WBL provider qualifications by malj

VIEWS: 11 PAGES: 36

									Minimum Skills and Qualifications for People Delivering
      Government-funded Work-based Learning




Report on the Development of a Framework of
   Qualifications and Responses from the
                Consultation




                    February 2002
Chapter 1: Summary
In its White Paper, „Learning to Succeed: a new framework for Post 16 Learning‟ (June
1999), the Government proposed the development of a range of qualifications for all Post-16
teaching and training staff. This was echoed by the National Skills Task Force‟s
recommendation in its Second Report that: “…all workplace training staff instructing Modern
Apprentices should be required to hold appropriate qualifications as trainers.” (Chapter 3.69)

In November 1999, the Department and the Employment Service (ES), in conjunction with
the Employment National Training Organisation (NTO), established a project to:

     review the skill needs of people who deliver government-funded work-based learning
        (GFWBL) and the extent to which these are covered by existing frameworks of
        occupational standards and qualifications;

     examine the characteristics of the delivery workforce in GFWBL and the extent of
       their qualifications; and

     establish recommendations about appropriate minimum qualifications which the
       Learning and Skills Council (LSC) and ES might use as evidence of competence
       among the providers of training that they will fund.

The HOST Consultancy (HOST) was commissioned to undertake the first two phases of this
work and Phase 1 report1 was submitted to the partners on the project Steering Group in
June 2000, followed by a national consultation and discussion paper,2 on the findings. The
Phase 2 report - on the consultation - was submitted in December 2000.

The Department and the Employment NTO then commissioned a third phase from HOST in
early 2001 to prepare recommendations on suitable groupings of qualifications for Ministers
to approve, and to map these against key national occupational standards for Learning and
Development being revised by the Employment NTO. This report puts together both
HOST‟s findings from the Stage 3 work, and issues from related developments in 2001.

Additionally, HOST agreed to undertake an analysis of the Consultation responses. This is
entitled “A Summary of Provider Perspectives from the National Consultation” and is
enclosed with this document at Annex A (pages 19–26).

THE PROPOSED QUALIFICATIONS

At the end of the development work the steering group agreed that a framework of five
distinct „qualifications‟ - each comprising a number of units seeking to form distinct National
Vocational Qualifications (NVQs) or units towards them was appropriate for training
providers. These were first described as “clusters” during the project. The five “functional
groupings” are set out in Chapter 3 (pages 12–16). The actual titles, but not the broad
content of the units, were subsequently amended in November 2001 following discussions
between the Department, the Employment NTO and the Qualifications and Curriculum
Authority (QCA), and prior to acceptance by the Projects and Standards Approvals Group
(PSAG) of the UK regulatory authorities of the four administrations (including QCA).

1
  David Bell, Dorothy Berry-Lound, Professor David Parsons and Valerie Rowe, Review of
Minimum Skills and Qualifications for People Delivering Government-funded Work-based Learning,
October 2000, HOST Consultancy Publications.
2
  DfEE, Learning to Succeed - Raising Standards in Post-16 Learning: Building Practitioner Skills
  and Qualifications in Work-based Learning Funded by LSC and ES, August 2000.


                                                                                                    2
Three of the five qualifications will comprise NVQs at Levels 3 and 4. These are:

      Management of Learning and Development Provision (Level 4);

      Co-ordination of Learning and Development Provision (Level 4); and

      Direct Training and Support (Level 3);

The remaining two, which are not full NVQs, will become unit-based Certificates at Level 3
which, when supplemented by other Learning and Development units, can then form a full
Level 3 NVQ. These are:

      Review and Assessment of Learning; and

      Initial Assessment and Support of Learners.

The five functional groupings of qualifications each comprise units based on the revised
standards of the Employment NTO, primarily those for Learning and Development as well as
others including Assessment and Verification. These gained the full approval of PSAG, on
behalf of the qualifications‟ regulatory authorities, in December 2001. This now enables both
Awarding Bodies to develop their qualification awards during 2002, and training provider
staff to compile portfolios of evidence based on the revised standards and qualifications.

There is a clear evolution from presently available Employment NTO qualifications to the
new structure. Provider staff can position themselves for the new requirements by
continuing to acquire existing qualifications with the confidence that there will be a transition
path to the new qualifications simply by updating, rather than by extensive re-qualifying.




                                                                                                3
Chapter 2: Project Overview


2.1        Background

The Department‟s discussions and published proposals since 1998 have made clear the
need for minimum qualification requirements applicable to those planning, delivering and
assessing Government-funded Work-based Learning (GFWBL). The continuing aim is to
ratchet up quality across the range of Post 16 learning programmes.

Previous related work by the HOST Consultancy aimed to inform this by developing a view
of the numbers and occupational mix across the constituent activities. A detailed skills
framework was then prepared from the preliminary project work. This formed the basis of an
extensive consultation in summer and autumn 2000, following the specially prepared
Technical Consultation Document.

This set out the evidence as gathered in terms of the context and scope for possible
minimum qualifications for people who plan, manage, deliver, or assess training, or who
supervise learners in the workplace. It examined:

           the current situation;

           the preliminary analysis of the „minimum‟ skill needs in the skills framework, and
            how these relate to existing qualifications; and

           how skill and qualification gaps might be addressed.

The aim was to provide an opportunity for those who might later be involved in taking
forward these changes to review if the analysis was right in principle. It was also envisaged
that HOST would subsequently continue to look at the important issues of transition and
implementation, and these were consequently excluded from the scope of the consultation.

A national framework for standards and qualifications already existed for people who plan
and deliver work-based learning; these were the national occupational standards of the
former Training and Development Lead Body (TDLB) 3. (These are now revised as the
Learning and Development Standards of the Employment NTO.) However, earlier research
showed a mismatch between ideal requirements for people planning and delivering GFWBL,
and the currently available standards and qualifications. The consultation was consequently
taken forward in conjunction with the work led by the Employment NTO to revise the TDLB
Standards. It also acknowledged that while the former TDLB Standards provided the most
comprehensive framework of standards and qualifications designed for work-based learning,
there were also relevant qualifications within other frameworks, suggesting the need to
establish equivalencies to avoid the need for unnecessary re-assessment of qualifications.

This work was not conducted in isolation. In particular, the consultation document
acknowledged the separate consultation on the qualifications of teachers in Further
Education (FE) conducted in 1999-2000. Ministers have since announced the results of this
work and a Statutory Instrument (ref. 2001/1209) is now in place, setting out the
requirements for minimum qualifications for newly appointed FE college teaching staff from

3
    The former „TDLB‟ standards are now the responsibility of the Employment NTO as the standard
    setting body in this area. In Autumn 1999 they initiated a review of all their occupational
    standards and a substantial revision of these units (following practitioner feedback) is now
    approaching completion.


                                                                                                   4
September 2001. There has also been related development work in other areas, for
example trainers delivering the Learning Gateway, Basic Skills, Key Skills and for
Connexions Service Personal Advisers, which will need to be further considered to ensure
that all these developments can work together.

While the consultation was concerned with those standards that will improve quality in
GFWBL, the Employment NTO and the Department were keen to develop qualifications
which other providers and purchasers of work-based learning would see as relevant, and
would wish to adopt.

At its heart, the project sought to clarify the principles of the government commitment4 that
the LSC and ES would consider whether to introduce a requirement for competent and
appropriately qualified staff to deliver and assess learning in the provision they fund. To do
this, the minimum qualifications project brought together a wide range of existing experience
on the necessary minimum skills. It also aimed to define groupings of NVQ units which
relate to typical roles in the delivery of work-based learning and which could be nationally
recognised. At that time it was expected that both LSC and ES would frame their
requirements in terms of nationally recognised qualifications that would most likely involve
an appropriate core of essential units and additional optional units for each main role.

Two key questions at the heart of the consultation were:

               whether the groups of qualifications proposed were too broad to relate to „real‟
                job roles and responsibilities of those involved in GFWBL; and
               whether the core and options approach was seen as right.

What emerged from HOST‟s analysis was a framework of qualifications reflecting the major
functional groupings for providers in GFWBL. The agreed functions covered not only the
direct training role but also the management, co-ordination, review and assessment of
learning plus the initial assessment of learners. Such groups of qualifications were expected
to apply to direct contracting employers with LSC and ES. Proposals for parallel awards for
other employers participating in GFWBL by offering work placements were not considered in
this work.


2.2       The principles of the qualifications for providers

The recommended groupings of qualifications for providers set out in the next chapter draw
on a review of feedback from the consultation, from regional workshops, and from testing the
draft groupings on expert practitioners. These were based on a number of assumptions:

             Attempting to capture every combination of job role within GFWBL delivery was
              undesirable and could only be achieved by a highly permissive system of a few
              core units and a large menu of optional units drawn from the full suite for learning
              and development. This would not achieve the required rigour and clarity which
              remains central to enhancing the quality of current delivery.

             The proposed qualifications should, in combination, cover all aspects of the
              minimum skills functional framework and relate closely to it. This was widely
              endorsed by the field and provided a transparent rationale for the broad groupings,
              if not for the particular combinations of units.



4
    DfEE, Raising Standards in Post-16 Learning: A Summary Consultation Document, May 2000.


                                                                                                     5
          The final qualifications structure should be clear and easy to operate both in terms
           of number of awards and their reflection of job functions. This means there should
           be relatively few awards and yet substantive in content. The alternative of too
           many mini-awards might assist the quality audit trail but would militate against
           coherence.

          The groups of qualifications should be part of, the mainstream learning and
           development suite of qualifications. This is essential for both the status of GFWBL
           providers and to ensure progression and portability of competence. It also requires
           the awards to be substantial and demanding in content.

          The assessment groupings will be taken up by a wider constituency, which should
           require them to be more limited in role and highly focused in content.

          The qualifications should capture and encourage best practice, including a focus on
           identification of learners‟ expectations and commitments to learner support and to
           continuing professional development (CPD). This may result in large cores which,
           while helping to preserve the training cycle and discourage very narrow functional
           distinctions, may also create tensions in the system for people with limited job roles.

          The qualifications should attempt to cater for different types of training provider,
           including small businesses with multi-functional staff as well as those with clear
           vertical structures.

         The groupings of qualifications should provide a degree of overlap through optional
          units with adjacent roles, in order to facilitate both integration of provision and
          progression opportunities for individuals.


2.3       Project Stage 3 - validation and mapping

The Department and ES wanted to ensure that such an important step in policy should be
rooted in sound evidence. They were keen that, within the primary goal to ratchet up quality,
the groupings of qualifications should as far as possible reflect current jobs and roles and
existing national occupational standards and qualifications. Consequently, an important part
of the development was to:

          test the utility, articulation and coherence of the draft groupings through a series of
           expert workshops of selected practitioners; and

          map their content against key national occupational standards - to assist those
           advising on implementation with guidance to providers.

This has been the heart of Stage 3 of this project and the broad focus and inputs are
summarised below:


Expert workshops: The project steering group requested that the proposed qualifications
proposed in December 2000 should be validated through additional workshops, particularly
with those expert practitioners and stakeholders involved in the earlier large-scale
consultation. Those who had contributed to the three earlier November 2000 workshops,
some 110 people in all, were invited to consider the revised groupings. One further
workshop involving the ES Provider Sounding Board of some 40 ES providers took place in
February 2001. Another workshop was held with then TSC (now ALI) inspectors in Oxford



                                                                                                     6
earlier in January 20001 involving some 25 inspectors. Summaries of the workshops‟
findings are given in Annex B.

A subsequent meeting of the project steering group in March 2001 reviewed this feedback
and agreed final revisions to the content of the functional groupings of qualifications.


Mapping:        It was also felt desirable to provide clear guidance to those taking up the
qualifications on how they related to other national occupational standards and
qualifications. The standards and qualifications identified as being most relevant were:

          The Employment NTO suite of standards covering both Learning and Development
           and also Assessment and Verification;
          The Further Education NTO (FENTO) standards and practitioner qualifications;
          The Learning Gateway framework and Connexions programme;
          The community learning standards within PAULO;
          The CAMPAG standards for advice, guidance, counselling and advocacy;
          The CAMPAG standards for careers education and guidance in schools.

           [N.B. The Employment NTO is now responsible for all the CAMPAG standards.]

These ranged in nature from recently re-developed nationally occupational standards to
delivery frameworks, as in Learning Gateway. The standards themselves were in a range of
formats and structures that made comparison and „read across‟ difficult at times or
dependent upon substantial inference. Some also had very limited immediate application to
the content in the units that made up the proposed groupings of qualifications. The
Department and ES also recognised a need for mapping against basic and key skills
qualifications, and also against CIPD standards and qualifications, but regarded these as
issues outside the scope of this project.


2.4       Reporting

HOST produced a briefing paper for the workshops, an interim report of the feedback from
these events, and an earlier mapping paper. The former was the basis for discussions to
agree the functional groupings of qualifications.

This report takes these forward by drawing together HOST‟s detailed findings and
recommendations for the Department and ES. It also includes (in Chapter 4), at the request
of the Employment NTO, a short summary of the residual issues and subsequent
challenges, including issues that it suggests the Department needs to consider in relation to
arrangements for implementation.




                                                                                              7
Chapter 3: Developing the Qualifications Framework


3.1       Introduction

The initial design of the qualifications closely related to HOST‟s work on an original skills
framework (Stage 1) and feedback from the consultation on its utility and potential for
implementation (Stage 2). The third stage of the project centred on refining these through
in-depth review with the expert workshops.

This chapter therefore includes:

          views of expert practitioners (from the workshops);

          changes which take account of the Employment NTO‟s revised Learning and
           Development and other related national occupational standards (for which the
           references - L1; G3; etc. – are used as the framework for the qualifications);

          issues and recommendations for the functional groupings of qualifications;

          the recommended qualifications framework; and

          a subsequent additional optional unit from the Employment NTO‟s “free standing”
           units for health and safety in the workplace, namely Unit D: Review health and
           safety procedures in workplaces.


3.2       Feedback from the expert workshops

The conclusions reached by each of the four workshops are set out at Annex B.


3.3       Changes to the national occupational standards

The current overall review of the Employment NTO standards, and the Learning and
Development suite in particular, led to a reduction in the overall number of units. The
principal impact on the proposed groups of qualifications resulted in:

          re-formatted functional groupings (pages 12 -16) using the revised numbering but
           also including (in brackets) the original TDLB references; and

          utilising the revised Assessment and Verification units alongside the Learning and
           Development suite, using their revised titles and new prefixes (A1, A2, V1 and V2).


3.4       Main issues for the groupings of qualifications

The project found a clear element of agreement on the two functional groupings covering
Management and Co-ordination. However, if the cores of each were added to significantly,
there was a risk of undoing the consensus achieved in the earlier extensive consultation,
with marginal gain in terms of quality enhancement.

Any move away from the specifically focused optional units by function towards a very large


                                                                                                8
number of optional units could dilute the clarity and rigour of the present structure. The
feedback suggested that, although the structure may not reflect some job roles, it is rational
and defensible against the functional framework.

Despite some concerns, there was a need to keep the focus of grouping three on the Direct
Training role and hence the requirement to demonstrate two competences from Option A.

The Review and Assessment of Learning grouping was the most problematic as some saw it
as too demanding by requiring a review of progress function which not all assessors
perform. However, best practice suggests that the two functions should be able to
complement one another. While there may be a reaction from some practitioners, it was felt
that the grouping was sufficiently weighty for it to have discrete value as an NVQ, as well as
a first stepping-stone for many assessors into broader learning and development roles.

If the new Assessment unit A2 (Assess candidates‟ performance through observation) was
intended to be stand-alone, it was quickly recognised that there was a risk of returning to
some of the old D32/33 poor practices in delivery. Nevertheless, some flexibility should be
expected in the evidence needed to demonstrate competence in A2.

There was an acknowledged risk in creating a new grouping for Initial Assessment and
Support of Learners at a later stage in the process, as this had not been consulted on
widely. However, many practitioners stressed the important roles of initial assessment and
effective programme planning, which were highlighted as being poorly done at present.

The latter two groupings on the different aspects of Assessment were felt to meet a clear
market need, would enhance quality delivery and send a powerful message on the
importance of identifying existing competences through good initial assessment and a
sensible matching of learners to programmes. They would also provide a sufficiently large
grouping of units to have inherent value as a distinct qualification.

Against this background, HOST‟s proposals to the Steering Group for the final content of
groupings are summarised in Figure 1 below (page 10).


3.5    Decisions by the Steering Group

The Steering Group considered these proposals and decided that, for Functional Grouping
One, the removing of the former Personnel unit G4 was not acceptable and should be re-
instated. There was a need to ensure that development plans were being carried out and
that the performance of individuals was being effectively monitored against the plan. This
unit was subsequently revised by the Employment NTO to become new Personnel unit P2
(Develop a strategy and plan to provide all people resources for the organisation).

The Steering Group also agreed to include Management unit C13 (Manage the performance
of teams and individuals) in the core, as it included elements relating to work allocation,
objective setting, performance assessment and was compatible with inspection criteria that
highlighted the role of governance. It was also agreed to move Management unit B3
(Manage the use of financial resources) to the options.

For Functional Grouping Three, the proposals were also accepted, but it was also agreed to
place L5 (Agree learning programmes with learners) into the core requirements.

Finally, the Steering Group accepted the proposals for Groupings Two, Four and Five.




                                                                                                 9
Figure 1: HOST’s proposed revisions to the draft functional groupings (with 2001
revised NVQ titles)



Group One: Level 4 NVQ - Management of Learning and Development Provision

      Include as an option a generic management unit on financial resources from current
       Level 4 Management qualification;

      Consider removing unit G4 (Identify organisational human resource requirements);

      Keep the current restricted number of optional units to maintain clarity of role and
       quality assurance focus as well as progression access for co-ordinators;

      Include the new V1 (Conduct internal quality assurance of the assessment process),
       in options rather than core;

      Require selection of two of the options instead of one.


Group Two: Level 4 NVQ - Co-ordination of Learning and Development Provision

      Include L2 (Identify organisational learning and development needs) in the options.


Group Three: Level 3 NVQ - Direct Training and Support

      Add A2 (Assess candidate performance through observation) to the Option B list;

      Keep the requirement to select two options from A.


Group Four: Level 3 units‟ Certificate - Review and Assessment of Learning

      Keep the existing three core units as the basis for a stand-alone qualification.


Group Five: Level 3 units’ Certificate - Initial Assessment and Support of Learners

      Create a core of units L3 (Identify individual learning aims and programmes), L5
       (Agree learning programmes with learners) and G3 (Evaluate and develop own
       practice);

      Require selection of one from three options comprising L14 (Support learners
       through workplace mentoring), L15 (Support and advise individual learners), and L16
       (Monitor and review progress with learners).




                                                                                              10
3.6       The recommended groupings

Following the proposed changes agreed by the Steering Group, and the titles subsequently
agreed by PSAG, the final groupings are presented on the next five pages in diagrammatic
form. They have been set out using the updated reference numbering from the Employment
NTO‟s Learning and Development catalogue, plus those for Assessment and Verification,
attached at Annex C.

Four of the five groupings are specified in terms of core and optional units and, following the
issues raised in HOST‟s report to the Department and ES, are described in terms of the
current draft units (i.e., the L Units) that are to succeed the former TDLB units, together with
a number of units based on other already agreed national occupational standards.

Each box of the following charts (pages 12 – 16) contains the following information:

          Current title of proposed Learning and Development Unit (i.e. to replace TDLB) with
           the unit number (usually „L‟ - Learning and Development, or „G‟ - Generic Strategic
           Unit);

          In brackets, the old TDLB unit (if any) on which the new unit was based, or most
           closely aligns; and

          A reference to the relevant framework areas of the Minimum Skills Framework
           developed in Phase 1 of this research, to which the unit refers. Although this was
           included as an appendix to the earlier consultation document, the Minimum Skills
           Framework is again set out for reference at Annex D.


3.7       An Optional ‘Stand Alone’ Unit for Health and Safety

The Employment NTO has more recently developed a number of „stand alone‟ generic units
in health, safety and the environment. These can now be applied at any level in the NVQ
framework to a wide range of occupations where some health and safety responsibilities are
involved, but they are not designed for professional health and safety practitioners (who
follow their own dedicated units of competence in occupational safety and health).

Following further employer feedback received in 2001, the Employment NTO proposed, and
the Department agreed, that one of the new health and safety stand alone units (Unit D:
Review health and safety procedures in workplaces) should be added to the optional units in
each of the first three functional groupings (pages 12-14). Unit D is designed “for those who
need to review health and safety in workplaces other than their own” (e.g. training provider
staff, work placement officers, local LSC staff, etc.). In the Direct Training and Support
grouping (page 14), Unit D has been included with the other units in Option B.




                                                                                              11
Functional Grouping One: Management of Learning and Development Provision
[Level 4 NVQ]        Requirements - Eight units: six core units, plus
                           two from seven optional units.


                   CORE                                         OPTIONS

         L1 (B11) Develop a strategy
         and plan for learning and                       L3 (A21) Identify individual
         development                                     learning aims and
                                                         programmes
         Framework Areas: A4-6+B2
         P2 (revised Personnel unit)                     Framework Area: C4
         Develop a strategy and plan to                  L4 (B21) Design learning
         provide all people resources                    programmes
         for the organisation
                                                         Framework Areas: B2+3,
                                                         C1+2, D1+2
         L2 (A13) Identify the learning
         and development needs of the                    L8 (C11) Manage the
         organisation                                    contribution of other people to
                                                         the learning process
         Framework Area: A2
                                                         Framework Areas: B3+D5
        L17 (E21) Evaluate and
        improve learning and                             L7 (B31+B33) Prepare and
                                                         Framework Area: D4
        development programmes                           develop resources to support
                                                         learning
        Framework Areas:
        A3+C5+E3+G1-2                                    Framework Area: D4

         G3 (E31) Evaluate and                           V1 (D34) Conduct internal
         develop own practice                            quality assurance of the
                                                         assessment process
         Framework Areas: H1, H2
                                                         Framework Area: F3
         C13 (Management unit)                           B3 (Management unit)
         Manage the performance of                       Manage the use of financial
         teams and individuals                           resources

         Framework Areas: A2, A3                         Framework Areas: A1


  Plus: Optional Health & Safety Unit D: Review health and safety procedures in workplaces

The units in Functional Grouping One focus on the management of training as well as on
generic management functions including performance review. The structure accommodates
the range of organisations, their size and how they divide up responsibilities. The options
provide links to co-ordinating functions and acknowledge smaller training provider structures.

The eight-unit award provides holders with access to three of the six core units of the
proposed Level 4 and three of the nine optional units, now approved by the Projects and
Standards Approvals Group (PSAG). It is sufficiently focused to constitute a full NVQ level
4 award and reflects the overall management of a training organisation as part of its primary
activity.




                                                                                             12
Functional Grouping Two: Co-ordination of Learning and Development Provision
[Level 4 NVQ]        Requirements – Seven units: six core units, plus
                           one from seven optional units.

                 CORE                                             OPTIONS

       L3 (A21) Identify individual                       L9 (C21) Create a climate that
       learning aims and                                  promotes learning
       programmes
                                                          Framework Areas: D7, E2
       Framework Area: C4
                                                          L7 (B31+B33) Prepare and
       L4 (B21) Design learning                           develop resources to support
       programmes                                         learning

       Framework Areas: B2+3,                             Framework Area: D4
       C1+2, D1+2
                                                          L15 (C26) Support and advise
       L5 (C22) Agree learning                            individual learners
       programmes with learners                           Framework Areas: E1-5
       Framework Areas: C3-5

       L8 (C11) Manage the                                L16 (D11) Monitor and review
       contribution of other people to                    progress with learners
       the learning process
                                                          Framework Areas: C5, E3
       Framework Areas: B3+D5

       L17 (E21) Evaluate and                             L2 (A13) Identify the learning
       improve learning and                               and development needs of the
       development programmes                             organisation

       Framework Areas: A3+C5,                            Framework Area: A2
       E3+ G1+2
                                                          V1 (D34) Conduct internal
       G3 (E31) Evaluate and                              quality assurance of the
       develop own practice                               assessment process
       Framework Areas: H1, H2                            Framework Area: F3


  Plus: Optional Health & Safety Unit D: Review health and safety procedures in workplaces

The units in Functional Grouping 2 focus on the co-ordination function at the heart of quality
delivery. The grouping requires the jobholder to have responsibility for the identification of
learning needs, the design of appropriate programmes and ensuring learner support. This
area has the greatest diversity in functional combinations between different types of training
provider, hence the large permissive range of options. There is also clear progression to
senior management roles through the core units which link to the first grouping options. The
current seven-unit award therefore represents a full NVQ Level 4 award which is also
accepted by PSAG.




                                                                                             13
Functional Grouping Three: Direct Training and Support.
[Level 3 NVQ]                      Requirements - Eight units: six core units, plus either
                                   two from option A and one from option B;
                                   or three from option A and none from B.

        CORE                                    OPTION ‘A’                        OPTION ‘B’

L3 (A21) Identify                      L10 (C23) Enable learning
individual learning aims               through presentations
and programmes
                                       Framework Areas: D5, D6
Framework Areas: C4, E1

L6 (B22) Develop training              L11 (C24) Enable learning
sessions                               through demonstrations
OPTION ‘B’                             and instruction
Framework Areas: D1,
D2, D3, D6, H1                         Framework Area: D6
                                                                                L14 (-) Support learners
L9 (C21) Create a climate                                                       by mentoring in the
that promotes learning                 L12 (C25) Enable individual              workplace
                                       learning through coaching
Framework Areas: D7, E2                                                         Framework Areas:
                                       Framework Areas: D5, D6                  E3, E4

L16 (D11) Monitor and                                                           L15 (C26) Support and
review progress with                   L13 (C27) Enable group                   advise individual
learners                               learning                                 learners
Framework Areas: C5, E3                Framework Areas: D5, D6                  Framework Areas:
                                                                                E1, E5
G3 (E31) Evaluate and
development own practice                                                        A1 (D32/33) Assess
                                                                                candidates using a
Framework Areas: H1, H2
                                                                                range of methods
Framework Area: H1-2
                                                                                Framework Areas: F1,
L5 (C22) Agree learning
                                                                                F3
programmes with
learners
                                                                                L20 (-) Support
Framework Areas: C4, D1                                                         competence
                                                                                achieved in the
                                                                                workplace – Frame-
                                                                                work Areas: F1, F2

Plus: In Option B - Health & Safety Unit D: Review health and safety procedures in workplaces

The units in Functional Grouping 3 focus on the direct training function in terms of a suite of
„core conditions‟ units dealing with learning needs, session design and review, linked to a set
of training delivery units (Option A) and learner support and assessment units (Option B).
The groupings require the trainer to use at least two direct training skill sets, but also
acknowledge there will be considerable diversity in the extent and nature of support and
assessment. There is clear progression to the co-ordinator role in the core units which link
to the second grouping options. The current eight- unit award therefore represents a full
Level 3 award now accepted by PSAG.




                                                                                             14
Functional Grouping Four:             Review and Assessment of Learning

[Certificate of Level 3 units]        Requirements - Three core units only

                                      (no optional units).


                                   CORE



                         A1 (D32-3) Assess
                         candidates using a range of
                         methods

                         Framework Areas: F1-3



                          G3 (E31) Evaluate and
                          develop own practice

                          Framework Areas: H1, H2




                          L16 (D11) Monitor and review
                          progress with learners

                          Framework Area: C5, E3




The units in Functional Grouping 4 focus on the specific assessment role but link it to learner
support or monitoring functions through the options. The grouping contains two of the five
mandatory units of Learning and Development at Level 3 (G3 and L16) plus one of the
optional A&V units (A1). Following the decision of PSAG, this unit-based Certificate is too
small to stand as a full NVQ but it can still be developed as a certificate qualification by one
or more Awarding Bodies, subject to accreditation by the regulatory authorities. The three
core units in this grouping can all be used as a means of progression into the full NVQ Level
3 for Direct Training and Support on page 14.




                                                                                             15
Functional Grouping Five:               Initial Assessment and Support of Learners

[Certificate of Level 3 units]   Requirements - Four units: three core, plus
                                        one from three optional units.



                 CORE                                              OPTIONS


       L3 (A21) Identify individual                        L14 (-) Support learners by
       learning aims and                                   mentoring in the workplace
       programmes
                                                           Framework Areas:
       Framework Area: C4, E1                              D6, E2, E4



       L5 (C22) Agree learning
       programmes with learners                            L15 (C26) Support and advise
                                                           individual learners
       Framework Areas: C3-5
                                                           Framework Areas: E1-5



       G3 (E31) Evaluate and
                                                           L16 (D11) Monitor and review
       develop own practice
                                                           progress with learners
       Framework Areas: H1, H2                             Framework Areas: C5, E3




The units in Functional Grouping 5 focus on the role of initial assessment and correct
allocation to appropriate learning programmes, as well as engaging the learner in committing
to these programmes. The options link the learner support role to the continuing review of
learner‟s aims and programme suitability. As with grouping fiour (Review and Assessment
of Learning), it was not accepted by PSAG as a full NVQ but will be developed into a
qualification offered by one or more Awarding Bodies, subject to accreditation by the
regulatory authorities. All the units in this grouping - the three core and the three optional
units - can also be used as a means of progression into the full NVQ Level 3 for Direct
Training and Support on page 14.




                                                                                           16
Chapter 4: Issues for further consideration

4.1      Introduction

The DfEE Project Steering Group, through the HOST project report and agreed
amendments, accepted the rationale, content and articulation of the five proposed groupings
of qualifications. As an extension to the project, the Employment NTO asked the HOST
Consultancy to make further recommendations on the residual issues which they felt needed
to be addressed through the subsequent implementation of the qualifications framework.


4.2      Further recommendations by HOST consultancy

HOST concluded that, through the three stages of the project, the resulting framework
provided the foundation for meeting the Government‟s goals to help ratchet up GFWBL
quality and achievement by establishing appropriate qualifications for practitioners.
However, HOST also believed that other issues still remained outstanding from the
recommendations presented in their Stage 2 report - in particular the need to:

            analyse both the qualifications and standards mapping work to produce provider
             guidance;

            assist the LSC to help inform its 47 local arms and other relevant parties;

            consider further initial assessment and support issues;

            revisit the specific issues for employers, both on supervisory qualifications and
             wider questions linked to employer capability; and

            take note of other related policy matters that affected implementation.


      Provider guidance: Any possible DfEE-LSC-ES requirement for a practitioner
      qualification, and the qualifications‟ groupings themselves, will need clear guidance on
      the scope and focus. The work on the groupings, and also from the standards mapping
      linked to Stage 3 of the project, was done in response to a request from the consultation
      in late 2000 for clearer articulation of the qualifications and achievement pathways for
      practitioners outside of Learning and Development.


      Briefing LSC and others: Although former TECs/CCTEs had been involved in the
      Stages 1 and 2 work, their inputs were very fragmented. The resultant LSC boundary
      and staff changes could mean that the understanding achieved may not easily transfer
      to the infrastructure of the 47 local LSC‟s. The LSC therefore needs to consider how to
      brief key local staff, either through Coventry-based cascade briefings or regionally
      based workshops. Parallel activity could also be valuable to ES‟ own contracting staff.


      Initial assessment and learner support issues: The Project Steering Group
      accepted feedback from Stage 3 to justify the need for a fifth functional grouping centred
      on initial assessment, learner support and guidance. Concerns were expressed
      previously about the lack of learner-centred capacity among providers with


                                                                                                 17
       consequences for participant initial selection and defining appropriate pathways. It was
       also relevant to ES provision, where responding flexibly to client guidance and support
       needs are critical to achieving successful outcomes within New Deal.

       Parallel work by HOST in mapping against this grouping had been more tentative
       because of the history of evolving routes for practitioner qualifications under Learning
       Gateway (and more widely). Consequently HOST argued that further work should be
       considered at a later stage to review a wider range of qualifications achievement against
       these developments, such as the ongoing work by the NTO for community based
       learning and development (PAULO) on appropriate qualifications within Learning
       Gateway. They also believed there was a strong case to revisit the functional
       assumptions once the Learning Gateway and Connexions qualifications pathways
       became clearer. Without this, there was a risk that the mapping (and practitioner
       guidance) for the fifth grouping might be felt to be less robust and have less practitioner
       confidence than the other four. This may also have particular importance for ratcheting
       up quality in ES provision.


       Re-visiting employer qualifications: The Department has sought to review the scope
       for employers engaged in GFWBL5, particularly in the supervision of Modern
       Apprentices in their work placements. The earlier Stage 2 report proposed a voluntary
       approach to a qualification grouping for such employers, but supported by a provider
       requirement to build employer practitioner capability in their „supply‟ chains. This issue
       remains controversial and needs further empirical evidence or testing, and it was agreed
       that this should not be included in the Stage 3 brief.

       HOST‟s evidence nonetheless showed employer capability as a cornerstone of the
       Government‟s goals to ratchet up GFWBL quality. HOST holds a database of 80
       carefully selected employers, who could be invited to contribute to future practitioner
       workshops (as for providers in Stages 2 and 3). Potentially this mechanism could offer
       a more intensive and effective focus than the commissioning of further case studies.


       Other implementation issues: In their Stage 2 report, HOST also raised matters
       relating to:

              o   integration with the Common Inspection Framework for all post-16 education
                  and training provision;

              o   articulation of basic/key skills practitioner requirements; and

              o   the effect of the qualifications‟ development on practitioner „supply‟ issues.



4.3       Further Questions related to Implementation

HOST believed that the following should ideally be explored with providers and other
stakeholders before final recommendations are put to Ministers on their implementation.
These include:

         firmer estimates of the numbers of provider staff for whom the different qualifications

5
    Employers who are not direct contractors – i.e. t hose regarded as „providers‟ for the purposes
    of this work – but who undertake to supervise learners on work placements at their premises.


                                                                                                      18
          might be appropriate, the consequent need for capacity building in trainer training,
          and realistic timescales for achievement;

         estimates of the costs of training providers‟ staff, and a view on how these costs
          might be shared between training providers (who have an obligation to be
          competent) and the public bodies which might seek to impose requirements. Key
          issues here include: the question of a “level playing field” with the FE sector (which
          now receives £80m from the Standards Fund to support the FE qualifications
          framework now in place) and wider workforce and training costs; the impact on
          provider capacity to release staff for training; and affordability, particularly amongst
          smaller voluntary sector providers;

         mechanisms for establishing equivalences between the new requirements and other
          frameworks, including the accrediting of prior learning to avoid unnecessary re-
          qualification;

         establishing quality control and rigour in the training contractual and review
          arrangements, including implications for inspection; and

         whether, and by when, the qualifications can or should become mandatory
          requirements for providers delivering government funded work-based training under
          LSC and ES control and, if so, how would this be enforced.


4.4       Next Steps

This report is being published prior to the final approval by PSAG, on behalf of the
qualifications‟ regulatory authorities, of the Employment NTO‟s revised national occupational
standards and units for Learning and Development, anticipated in January 2002. This
approval is necessary before awarding bodies (e.g. City and Guilds, etc.) can subsequently
apply to gain accreditation for their proposed qualifications, even though they have been
able to take forward a significant amount of development work based on previously
published draft standards.

The Department anticipates that the implementation work will proceed whatever role may
emerge for the Employment NTO, once the new Sector Skills Councils (SSCs) and the
Sector Skills Development Agency (SSDA) are set up in 2002. The national occupational
standards and frameworks managed by the existing all-sector NTOs (such as Employment
NTO) are an important part of the current training structure throughout the UK. The
Department will pay particular attention to their delivery as part of the transitional
arrangements to ensure minimal disruption, and will ensure the SSDA makes this an early
priority once it becomes operational in early 2002.




Department for Education and Skills
Raising Standards Division
January 2002.




                                                                                                     19
                                                                                            Annex A

Practitioner Skills and Qualifications in Government-funded Work-based Learning



                     A Summary of Provider Perspectives
                        from the National Consultation

[This document describes work carried out prior to the creation of the Department for
Education and Skills (DfES) in June 2001. It therefore refers in the main to its predecessor,
the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE). Also, since June, the Employment
Service has become part of the new Department for Work and Pensions.]

1.        Introduction

From November 1999, the former Department for Education and Employment (DfEE)
worked in collaboration with the Employment Service (ES), the Employment National
Training Organisation (NTO) and the HOST Consultancy (HOST) to assess the skill needs
(and gaps) of practitioners in Government-funded work-based learning (GFWBL). The
resulting development project aimed to inform and shape minimum skill requirements and
qualifications as part of the Government‟s effort to ensure high quality in learning delivery.

Between late July and mid November 2000, DfEE and ES carried out a consultation on the
research findings and their implications. This centred on the publication and distribution by
the Department of nearly 7,000 copies of the Discussion Paper 6 supplemented by three
regional workshops for providers and representative groupings.

This summary report presents an overview of the consultation feedback and next steps.
Further detail has been provided in HOST‟s final report to DfEE and ES. 2

2.        Context of the consultation

The Discussion Paper attracted considerable interest amongst stakeholders. Replies were
received from 255 organisations - largely from senior managers or groups of staff. A small
but important contribution was from key national agencies.3

Almost ten per cent of the replies were from cross-provider and other representative groups
or where a single reply covered, in some cases, collated inputs from as many as 45
commercial or further education (FE) providers. The numbers contributing to the
consultation consequently under-represent the very large number of providers (and

     Some 4,000 were distributed directly by DfEE to identified agencies and providers. A further 2,500
     have been subsequently distributed through group or individual requests from others. The paper
     was also made available on the DfEE website.
2
     See main document. Copies of the HOST report are also available from the Research
     Administrator at HOST Policy Research (telephone 01403 211440, e-mail info@hostconsult.co.uk.
3
     Specifically: Association of Colleges; Association of College Management; Association of
     Teachers and Lecturers; Association of Learning Providers (some of whose members replied
     separately); British Chambers of Commerce; Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development;
     City and Guilds Examining Board; Further Education Funding Council; National Association of
     Teachers in Further and Higher Education; National Association for the Care and Resettlement of
     Offenders; National Examining Board for Supervisors and Management; National Training
     Organisations National Council; Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.



                                                                                                    20
employers) who are incorporated directly by group discussions or by reference to wider
membership structures. The distribution of responses included:

         Commercial and voluntary sector training providers (29%);

         FE Colleges or college groupings (29%);

         Former TECs and CCTEs (i.e. local Learning and Skills Councils from April 2001) -
          just over a third of those in England replying (11%);

         Local Government - mainly LEAs (6%);

         NTOs - around one in seven replying (5%);

         Direct responses from employers (1%);

         Others - including national agencies (19%).

3.       The current issues

The Discussion Paper set out three main issues for providers and others in helping to refine
HOST‟s summarised assessment of „the current situation‟.

         Does evidence from the eight local areas reflect wider experience of the numbers
          and occupational mix for practitioners?

         Which of the activities are most typically „out-sourced‟ by providers, and how does
          this affect quality?

         Do the skill gaps identified reflect wider experience?

Overall, there was remarkably widespread support for the HOST analysis in each of these
areas, with few contrasts between the different respondent groupings.

3.1   Numbers and occupational mix: The consultation feedback strongly endorsed the
observations and estimates in these areas. Figure 1 shows 84 per cent of the consultation
respondents agree with the HOST findings.

Figure 1: Summarised evidence on numbers and occupational mix of
          GFWBL practitioners

                         Tend to disagree   Strongly Don‟t know
                         9%                 disagree 1%
                                            1%                     Strongly agree
                                                                   19%
                 Neither agree
                 nor disagree
                 5%




                                            Agree
                                            65%




                                                                                             21
Valid cases4 = 226                                    Source: DfEE-ES Consultation, 2001

The only area of disagreement (20%) seems to have been public sector providers, although
this reflected small numbers of respondents in this area. Elsewhere, there were few
differences in the wide endorsement of the Stage 1 findings.

3.2     Activities most typically out-sourced: Out-sourcing emerged as an important
facet of resourcing flexibility, cost-control and organisational adaption to specialist needs.
Responses suggested great diversity, but also important differences in the approach to out-
sourcing by different types of providers. In particular:

         Direct contracting employers have great variations in in-house skills mix
          (reflecting different organisational/geographical capacity), but were more likely to
          out-source knowledge-based elements, off-the-job training, work-based
          assessment and validation;

         Other learning providers may out-source external validation where there is no
          occupationally competent assessor/adviser in-house, and also some technical
          aspects of delivery requiring development of underpinning knowledge (basic food
          hygiene, first aid, etc). Some aspects of counselling or mentoring may be
          outsourced;

         FE colleges were considered to have the broadest base for internal resourcing -
          perhaps reflecting institutionalised approaches to staff flexibility in direct contracting
          arrangements - but in fact were known to be engaging in out-sourcing some
          aspects of work-based assessment along with on-the-job learning.

3.3    Skill gaps: In general, there was widespread support for the published assessment
(see Sections 3.8 to 3.11 of the Discussion Paper). Figure 2 summarises the feedback:

Figure 2: Agreement on diagnosed skill gaps for GFWBL practitioners


                           Tend to disagree   Strongly Don‟t know
                           12%                disagree 2%
                                              8%                     Strongly agree
                                                                     26%
                  Neither
                  agree nor
                  disagree
                  8%



                                              Agree
                                              44%



Valid cases: 231                                      Source: DfEE-ES Consultation, 2001



4
    The number of valid cases represents the numbers of respondents to this question in the
    consultation. There are variations between the total number of respondents (255) and those
    counted here - and in the succeeding figures - which are accounted for largely by respondents
    electing not to reply to some questions.




                                                                                                    22
The majority in each respondent group endorsed the assessment of skill gaps, but was most
strongly endorsed by TECs (80%) and NTOs (94%).

Provider responses suggested some missing or under-represented skill gaps:

         Trainee recruitment and selection;

         Tracking and assessment of Key Skills by GFWBL practitioners;

         Weak understanding and/or diagnosis of basic skills deficiencies among
          prospective entrants or trainees.

4.       Practitioner skills and the skills framework

Here the consultation set out two main issues for feedback and discussion:

         Does the skills framework provide a good indication of the minimum skills that
          practitioners (or groups of practitioners) need to support quality in delivery, and are
          the functions sensibly grouped? and

         Which activities are essential to quality in delivery (the minimum skill
          requirements)?

Again, the HOST analysis from Stage 1 emerges robustly from the consultation.

4.1    The framework for minimum skills: Much the same proportion of respondents
supported the content of the skill framework as the overall occupational analysis. Figure 3
shows more than eight out of ten agreed or strongly agreed that the minimum skills
framework described the necessary range and diversity of practitioner activities.

Figure 3: Views on whether the minimum skills framework is appropriate

                                   Tend to            Strongly
                                   disagree
                                                      disagree
                   Neither agree   7%
                                                      1%          Strongly agree
                   nor disagree                                   41%
                   6%




                                              Agree
                                              44%




Valid cases: 230               Source: DfEE-ES Consultation, 2001

There was also some comments on terminology in the framework and, in particular, the use
of „training‟ instead of „learning‟ in the titles. This was seen by some to be counter to current
use of terminology. The original intention in the framework had been to use „training‟ to
make it easier for ES providers to relate to the framework. In general, the grouping of
functions within the skills framework was seen as logical and a fair reflection of practice -
more than eight out of ten respondents agreed.



                                                                                               23
4.2      Activities essential to quality: The feedback here attracted fairly consistent views.
In general, there was strong support that the diagnosis of the quality impact of skills gaps
was sound – respondents‟ experience emphasising issues such as weak communications
skills, poor co-ordination capabilities, and weak integration across on- and off-the-job
aspects. Most opinion centred on the acknowledged weaknesses in both occupational
competence of assessors and trainers/tutors, with poor assessment skills of assessors the
major deficiency in achieving quality provision.

To supplement these general comments, we also asked respondents to identify within the
skills framework which of the second and third level activities were seen as essential to
quality in delivery. The feedback rarely picked out specific features but commonly cited „all‟.
Where specific skills were picked out, the respondents tended to identify all but a handful as
essential to quality.

5.       Qualifications and functional groupings

Here, the consultation was concerned with a number of inter-related questions:

         Do the standards of the Employment NTO‟s predecessor, the Training and
          Development Lead Body (TDLB), provide the best fit for the skills framework?
         Are the three functional groupings (previously referred to in the consultation as
          „clusters‟) the right ones?
         Should the grouping for Programme Management and Co-ordination be split? and
         Which units should be „core‟ and which „optional‟?

Views here, in general, were much more diverse and are summarised below.

5.1     The ‘fit’ of the old TDLB standards: Respondents were generally very supportive
of the appropriateness of the TDLB framework (and its successor), with around three out of
four respondents (Figure 4) agreeing this provided the best fit for the minimum skills needs
of practitioners. There were surprisingly few contrasts between the respondent groups in
this perspective. Even those in FE who might have been expected to champion the FE
standards generally supported the TDLB link (71%).

Figure 4: Views on the ‘fit’ of the TDLB standards to the skills framework

                         Tend to disagree   Strongly Don‟t know
                         9%                 disagree 3%
                                            5%                    Strongly agree
                                                                  20%
               Neither agree
               nor disagree
               9%




                                            Agree
                                            54%




Valid cases: 223                Source: DfEE-ES consultation, 2001




                                                                                             24
A more detailed review showed some polarisation with small groups of respondents among
providers, FE and national agencies strongly opposed to the link with the TDLB standards.
In part, this seemed to come from a misreading of the paper by some respondents, with
some strong opinions that any Standards link would need also to embrace, or be articulated
with, other Standards (and notably FE and CAMPAG) - an issue set out as a DfEE
expectation in the Discussion Paper.

Some respondents, however, were opposed in principle to the TDLB link. This concern was
mainly - but not wholly - centred on a minority of respondents in the FE sector and, in
particular, among FE representative bodies who unanimously felt that the FE Standards for
teaching and support were more appropriate.

5.2     The functional groupings: Initially there appeared to be a range of diverse views
on the likely value of the proposed qualification groupings, although just over two out of three
(68%) of the respondents supported the idea. Here, support was strongest among the
provider community.

More detailed analysis indicates that functional groupings of Units as a concept was strongly
supported. The concerns centred on the opinion that the proposed three groupings were
generally too broad to account for the great diversity of skills mix across job roles among
providers. This seems to have been more of an issue for those commenting on provider
needs, rather than providers themselves. Most concern focused on the breadth of the
Programme Management and Co-ordination groupings – a substantial number of
respondents felt these should be split into two.

5.3    A possible ‘SME’ grouping?: This proved to be a controversial issue, and attracted
wide and divergent views in both the written feedback and workshops. Figure 5 suggests
general support - with two thirds of all respondents supporting the idea (67%). However, a
number added a rider that any link should only be voluntary. Taking this into account, it
suggests that support for a mandatory cluster was well below half of all respondents.

Figure 5: Views on a proposed ‘SME cluster’

                                     Strongly     Don‟t know
                                     disagree     2%
               Tend to disagree      8%                           Strongly agree
               13%                                                28%



             Neither agree
             nor disagree
             10%

                                          Agree
                                          39%



Valid cases: 223                  Source: DfEE-ES Consultation, 2001


In fact, views here were highly polarised. This issue attracted the strongest disagreement
factor of those raised in the Discussion Paper. Most of those who opposed were providers
or FE staff. At the same time, a number of the national agencies felt that the time had come
for a firm stand on this issue, irrespective of the impact it might have on reduced employer
participation.



                                                                                             25
5.4     Core and optional units: The Discussion Paper sought views on what should be
core and optional within any qualification grouping. Although there was widespread support
for a core and option approach, to accommodate more diverse approaches to the skills mix
in provider job roles, there was little consensus on what should be included and where.

More specifically the comments, mapped against the former TDLB units, included:

        Few of the units attracted overwhelming endorsement in any of the functional
         groupings - the exceptions being E21 in „management and co-ordination‟ (86%), B22,
         E23 and C21 in „direct delivery‟ (88%, 84% and 83% respectively), and D11, D32 and
         C26 in „workplace review and assessment‟ (89%, 88% and 82%);

        Even here, there were significant differences of opinion - for example, one in seven
         (14%) felt that C26 in „workplace review and assessment‟ should be an option;

        Most of the units proposed as „core‟ in all three groupings attracted less than two
         thirds support from respondents;

        Conflicting views were widespread. For example, a majority view was that C25
         should be a core unit in „direct training and support‟, but this was counterbalanced by
         38 per cent who saw it only as optional.

6.       Conclusions

These comments are characteristic of a wide diversity of views on most units and whether
they should be core or optional. The consultation thus presented a challenge in designing
an optimum fit between core and options and a diverse skills mix. Nevertheless the tone of
the responses was very constructive and positive - and perhaps most strongly from those
likely to be most directly affected by any new requirements, the providers themselves. This
has been a particular feature of the consultation and the way organisations have
approached the proposals.

A variety of other issues not included in the mainstream issues for discussion were raised in
the consultation. Most commonly these centred on the need for a practical emphasis for
what was to become the policy focus. In this, the most recurrent issue was the need for
flexibility, close articulation of requirements across different standards and existing
qualifications, and support to providers.

7.       Further project developments

As a result, in December 2000, DfEE and the NTO commissioned from HOST an additional
stage of development activity in response to the feedback. This included further
development and validation of the framework of functional groupings as Awards for
practitioners, and also mapping them to other occupational standards, namely:

            new draft NTO standards for Learning and Development (succeeding those of the
             former TDLB);
            standards for teaching and supporting learning for those in FE (FENTO); and
            those for delivering Learning Gateway (PAULO and FENTO).

HOST also prepared a separate briefing paper on the proposed groupings of qualifications
and received feedback on these proposals from the project steering group in March 2001.
The Steering Group then agreed to further extend the qualifications to five functional
groupings to more accurately reflect the functional roles of training providers, and for these
to be set out in the final project report.


                                                                                               26
                                                                                              Annex B

                         Feedback from the Workshops
[The references and titles of the NVQ units below refer to the proposed revised titles in the Learning
and Development and Assessment and Verifications Catalogues, set out in Annex C.]

A.      Sussex

Practitioners wished to see a greater emphasis on the identification of training needs which
is an area of current weakness and much effort by many providers. The Management
functional grouping should include a unit on the management of financial resources, a view
echoed in the Birmingham workshop.

G4 (Identify organisational human resource requirements), while welcomed, was not always
done by all managers, especially in large organisations. With this exception the
Management core was endorsed. Some wanted greater flexibility in the range of options,
even to the point of including all the units from the other groupings.

The Co-ordination grouping was endorsed, but with the same request that a large permissive
pick and mix approach to options be applied.

The Direct training and support grouping was approved, but with the suggestion that there
should be one option taken from A and one from B.

The Review and Assessment grouping was endorsed, especially the inclusion of L16 in the
core. Some participants proposed adding another grouping based on recruitment and initial
assessment, linked perhaps to advice, support, mentoring and exit interviewing.


B.      Birmingham

Practitioners echoed the concerns over G4 above as being a core unit and wished to see the
importation of a management unit on financial resources. Otherwise, the Management core
was endorsed provided there was sufficient reference to leadership and communication in
the detailed unit content. It was also felt that V1 (Conduct internal quality assurance of the
assessment process) should be included among the optional units throughout.

The Co-ordination grouping was strongly endorsed, but with a suggestion that L9 (Create a
climate conducive to learning) should be included in the core. The emphasis on quality
assurance and management of the learning process in the core units was particularly
welcomed, as were the progression opportunities to the Management grouping. It was
suggested that L2 (Identify organisational learning and development needs) should be
included in the options.

The Direct training grouping was endorsed, although some questioned the inclusion of L3
(Identify individual learning aims and programmes) in the core. The new V1 (Conduct
internal quality assurance of the assessment process) should be added to the Option B list.
Some favoured a free set of options rather than the „forced choice‟ of the present system.

Opinion was divided on the Review and Assessment grouping, with one group wishing to
see it removed and a new freestanding A1 award used in its place. This was recognised as
being more demanding than the old D32 and D33. The other breakout group were happy to
keep the grouping with no major changes.



                                                                                                     27
C.     Employment Service (ES) Providers

This workshop was largely taken up with some re-visiting of the rationale for the groupings of
the qualifications and their utility. A minority remained concerned that any definition of
groupings would cut across the diverse way in which ES providers organised job roles, and
that this would particularly disadvantage small and specialist providers. The majority,
however, endorsed the approach and the consensus was that this was as good a fit as could
be achieved.

Specific proposals for refinement for the Management grouping were centred on making G4
an optional and not a core unit. Others also wished to see something specific in the core on
managing financial resources.

The Co-ordination grouping was strongly endorsed, as was the one for Review and
Assessment.

Most discussion centred on the delivery (Direct training and support) grouping. The main
concern was that initial assessment and related selection issues were being devalued.
These were key issues - often weakly implemented - in New Deal 18-24 and were thought to
deserve more discrete handling. It was suggested the area should constitute a fifth „mini‟
grouping around L3 and L5 as core units. Some, however, felt that the revised L&D units
might not provide an adequate basis to reflect what was needed.


D.      Training Standards Council (subsequently ALI) Inspectors

This workshop broadly endorsed the qualifications groupings and made a strong plea for the
maintenance of the Assessment and Verification units in their full and integrated forms as an
essential component in quality assurance. Their earlier proposal to split the Direct training
options into A and B with a more focused choice in A was subsequently included in the later
consultation exercise.

Some Inspectors wished to see L8 (Manage the contribution of others to the learning
process) in the core of the Management grouping, with L5 (Agree learning programmes with
learners) and V1 (Conduct internal quality assurance of the assessment process) in the core
of the Co-ordination role. They also wanted to be assured that the detailed content of the
standards gave due emphasis and stress to initial assessment. Opinion was divided as to
whether L7 (Prepare and develop resources to support learning) should be in the core. L9
(Create a climate conducive to learning) was felt to be an important skill worth keeping as a
separate component and placed in the options for the Co-ordination role. The Co-ordination
grouping was seen as vital to the quality of overall programme delivery.

Inspectors felt strongly that L16 (Monitor and review progress with learners) should be a
core unit in the Review and Assessment grouping. This was included in the subsequent
consultation exercise. The grouping was strongly supported as linking assessment with
support for the learner.




                                                                                            28
                                                                              Annex C



              Employment National Training Organisation


     Catalogue of Revised Learning and Development Units


New Unit    Old Unit    Unit Title
Reference   Reference
L1          5C1         Develop a strategy and plan for learning and development
L2          A13         Identify the learning and development needs of the organisation
L3          A21         Identify individual learning aims and programmes
L4          B21         Design learning programmes
L5          C22         Agree learning programmes with learners
L6          B22         Develop training sessions
L7          B33         Prepare and develop resources to support learning
L8          C11         Manage the contribution of others to the learning process
L9          C21         Create a climate that promotes learning
L10         C23         Enable learning through presentations
L11         C24         Enable learning through demonstration and instruction
L12         C25         Enable individual learning through coaching
L13         C27         Enable group learning
L14         None        Support learners by mentoring in the workplace
L15         C26         Support and advise individual learners
L16         D11         Monitor and review progress with learners
L17         E21         Evaluate and improve learning and development programmes
L18         E41         Respond to changes in learning and development
L19         None        Provide learning and development in international settings
L20         None        Support competence achieved in the workplace
L21         None        Plan how to provide basic skills in the workplace
L22         None        Develop training for basic skills in the workplace
L23         None        Support how basic skills are delivered in the workplace
L24         None        Support people learning basic skills in the workplace




            Revised Assessment and Verification Units

A1          D32-33      Assess candidates using a range of methods
A2          D32         Assess candidates‟ performance through observation
V1          D34         Conduct internal quality assurance of the assessment process
V2          D35         Conduct external quality assurance of the assessment process




                                                                                     29
                                                                                               Annex D



                         The Minimum Skills Framework


Key Functions


A. Manage the training and delivery process

B. Plan and develop integrated programmes of work-based training

C. Identify trainee abilities and needs in relation to programmes of work-based training

D. Provide appropriate work-based training opportunities

E. Support trainees and monitor their progress against an agreed training plan

F. Assess trainee achievements on work-based programmes

G. Monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of work-based programmes

H. Develop and maintain professional competence




Expanded Functions




A.     Manage the training and delivery process



A.1    Identify the resource requirements to deliver training programmes


       i.     Establish the physical and financial resources required to deliver work-based training
       ii.    Identify the human resources required to deliver work-based training


A.2    Establish an effective staff induction and development programme


       i.     Establish the experience, competences and skills mix required in staff
       ii.    Establish the level of Key Skills of staff in relation to the requirements of programmes
       iii.   Develop an effective staff induction programme
       iv.    Develop an effective staff appraisal system



                                                                                                         30
      v.     Identify a staff development programme for existing and new staff
      vi.    Monitor and review the competence of staff in relation to the requirements of work-
             based training


A.3   Develop quality assurance systems for work-based training delivery


      i.   Set up internal auditing and quality assurance arrangements
      ii.  Identify and comply with external auditing and quality assurance requirements from
           funders, awarding bodies and inspection bodies
      iii. Create administrative arrangements which ensure the gathering and use of required
           information on training and assessment procedures
      iv. Establish an appropriate communication process with all partners in the training
           programme, including employers and other providers
      v. Ensure effective liaison with all external funding, awarding and inspection bodies
      vi. Develop criteria by which the quality of training and assessment can be evaluated and
           modifications made to systems and procedures
      vii. Contribute to the improved delivery of training and assessment provision


A.4   Manage the overall training and assessment process


      i.     Identify the aims and objectives of the training provision in relation to labour market
             information, client groups and their needs and assessment requirements
      ii.    Identify partners in the delivery of high quality training programmes and the
             arrangements for effective communication and liaison
      iii.   Create information management systems which will provide the necessary information to
             monitor and evaluate delivery
      iv.    Encourage enhanced access to training opportunities for all groups of trainees
      v.     Identify and contribute to local and regional networks which ensure the delivery of good
             quality training
      vi.    Influence and negotiate with key partners in the delivery of training

A.5   Ensure equality and access criteria are set and met

      i.     Develop and apply equality of opportunity, diversity and access policies and practices
      ii.    Encourage enhanced access to training opportunities for all groups of trainees
      iii.   Set up effective equality auditing and monitoring procedures

A.6   Ensure health, safety and environmental protection criteria are set and
      met

      i.     Develop and apply health, safety and environmental protection policies and practices
      ii.    Ensure the health and safety of trainees in all parts of their training programme
      iii.   Set up effective health and safety auditing procedures


B.    Plan and develop integrated programmes of work-based training

B.1   Develop programmes which take account of the requirements of all stakeholders and
      agencies

      i.     Identify the aims and objectives of each programme
      ii.    Identify the required outcomes of programmes
      iii.   Identify relevant qualifications which recognise achievement
      iv.    Identify and comply with awarding body recognition criteria
      v.     Establish the client group and eligibility criteria
      vi.    Establish the funding process and its implications for delivery



                                                                                                      31
      vii. Accommodate monitoring requirements
      viii. Establish appropriate programme design and delivery processes
      ix. Establish service level agreements with suppliers to ensure effective integration of
            components of the programme



B.2   Develop policies and procedures to deliver training programmes


      i.    Develop policies and procedures which ensure equality of opportunity, and access
      ii.   Develop policies and procedures which ensure health, safety and environmental
            protection requirements are met
      iii. Identify accreditation requirements of awarding bodies and develop systems to meet
            them
      iv. Establish appropriate selection and recruitment procedures
      v. Set up effective initial and diagnostic assessment procedures
      vi. Develop workplace supervision, support and assessment procedures
      vii. Establish induction, review and evaluation arrangements
      viii. Identify implications of funding regime for the programme
      ix. Identify and secure resources to deliver programme



B.3   Establish appropriate training experiences


      i.     Identify appropriate training experiences which will deliver programme outcomes,
             including qualification requirements
      ii.    Seek and obtain appropriate workplace provision
      iii.   Identify appropriate training opportunities within the workplace
      iv.    Establish the specific outcomes of each component of training
      v.     Integrate on- and off-the-job components of the programme
      vi.    Identify training and assessment opportunities for the integrated delivery of Key Skills



C.    Identify trainee abilities and needs in relation to different programmes of work-
      based training



C.1   Apply agreed recruitment and selection procedures


      i.     Devise appropriate recruitment processes which relate to programme needs and
             vocational provision
      ii.    Ensure recruitment and selection processes comply with defined equality of opportunity
             and access criteria
      iii.   Select and use selection criteria which assist in placing trainees correctly


C.2   Plan the form and level of programme content to match trainee abilities and required
      outcomes


      i.     Identify abilities to achieve programme outcomes
      ii.    Explore trainee aptitude, vocational interest and expectations
      iii.   Match trainee to appropriate and realistic vocational provision



                                                                                                   32
      iv.    Establish how programme content will deliver required outcomes

C.3   Review with trainees their experiences, achievements and abilities in relation to work-
      based programme outcomes

      i.     Establish trainee‟s existing competences and aptitudes
      ii.    Review trainee‟s past experience and achievements and give them due recognition in
             planning work-based training
      iii.   Use appropriate forms of initial and diagnostic assessment
      iv.    Assess existing levels of Key Skills
      v.     Review prior training and vocational experience
      vi.    Match trainee capacities to required outcomes of selected programme


C.4   Establish individual training needs and styles in relation to the

      programme

      i.     Identify trainee‟s previous training experiences and preferred styles of training
      ii.    Establish the training requirements of the programme
      iii.   Agree specific training needs with trainee in relation to programme
      iv.    Ensure trainee has support to develop required training skills throughout their
             programme
      v.     Agree an individual training plan to meet specific training needs during the programme


C.5   Agree appropriate forms of review and evaluation of progress with trainees


      i.     Identify the programme requirements for review of progress
      ii.    Agree the nature and form of periodic reviews of progress with trainee
      iii.   Ensure that appropriate individuals are identified to conduct reviews
      iv.    Ensure all contractors are familiar with their role and obligations to the trainee in terms of
             progress review




D.    Provide appropriate work-based training opportunities


D.1   Identify relevant methods of training

      i.     Select training methods which are compatible with the workplace
      ii.    Match training methods to individual trainees‟ training styles
      iii.   Match training methods to components of the work-based programme

D.2   Design training programmes to meet trainee requirements

      i.     Select option for meeting training requirements
      ii.    Design training programmes for trainees
      iii.   Co-ordinate the provision of training opportunities with other contributors to the training
             programme


D.3   Evaluate and improve training programmes


      i.     Evaluate training and development programmes
      ii.    Improve training and development programmes


                                                                                                        33
      iii.    Develop training and development methods


D.4   Prepare and develop resources to support training


      i.      Prepare materials and facilities to support training
      ii.     Develop materials to support training


D.5   Make best use of work-based activities in training programmes


      i.    Assess the potential of the workplace for useful and realistic training opportunities
      ii.   Structure training around appropriate workplace activity
      iii.  Produce appropriate training materials based on workplace activities
      iv.   Plan for the integration of work-based activities with off-job provision
      v.    Use the workplace context to develop appropriate skills and competences
      vi.   Devise effective review and recording procedures to capture achievement in the
            workplace
      vii. Match training methods to individual trainees‟ training styles
      viii. Match training methods to components of the work-based programme


D.6   Provide work-based training


      i.      Identify individual training aims, needs and styles
      ii.     Create a climate conducive to training
      iii.    Design training and development sessions
      iv.     Agree training programmes with trainees
      v.      Facilitate training in groups
      vi.     Facilitate training through demonstration and instruction
      vii.    Facilitate training through coaching
      viii.   Provide workplace mentoring
      ix.     Facilitate group training
      x.      Evaluate and improve training sessions

D.7   Create, maintain and monitor safe work-based training environments

      i.      Monitor workplace for compliance with health and safety requirements
      ii.     Ensure workplace programmes provide adequate health and safety induction and
              training




E.    Support trainees and monitor their progress against an agreed training plan



E.1   Identify individual trainee needs


      i.      Identify available training opportunities
      ii.     Identify available support for trainees
      iii.    Identify trainees‟ particular needs and requirements

E.2   Maintain and encourage effective communication with trainees throughout the work-based
      programme


                                                                                                    34
      i.      Identify the information and support needs of trainees
      ii.     Establish effective information management systems between providers, employers and
              trainees
      iii.    Create regular opportunities for trainee feedback on programme delivery


E.3   Review the training experience with trainees


      i.      Set up formal mechanisms for review of trainee progress against individual training plans
              and required programme outcomes
      ii.     Integrate feedback from on- and off-job provision on trainee progress
      iii.    Involve the trainee‟s workplace supervisor and/or colleagues in the review process as
              required

      iv.     Agree changes to the training plan with trainees and providers

      v.      Monitor the effectiveness of agreed changes with trainees and providers


E.4   Ensure access to personal support


      i. Ensure trainee entitlement to appropriate forms of training support
      ii. Provide access to guidance and support outside the training programmes as required
      iii. Ensure trainees have access to personal counselling and support services


E.5   Provide career guidance and support in job search


      i.     Review trainee preferences and expectations in relation to employment
      ii.    Identify the contribution of current training programme to individual career plans
      iii.   Ensure trainee has access to job search opportunities and support programmes
      iv.    Review future career and employment plans with trainee and agree next steps
      v.     Liaise with appropriate career and employment services and refer trainee on as required



F.    Assess trainee achievements on work-based programmes



F.1   Identify and use assessment methods appropriate to work-based training programmes


      i.     Analyse work-based provision for assessment opportunities
      ii.    Devise integrated assessment procedures between on- and off-the-job provision
      iii.   Identify appropriate workplace contributors to the assessment process
      iv.    Identify and use full range of assessment opportunities within the work-based programme


F.2   Assess trainee achievement


      i. Ensure that trainees understand and are fully involved in the assessment process
      ii. Support work-based assessment
      iii. Agree and review a plan for assessing trainees



                                                                                                    35
       iv. Collect and judge evidence against assessment criteria
       v. Provide feedback and support to trainees on assessment decisions
       vi. Maintain own competence as an assessor

F.3.   Contribute to the quality assurance of the assessment process

       i.     Apply internal quality assurance systems
       ii.    Support and develop assessors
       iii.   Monitor the quality of assessor performance
       iv.    Apply internal quality assurance systems to meet the requirements of awarding bodies
       v.     Contribute to the evaluation of the effectiveness of internal quality assurance and
               assessment arrangements



G.     Monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of work-based programmes


G.1    Gather and use information on training programmes and their outcomes

       i.      Identify reporting and monitoring arrangements required for each programme
       ii.     Establish the quality indicators to be used to measure success
       iii.    Set up and monitor quality information collection and evaluation procedures

G.2    Comply with organisational quality assurance procedures in relation to training inputs
       and achievements of trainees

       i.      Collect appropriate quality information, including trainee feedback
       ii.     Evaluate the effectiveness of components of work-based training programme using
               appropriate evidence
       iii.    Contribute to the review and development of training programmes
       iv.     Identify required changes to training programme and agree changes with others
       v.      Implement and monitor changes


H.     Develop and maintain professional competence
H.1    Evaluate own practice against the needs of work-based training programmes

       i.      Review practice using feedback on performance from others
       ii.     Identify developments within work-based training and assess their impact on own
               competence
       iii.    Set realistic goals and targets for own continuing professional development as a trainer


H.2    Work within a value base and code of practice appropriate to work-based training


       i.      Apply principles of equality of opportunity and entitlement in work-based training
       ii.     Encourage trainee autonomy
       iii.    Recognise and value diversity of experience
       iv.     Work effectively with others for the benefit of trainees
       v.      Adopt and maintain appropriate forms of behaviour with trainees and others
       vi.     Demonstrate a commitment to the well being and achievement of trainees
       vii.    Meet professional responsibilities towards trainees, providers and funders.




                                                                                                      36

								
To top