technical skills in the AQF taxonomy reveals many conceptual parallels with the NFQ substrands; however, the communications skills referred to in several of the AQF levels are not reflected in any obvious way in the NFQ substrands.

Competence/ApplicationThere is a strong parallel in the underlying meaning of these headings. Both frameworks refer to the application, or deployment, of knowledge and skill. In the elaboration of this core concept, further strong parallels emerge. Both definitions seek to describe the context in which knowledge and skill are applied, suggesting a progression range in terms of predictability, familiarity and complexity. Further similarities are found between the expression of knowledge and skills in terms of autonomy, responsibility and accountability (in AQF) and in the ‘role’ substrand of competence (in NFQ). The NFQ also offers two further factors for describing competence, through substrands that set out progression in ‘learning to learn’ and in ‘insight’. Neither of these factors is paralleled in the AQF.

From this analysis of the descriptions of learning outcomes that underpin the construction of levels in the NFQ and the AQF, it is clear that there is a strong correspondence between the frameworks in the understandings of the meaning of learning outcomes on which they are based. Following on from this, it is evident that a meaningful comparison of the levels in the two frameworks can be based on ‘knowledge’, ‘skill’ and ‘competence/application’ as the primary comparative factors.

10 Defining generic skills: at a glance NCVER, 2003

1�Comparison of the Irish National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ) and the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF)

Irish NFQ AQF

10 Levels 10 Levels

Levels defined on the basis of learning outcomes to be achieved

Levels defined on the basis of learning outcomes to be achieved

Level indicators Levels summaries

Levels criteria

In the AQF, two key components are used to describe each level in the framework: level attributes and level criteria:

The levels summaries are the key characteristics of a level, with each level building on the previous level. Each level attribute refers to the applicability of the learning outcomes for that level in terms of further learning and employment/professional practice

The levels criteria describe the characteristics and context of learning at each level in terms of three dimensions of learning outcomes (knowledge, skills and the application of knowledge and skills). It is the particular combination of all three dimensions that makes each level unique.

In the structure of the Irish NFQ, levels are defined by a set of level indicators. The indicators are broad descriptions of learning outcomes at a given level, set out in terms of eight substrands of knowledge, skill and competence.

The arrangements for the description of levels in the two frameworks are highly comparable. Both are 10-level frameworks. The AQF levels criteria provide information that closely parallels that provided in the NFQ level indicators. The NFQ indicators superficially present as somewhat more complex, because the statements that make up the full description of outcomes for a level are arrayed in eight separate substrands, whereas in the AQF criteria the descriptions are set out in three dimensions, but with complex statements for each dimension. In both frameworks, the description of a level is a combination of the statements set out in all strands or dimensions of outcomes.

In addition to the levels criteria, the AQF also sets out levels summaries. While the level indicators are the sole defining element for the NFQ levels, the key policy paper11 that introduced the framework also provides a non-definitive synopsis of level outcomes; the additional information about the learning outcomes at each level, contained in the synopsis, is comparable to that provided in the AQF levels summaries, particularly in that it refers to employment and professional role opportunities associated with each level. Also, in this regard, it should be noted that the potential for further learning associated with a level is captured in the NFQ level indicators in a substrand for ‘learning to learn’.

Considering all aspects of the description of levels in the AQF and in the NFQ, it can be concluded that the comparability of the approaches in the two frameworks is such that the structure of levels would serve as a suitable starting point for a referencing or alignment of the two frameworks; this could begin with a technical analysis, on both conceptual and semantic bases, of the correspondence between the levels in the two frameworks, using the dimensions of knowledge, skill and competence/application as the primary categorisation of learning outcomes.

11 Determinations for the Outline National Framework of Qualifications, NQAI, 2003, available at http://www.nqai.ie/docs/publications/12.pdf

Framework architecture – the description of levelsIn both the AQF and the Irish NFQ, the descriptions of the framework levels are set out in grids, or tables. The AQF table comprises 40 cells, each containing a ‘statement’ that captures an element in the description of a level. The NFQ grid comprises �0 cells. It is necessary to consider how these descriptions are constructed so that their similarities and differences can be analysed.

14 Ireland-Australia Qualifications Frameworks Project

Framework architecture – the description of award/qualification typesIn addition to arrays of levels, both the AQF and the Irish NFQ provide sets of descriptors for generic types of qualifications. These descriptors derive their key characteristics from the level structure of the framework to which they belong, but in somewhat different ways. They also provide other information that assists qualification developers, accrediting authorities and awarding bodies in specifying qualifications in accordance with the relevant framework criteria.

Irish NFQ AQF

Range of Types 16 major award-types 15 qualification types

Level 1-10 1-10

Classification Classes of award-type: major, minor, supplemental and special purpose

The AQF does not recognises classes of awards however it does allow for accredited short courses provided they lead to an AQF qualification.

Purpose One generic statement for all types Statements elaborated from level attributes

Learning outcomes descriptors

Eight substrands of knowledge, know-how and skill, and competence

Three dimensions – knowledge, skills and application of knowledge and skills

Volume Small/medium/large A ‘notional duration of student learning’ range has been developed for each qualification type

Progression Statements setting out progression/transfer and, in some types, articulation

Policy on credit arrangements (to be updated mid 2010) and specifications in the AQF Manual

The two frameworks provide qualification type descriptors or award type descriptors in a broadly similar model. The core information in both cases is a description of the learning outcomes associated with that award/qualification type, based on the outcomes that define the framework levels.

There are, however, differences in the way this information is derived or elaborated from the level indicators or criteria. In the AQF, the statements describing the knowledge, skills and application appropriate to a qualification type are elaborations on the relevant levels criteria: significant additional descriptor text is provided, particularly in relation to the dimensions of skills and the application of knowledge and skills. By contrast, the NFQ award-type descriptors draw verbatim from the learning outcome statements in the level indicators. Some NFQ award-type descriptors are purely drawn from one level and are thus identical to the level indicator; others draw some statements from indicators above or below the ‘core’ level indicator for that award. The NFQ level indicators can thus be thought of as a reservoir of ‘building blocks’ for the award-types. Both of these design approaches enable the construction of award/qualification types that are at the same level in their framework but that are nevertheless significantly different in nature.

1�Comparison of the Irish National Framework of Qualifi cations (NFQ) and the Australian Qualifi cations Framework (AQF)

The AQF Users Manual will provide the requirements for the construction of qualifi cations including that developers and accreditors take into account both the level criteria and qualifi cation type descriptors.

Apart from the learning outcome descriptors, award/qualifi cation type descriptors offer a variety of other kinds of information. Some of these seek to differentiate between awards/qualifi cations of different ‘sizes’ or ‘completeness’. The NFQ provides a classifi cation of awards as major, minor, supplemental and special purpose, which is not paralleled in the AQF. On the other hand, the AQF provides a ‘notional duration of student learning’ range for each qualifi cation type, whereas the NFQ offers a simple ‘small – medium – large’ scale. The AQF provides a succinct description of the purpose of each qualifi cation type, mainly focused on applicability to further learning and employment contexts or professional roles, elaborated from the relevant level summary; the NFQ award-type descriptors all share a single generic purpose statement – however, it should be noted that further information on employment relevance of Irish awards is provided in a synopsis of level outcomes that is appended to the level indicator grid. The NFQ specifi es the possibilities for progression, transfer and articulation associated with each award-type; the AQF does not have this feature, but it is noted that information about (progression) pathways is proposed to be included in qualifi cation specifi cations.

While there are signifi cant differences in the approach taken to the description of award/qualifi cation types in AQF and in NFQ, it is nevertheless the case that the core concept – of a framework that provides descriptors for generic award/qualifi cation types as well as descriptors for levels – is common to both frameworks. The original tradition of the AQF is based on qualifi cation types rather than on levels defi ned on independent criteria. Taking all of these factors into account, it is suggested that a referencing or alignment of the two frameworks should include an analysis of the correspondence between their award/qualifi cation types in addition to the correspondence between their levels.

1� Ireland-Australia Qualifications Frameworks Project

Quality assurance in the Irish NFQFrom the outset, the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland and education and training stakeholders have identified ‘quality’ as one of the fundamental values and principles upon which the National Framework of Qualifications would be based. It was also recognised that putting this principle into operation would necessarily be a complex process, as the legal responsibility for assuring the quality of awards in the Framework, and the education and training provision leading to them, is shared by a variety of awarding bodies, education and training providers and regulatory authorities, who function within distinct sectors or parts of sectors in the broader education and training system, and within distinct quality assurance traditions and cultures.

As the custodian of the NFQ and its values, the Qualifications Authority engages with all of these bodies and organisations in order to promote a consistent and internationally-recognised quality culture across the system. This task is greatly facilitated by the fact that the different sectoral Quality Assurance systems (QA) share significant common features. All of the sectoral QA systems – whether in the schools sector, in further education and training and higher education and training – are enabled by underpinning national legislation and, since the advent of the NFQ in 2003, a shared interest in supporting the implementation of the Framework. A partnership approach between the awarding bodies, the providers of education and training and the regulatory authorities operating in each sector is also much in evidence, which not only facilitates the acceptance and smooth operation of the sectoral QA systems themselves but also provides important fora for disseminating information on the NFQ and how it can be integrated into the QA systems. Other enablers that are shared across the sectors include practitioner networks and, increasingly, international quality reference points.

As well as these shared ‘enablers’, the various sectors are also concerned to use quality assurance processes as developmental tools, whether the particular processes relate to schools, further education and training (FET) and higher education and training (HET) institutions, curricula, programmes of education and training and the related awards. This developmental dimension is frequently underpinned by research into good practice with a view to improving the quality processes on a continuing basis, and has been and continues to be a crucial factor in integrating the NFQ into the different QA systems.

Another dimension of quality assurance that operates across the different sectors is a common concern with monitoring and review. Particular monitoring and review processes include the inspection and evaluation of schools by the Department of Education and Skills, the institutional review of higher education institutions by the Higher Education and Training Awards Council (HETAC) and the Irish Universities Quality Board (IUQB) and the provider monitoring processes operated by the two awards Councils. Such processes are also being used more and more to facilitate the implementation of the NFQ.

The existence of nationally-agreed quality assurance arrangements underpins the utility and credibility of the NFQ as a tool for comparing, contrasting and recognising qualifications, and for opening up diverse learning opportunities for prospective learners.

Quality assurance in the frameworks


Quality assurance in the AQFQuality assurance is an integral component of the Australian education and training system.

Currently, the registration of training organisations and accreditation of courses are responsibilities of state and territory governments. Reform work is under way which will result in accreditation and registration being undertaken by national regulatory bodies in the VET and higher education sectors.

An important component of the quality assurance system in the VET sector is the Australian Quality Training Framework (AQTF). This is the national set of standards which assures nationally consistent, high-quality training and assessment services for the clients of Australia’s national VET system. It comprises national standards for the registration and auditing of training providers and accreditation of courses, and national standards for state and territory registering authorities. The standards are developed collaboratively by the Australian and state/territory governments, industry and training organisations under the auspices of the National Quality Council (NQC). The NQC oversees quality assurance and ensures national consistency in the application of the AQTF standards for the audit and registration of training providers.

Training providers must adhere to the essential standards for registration, the quality indicators and the conditions of registration to become a Registered Training Organisation (RTO) authorised to deliver and assess nationally recognised training and issue nationally recognised qualifications. These Standards apply to registering bodies in quality assuring the training and assessment services that RTOs provide. Registering bodies are required to report annually to the NQC. In addition, the Excellence Criteria component of the AQTF provides a voluntary business framework that RTOs may use internally to continue improving the quality of their training and assessment or externally to gain formal recognition of their performance.

The AQTF Quality Indicators for RTOs assist RTOs to enhance continuous improvement to strengthen their training and business performance. These Indicators are employer satisfaction, learner satisfaction and competency completion. Reports of Quality Indicator data, along with other information such as audit history and substantiated complaints, contribute to a registering body’s assessment of an RTO’s quality, and inform decisions concerning the frequency and targeting of audits.

Training Packages are sets of nationally endorsed units of competency, skills sets and qualifications, developed on an industry basis by Industry Skills Councils (ISCs). The NQC endorses Training Packages and oversights quality assurance under the National Skills Framework.

Quality assurance in Australia’s higher education system is based on a strong partnership between the Australian Government, state and territory governments and the higher education sector. State and territory governments are responsible for the administration of university legislation, accrediting new universities and accrediting higher education courses offered by non-self-accrediting institutions. Universities are autonomous statutory bodies and are self-accrediting.

The National Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes have been designed to ensure consistent criteria and standards across Australia. The Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA) conducts quality assurance audits of higher education institutions. The focus of these audits includes teaching, learning, research and management. AUQA also conducts quality assurance audits of the state and territory higher education accreditation authorities. The outcomes of audits are made public.

The Australian Government also monitors the provision of education and training services to international students in Australia through the Education Services for Overseas Students (ESOS) Act 2000 and associated legislation.

External bodies play an integral role in assuring the continuing high quality of higher education in Australia. Professional bodies accredit higher education courses in certain professions, higher degrees by research are externally evaluated, and universities cooperate to provide peer reviews in the competitive grants process.


The comparison of the proposed strengthened AQF and the Irish NFQ indicates that the two frameworks, while by no means identical, share many core concepts and design features. Certain key similarities suggest that an alignment between the two frameworks is feasible and these areas of comparability could form the basis of a process of establishing the correspondences between the levels and award/qualifi cation types in the two frameworks:

Both frameworks are formal national structures. However, the NFQ operates under statutory governance while the AQF is currently underpinned by legislation in each state and territory for the accreditation of qualifi cations and the registration of institutions to issue the qualifi cations.

Both frameworks are comprehensive, accommodating qualifi cations from the general education, vocational/further education and training and higher education and training sectors.

Both frameworks use comparable approaches to the description of learning outcomes.

Both frameworks are structures of ten levels, with levels described in indicators (NFQ) or attributes and criteria (AQF), expressed in terms of learning outcomes and set out in tables.

Both frameworks defi ne award/qualifi cation types, with type descriptors derived from the levels indicators or criteria.

Both frameworks operate in systems where a variety of quality assurance arrangements are in place, so that all qualifi cations included are quality assured.

Other features of the two frameworks offer less evidence of comparability from the initial analysis, but further analysis and assembly of information as yet unavailable may indicate other areas where correspondence can be established.

1�

Conclusions from the analysis


The key outcome of the comparison study is the conclusion that a formal alignment between the Irish NFQ and the AQF is feasible. A further objective of the Ireland-Australia Qualifications Frameworks Project is to propose an appropriate methodology for the referencing of the NFQ and the AQF with a view to it contributing to any future developments on a recognition agreement between the two countries.

The recommended approach to the referencing of the NFQ and the AQF is to build on the areas of comparability established in the present study. The next step should be to identify the correspondences between the NFQ and AQF levels and award/qualification types. The process could comprise the following steps:

to begin by examining existing evidence from comparison exercises already undertaken, including the results of the present study,

to establish points at which strong correspondence is indicated,

to undertake a process of direct comparison of the text in the NFQ level indicators and in the AQF level attributes and criteria, in order to establish correspondences between the levels, and

to undertake a type-to-type correlation of the award/qualification types in the two frameworks.

The most cursory examination of the statements describing levels in the NFQ and in the AQF suggests that that there is a close correspondence in the language used and in the concepts that underlie the descriptor statements. Taking into account the results of the comparison between NFQ and AQF set out in this study, there are strong grounds for attempting to compare the NFQ and AQF levels through a detailed cross-referencing of the text in the statements that define the learning outcomes relevant to the levels in each framework. As a first step in this process, the AQF level criteria and the NFQ level indicators could be aligned in tables, in sets of statements for the factors of knowledge, skill and application/competence. This would enable cross-referencing of the statements in the two frameworks, level by level and factor by factor. A second step could be the identification of areas in the two frameworks where initial comparison would suggest that that the correspondence between these levels is particularly strong. The cross-referencing should begin with these levels and work out from these to other areas of the frameworks where the correspondences are less apparent.

As the outcome descriptors in the AQF qualification type descriptors are significantly more detailed than those of the levels criteria, it would be necessary to undertake a separate cross-referencing of these qualification types descriptors with the NFQ award-type descriptors. In addition, while the present study has undertaken a cursory analysis of the other information provided in the two sets of type descriptors, a more intensive comparison would be required to ensure a full and rounded appreciation of the similarities and differences between the award/qualification types in the two frameworks.

Next Steps


Australian Qualifi cation Framework (200�). AQF implementation handbook, 4th ed. At: http://www.aqf.edu.au/Portals/0/Documents/Handbook/AQF_Handbook_0�.pdf

Australian Qualifi cations Framework Council (200�). AQF Council Terms of Reference, July 2008 – June 2011. At: http://www.aqf.edu.au/Portals/0/AQF%20Council%20Terms%20of%20Reference%20July%20200�.pdf

Australian Qualifi cations Framework Council (2009a). Strengthening the AQF proposal: Consultation paper. At: http://www.aqf.edu.au/Portals/0/Strengthening%20the%20AQF%20-%20An%20Architecture%20for%20Australias%20Qualifi cations.pdf

Australian Qualifi cations Framework Council (2009b). Strengthening the AQF proposal: Analysis of submissions September 2009. At: http://www.aqf.edu.au/Portals/0/Report%20on%20Strengthening%20Consultation%20Aug%200�.pdf

Australian Qualifi cations Framework Council (2009c). AQF National Policy and Guidelines on Credit Arrangements. At: http://www.aqf.edu.au/Portals/0/Documents/Credit%20Transfer%20Project%20-%20Final%20draft%20policy.pdf

Bologna Secretariat (200�). The framework of qualifi cations for the European Higher Education Area. At: http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/documents/QF-EHEA-May200�.pdf

European Commission (200�). The European qualifi cations framework for lifelong learning: leafl et. At: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/publ/pdf/eqf/leafl et_en.pdf

Government of Ireland (1999). Qualifi cations (Education and Training) Act, 1999. At: http://www.nqai.ie/documents/qualifi cationsact1��.pdf.

National Qualifi cations Authority of Ireland (NQAI) (200�). Verifi cation of compatibility of Irish national framework of qualifi cations with the framework for qualifi cations of the European Higher Education Area. At: http://www.nqai.ie/documents/verifi cationofcompatibility1.pdf

National Qualifi cations Authority of Ireland (NQAI) (2009). Referencing of the Irish national framework of qualifi cations (NFQ) to the European qualifi cations framework for lifelong learning (EQF): national report. At: http://www.nqai.ie/documents/EQFReferencingReportfi nalJune200�.pdf

National Qualifi cations Authority of Ireland (NQAI) (2003). Policies and Criteria for the Establishment of the National Framework of Qualifi cations. At: http://www.nqai.ie/docs/framework/policies/polandcrit.pdf

National Qualifi cations Authority of Ireland (NQAI) (2003). Determinations for the Outline National Framework of Qualifi cations. At: http://www.nqai.ie/docs/publications/12.pdf

Qualifi cations can cross boundaries – a rough guide to comparing qualifi cations in the UK and Ireland. At: www.qcda.gov.uk/221��.aspx

20

References

21Comparison of the Irish National Framework of Qualifi cations (NFQ) and the Australian Qualifi cations Framework (AQF)

Table: summary of key features of (Irish) NFQ and AQF

Irish NFQ AQF

scope national national

range comprehensive – all qualifi cations comprehensive – all qualifi cations

origins and development part of general reform of the qualifi cations system in Ireland

second generation framework, building on existing AQF

governance single statutory authority – NQAI AQF Council is the responsible and representative body for AQF

existing comparisons or alignments

EQF

Bologna framework (HE)

UK frameworks

no formal alignments, but there is a large body of evidence from the international comparison of specifi c Australian qualifi cations

framework architecture learning outcomes described in terms of knowledge, skill and competence – eight substrands

learning outcomes described in terms of knowledge, skills and the application of knowledge and skills

level indicators defi ned on the basis of learning outcomes

level attributes and criteria defi ned on the basis of learning outcomes

10 Levels 10 Levels

award-type descriptors derived directly from the level indicators

qualifi cation type descriptors develop the level criteria in more detail

16 Award types 15 Qualifi cation types

use of volume indicators or credit

categorisation of award-types as small, medium, large. Gradual introduction of coherent credit arrangements.

notional duration of learning defi ned for qualifi cation types

articulation and progression

set out in award-type descriptors and in policy papers

information about pathways to be included in qualifi cation specifi cations

framework relationship to the labour market

referred to in framework criteria but not in level indicators or in award-type descriptors

referred to in level summaries and in qualifi cation type descriptors (purpose)

quality assurance set out in detail in EQF referencing all AQF qualifi cations are quality-assured

Appendix 1


Education and training and the qualifi cations system in Ireland – an overviewThis section outlines the Irish education and training system and the different sectors which comprise it, in order to facilitate a better understanding of the qualifi cations that are awarded in Ireland, of the bodies that award the qualifi cations and of the diverse range of providers that offer programmes leading to NFQ qualifi cations. It also provides an overview of the qualifi cations system within which the NFQ operates.

Education and training sectorsEducation and training in Ireland can be described in terms of three broad sectors: general education, further education and training, and higher education and training.

General EducationGeneral education in Ireland comprises primary and post-primary cycles.

Primary schools in Ireland operate an eight-year programme, consisting of two initial years (Junior and Senior Infants), followed by classes 1-�. A national curriculum (recently completely revised) is followed in primary schools; it provides for an extensive learning experience and promotes a rich variety of approaches to teaching and learning.

Post-primary education in Ireland is provided in secondary, vocational, community and comprehensive schools. All of these schools provide programmes prescribed by the Department of Education and Skills and are subject to inspection by the Department of Education and Skills. Post-primary education consists of a three-year junior cycle followed by a two or three-year senior cycle.

Further Education and TrainingFurther education and training (FET) embraces education and training which occurs outside the general education and higher education and training sectors, and which provides vocationally focussed learning, based on the needs of individuals. The FET sector seeks to provide education and training that refl ects national, regional and occupational sector skills needs, and to facilitate social inclusion and accessibility. Further education and training programmes are offered by a wide range of public and private providers. These include the state training agency, FÁS, which offers training courses suited to the needs of jobseekers looking for employment, employees wishing to improve their skills, and those training as crafts persons. Other state agencies provide training to meet particular occupational sector needs. FET programmes are also offered by vocational schools and community colleges, by colleges of further education, by private companies and professional bodies, and in community and adult education centres.

Appendix 2


Higher Education and TrainingThe higher education sector in Ireland comprises a range of higher education institutions – Universities, Institutes of Technology (IoTs) and other recognised institutions including private Higher Education Colleges.

Entry to higher education is on a competitive basis with the most common entry point being through the Central Applications Offi ce (CAO), following completion of the Leaving Certifi cate Examination. Ireland has a binary system of higher education, comprising a range of higher education institutions that offer different types and levels of programmes. The Universities are essentially concerned with undergraduate and postgraduate programmes, together with basic and applied research. There are eight universities recognised under the Universities Act, 199�. The main work of the Institutes of Technology (IoTs) is in undergraduate programmes, with a smaller number of postgraduate programmes and a growing involvement in regionally orientated applied research. There are thirteen IoTs, designated under the Regional Technical Colleges Acts, 1992 to 1999. In addition, the Dublin Institute of Technology (DIT) is separately recognised under state legislation.

The qualifi cations system in IrelandThe qualifi cations system in Ireland was radically overhauled through the provisions of the (1999) Qualifi cations (Education and Training) Act. This legislation set out that a national framework of qualifi cations (NFQ) is to be the organising structure for qualifi cations awarded in all sectors of education and training. A notable feature of the legislation is that it also strongly rationalised the range of bodies designated with the power to award qualifi cations: these now comprise the State Examinations Commission, two new awards councils established under the Act (FETAC and HETAC – see below) and each of the higher education institutions as outlined below. There are plans to further amalgamate the functions of the two awards councils and of the National Qualifi cations Authority of Ireland. The levels in the NFQ, the major award types available at each level, and the awarding bodies that operate in the system are all illustrated in the diagram following this section.

Awards in General EducationThere are no formal examinations at the end of the primary school cycle, and no qualifi cations are awarded for learning in this sector.

In post-primary education, two major qualifi cations are awarded. A State examination is taken after the three-year junior cycle, leading to the award of the Junior Certifi cate (NFQ level 3, awarded by the State Examination Commission). In the senior cycle there is an optional one-year Transition Year, after which the learner can take one of three programmes of two years duration, leading to the award of the Leaving Certifi cate (NFQ level 4/�, awarded by the State Examination Commission). Performance in the Leaving Certifi cate examination is the main basis on which places in universities, institutes of technology and other further and higher education and training colleges are allocated.

Further Education and Training AwardsIn 2001, under the Qualifi cations Act, the state established the Further Education and Training Awards Council (FETAC) as the single awarding body to make and quality assure FET awards. As a result, most publicly funded FET programmes, and a signifi cant proportion of privately funded FET programmes, lead to FETAC awards at Levels 1 to � of the NFQ.

Higher Education and Training AwardsHigher Education awards are at levels �-10 in the NFQ. These awards are made by the Higher Education and Training Awards Council (HETAC), IoTs with delegated authority, the Dublin Institute of Technology and each of the universities: some universities make awards only at levels �, 9 and 10. HETAC is the national awarding body for non-university higher education and training. Any provider of education and training, regardless of the source of that provision – whether it is an educational institution, the workplace or the community – can apply to HETAC for validation of a higher education programme.


Each of the Institutes of Technology has been delegated the power to make awards to varying degrees by HETAC. While the IoTs individually have primary responsibility for their quality assurance, HETAC has a quality assurance monitoring and review role in relation to these institutions.

The Universities validate and award their own qualifi cations as well as those in institutions recognised by them. The Universities have primary responsibility for their own quality assurance systems and have established the Irish Universities Quality Board (IUQB) to promote best practice in quality assurance throughout their sector.

The Dublin Institute of Technology (DIT), as an institution recognised under state legislation, awards its own qualifi cations at NFQ levels �-10. While it has primary responsibility for the implementation of quality assurance procedures, the Qualifi cations Authority has a statutory quality review role in relation to these procedures.

Illustration: levels, awards and awarding bodies in the Irish NFQ


Education and training and the qualifications system in AustraliaThis section outlines the Australian education and training system and the different sectors which comprise it, in order to facilitate a better understanding of the system, the qualifications that are awarded in Australia and the diverse range of providers that offer programs leading to nationally recognised qualifications.

The Australian ContextCentral to any examination of the Australian education system is recognition of the arrangements within the Australian Constitution that set out the respective powers of the Commonwealth (Australian) Government and the governments of the six states. There are also two territories, which do not have constitutional power to make laws but have been ceded self-government by the Commonwealth.

State governments traditionally hold the constitutional power to legislate on education matters. However, over the last 30 years, the Commonwealth has had increasing influence due to its contribution to funding. Consequently, much of the policy-making within the three education sectors occurs under the auspices of the respective Ministerial Councils, comprising the Commonwealth and State and Territory Ministers for Education and Training.

Although the development of ‘mixed-sector’ institutions is relatively recent in Australia, this provision is expected to increase as the boundaries between vocational education and training and higher education become increasingly blurred. Many universities run VET programs while a small number of TAFE institutions currently offer degrees.

Education and training sectorsEducation and training in Australia can be described in terms of three broad sectors: schools, vocational education and training, and higher education and training.

School Education

General education in Australia comprises primary and post-primary education.

School education has a similar structure across Australia with only slight variations between states and territories. School education is compulsory between the ages of � and 1� (Year 1 to Year 9 or 10). School education is thirteen years and divided into:

n a preparatory year before Year 1: not compulsory but almost universally undertaken;

n primary schooling: six or seven years – Years 1-� or 1-�; and

n secondary schooling: five or six years – Years �-12 or �-12.

Under Australia’s constitutional arrangements, the state and territory governments have responsibility to ensure the delivery of schooling to all children of school age.

State and territory governments are directly responsible for the funding and administration of government schools. Non-government schools operate under conditions determined by state and territory government registration authorities and receive some state and territory government funding.

The Australian Government provides funding to the state and territory governments to support their provision of education and also provides funding directly to non government schools.

Appendix 3

2� Ireland-Australia Qualifi cations Frameworks Project

Vocational Education and TrainingAustralia’s vocational education and training (VET) system is founded on a partnership between governments and industry. Representatives of industry groups and employers play a central and critical role in determining training policies and priorities, and in developing training qualifi cations that can deliver the skills employers need for the workforce.

There are over 4000 registered training organisations in Australia, that is providers who are entitled to issue nationally recognised vocational education and training qualifi cations.

State and territory governments are directly responsible for the funding and administration of government-owned Technical and Further Education (TAFE) institutions.

Quality assurance and regulation of all providers is the constitutional responsibility of the states and territories but operates under the nationally agreed standards and operating protocols encompassed in the Australian Qualifi cations Training Framework (AQTF). The training system is based on competencies, nationally consistent and quality assured.

Higher Education and TrainingHigher education in Australia refers to university and non-university higher education institutions which award degree or sub-degree qualifi cations. The three main cycles of higher education are Bachelor, Master and Doctoral studies.

The Australian higher education system comprises:

n 39 universities of which 3� are public institutions and 2 are private;

n 1 Australian branch of an overseas university;

n 4 other self-accrediting higher education institutions; and

n non-self-accrediting higher education providers accredited by State and Territory authorities, numbering more than 1�0 as listed on State and Territory registers. These include several that are registered in more than one State and Territory.

Universities are established by legislation and are autonomous bodies. They are self-accrediting, insofar as course design and qualifi cation types are concerned.

Awards in School EducationThere are no standard examination requirements for progression through primary school, and no formal certifi cates are awarded. Students progress to secondary school on the basis of having completed the fi nal year of primary school and on the recommendations of teachers in consultation with parents. All students are accepted into secondary school without further examinations.

The relevant state or territory Senior Secondary Certifi cate of Education is awarded on successful completion of Year 12. Different names are used for the certifi cates in each state and territory. There are also senior secondary awards outside the state and territory school systems, such as the International Baccalaureate.

Vocational education and training within the senior secondary system provides an alternative to higher education pathways. School VET programs are undertaken alongside regular secondary subjects as part of studies leading to the relevant state or territory Senior Secondary Certifi cate of Education. They also provide credit towards a nationally recognised VET qualifi cation on the Australian Qualifi cations Framework (AQF). The majority of programs are at AQF Certifi cate I and II levels.


Vocational Education and Training AwardsAll public, private and community training providers must meet exactly the same quality standards to be registered. They need to meet the standards of the AQTF.

The National Quality Council oversees quality assurance and ensures national consistency in the application of the AQTF standards for the audit and registration of training providers.

Negotiations between the Commonwealth, state and territory governments are underway to establish a national VET regulator that will adopt all registration, accreditation and audit functions in all jurisdictions except for Western Australia and Victoria.

Higher Education and Training AwardsUniversities are self-accrediting and have authority to accredit their own programs and are primarily responsible for their own quality assurance.

Universities have internal processes for assessing new courses. Accreditation of new courses usually involves consultation with relevant industry or professional bodies, accreditation by these bodies, and formal consideration and approval by Academic Boards. Normally courses are reviewed for reaccreditation every fi ve years.

The Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA) is responsible for auditing the quality of Australian universities. It also audits those Commonwealth, State and Territory authorities responsible for accrediting universities and higher education courses offered by other providers.

It is proposed that a Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) will supersede the functions of AUQA in 2010. TEQSA will accredit providers, encourage best practice, simplify current regulatory arrangements and provide greater national consistency.

2� Ireland-Australia Qualifi cations Frameworks Project

Explanation of acronyms used in this reportAEI-NOOSR

Australian Education International – National Offi ce of Overseas Skills Recognition

HET Higher Education and Training

AQFC Australian Qualifi cations Framework Council HETAC Higher Education and Training Awards Council (Ireland)

AQF Australian Qualifi cations Framework IoT Institute of Technology

AQTF Australian Quality Training Framework ISC Industry Skills Council

AUQA The Australian Universities Quality Agency IUQB Irish Universities Quality Board

CAO Central Applications Offi ce (Ireland) MCEETY Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (Australia)

DEEWR Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (Australia)

MCTEE Ministerial Council for Tertiary Education and Employment (Australia)

DIT Dublin Institute of Technology NQC National Quality Council (Australia)

ENIC/NARIC

The Qualifi cations Recognition – Ireland Service NFQ National Framework of Qualifi cations (Ireland)

EQF European Qualifi cations Framework for Lifelong Learning

NQAI The National Qualifi cations Authority of Ireland

FAS The Irish State Training Agency QA Quality Assurance

FET Further Education and Training RTO Registered Training Organisation

FETAC Further Education and Training Awards Council (Ireland)

TAFE Technical and Further Education

FQEHEA Framework for Qualifi cations of the European Higher Education Area (the ‘Bologna’ framework)

TEQSA Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency

VET Vocational Education and Training

Appendix 4

National Qualifi cations Authority of Ireland

5th Floor, Jervis House, Jervis Street, Dublin 1Telephone: 00 353 1 887 1500 Fax: 00 353 1 887 1595 Email: [email protected] Web: www.nqai.ie

Date post:	11-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times