Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By David Kinnison
I am dismayed at IOSH's proposals for NVQ (level 4) qualified safety practioners in the IPD process as described in June's SHP (page 48). The introduction on an open book book exam misses the point and obviously demonstrates that the authors of the IPD process have little understanding of what an NVQ is and how it is achieved.
The proposed IPD process favours the Nebosh diploma route and in my opinion is prejudiced against NVQ qualified safety practioners.
The article states "This group of people will have been assessed on their performance against national standards practice, within their own workplace. However, this does not necessarily show that skills developed are transferable to other sectors of employment, as is required by a professional practioner".
Herein lies the fallacy. An NVQ is applicable to all work places because it is based on national standards set by ENTO. Not only do practioners have to demonstrate that they can meet 'Performance criteria' (over 10 units, 26 elements in total) but they also have to demonstrate knowledge (this can verified for example, by question and answer sessions or written precis of specific texts). Essentially an NVQ qualified practioner has shown not only do they have the knowledge but they can apply it in the workplace.
An NVQ qualified practioner most certainly has transerable skills but this seems lost on IOSH.
The essential point missed in the proposed IPD process is experience. Most NVQ candidiates are muture with several years of working experience (10+), not necessarily in health and safety but nevertheless equipped with key working skills (e.g. communication, man-management, and organisation)
With refernce to my own experience, once qualified with an NVQ and MIOSH I had no trouble in obtaining H&S job offers outside education. The skills developed through my NVQ have applied to situations outside my working environment e.g. leisure pursuits.
In order to be fair to all practioners will IOSH suggest that all Diploma qualified practioners demonstrate that they can actually apply their knowledge in the workplace and be assessed on this? I don't think so.
I declare my interest as an NVQ assessor and one who qualified in 2002 NVQ level 4 (old standards). Futhermore, I do agree in maintaining and improving standards but this is not the way forward.
I canvassed some of my candidates who are, to say the least, a bit put out by the proposals and would be inclined not to participate in the IPD process.
I propose that the open book exam is dropped for NVQ level 4 qualified practioners. The questions are likely to repeat what the knowledge criteria are anyway.
Hopefully, our institution will see sense on this issue because it will be great shame to lose well experienced and qualified practioners who would contribute to and benefit IOSH.
I am grateful for the forum to share my views and welcome comments.
Yours
Dr David Kinnison MIOSH, MIIRSM, MISTR, MRSC C.CHEM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Hazel Harvey
David,
You could not be more wrong about IOSH having a predjudice against NVQs. IOSH has accepted the (OSH) NVQ from its inception in 1995 as it has recognised that this form of qualification is a useful tool for many safety practitoners. However, their are problems associated with the NVQ when recognising it against the knowledge part of competence requirements. An NVQ is assessed in a particular workplace and only recognises that workplace, in an idealised situation what you say is true, but we do not have an idealised situation we have one where the quality of NVQs can vary depending on the centre assessing the candidates portfolio and in many cases the knowledge expected by the professional body is not fully assessed. Here at IOSH we have monitored this situation over the last 9 years and have tried to work with the awarding bodies to improve things as regards to consistency. However, when the new scheme was devloped the open exam was suggested as a way of getting round this problem. The open exam is there to assess the broad base of knowledge required and is not a formal exam in the sense of sitting in a room at a particular time. It will be a series of questions that can be researched in any way necessary and returned within a 10 day period, similar to the IEMA model which many IOSH members are familiar with.
Those obtaining qualifications by the academic routes via the universities have to develop a portfolio showing how they have gained skills in the workplace over a two year period beyond qualification so they also may claim they are having a tougher ride than NVQ candidates.
The whole approach is about a level playing field everyone will have covered knowledge,skills and have their experience assessed by a peer review interview before they enter the proposed chartered membership. I would have thought that NVQ candidates would have appreciated that their qualification is not being seen as the 'poor relation' of the other routes but equal and valid although different!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jim Walker
Hazel,
It would seem to me that what you are saying is that some centres offering NVQ do not work to a sufficiently high standard. I seem to remember you expressing similar views elsewhere. I know the centre where I took my NVQ was of a very high standard, but it does concern me that I am "tarred with the brush" of those who had an easy ride. If C&G are not prepared to maintain a suitable level then IOSH need to apply pressure and hard.
Rather than penalise all NVQ holders, IOSH should be seeking to ensure high standards are maintained throughout the NVQ system. I would have thought the easiest way to do this is publish a list of centres offering NVQ that IOSH consider meets a high enough standard. The rest plus C&G will have to take note of that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Hazel Harvey
Jim,
We have applied pressure on City and Guilds about this and they have improved things considerable over the last couple of years. There is obviously a level of inconsisency about the NVQ process as every assessment is on an individual basis so this is not really surprising. It is not a case of penalising anybody in the proposed membership structure - everybody whatever their qualification will be required to demonstrate that they have the full breadth of competence and can demonstrate knowledge skills and experience. The choice of route is the candidates and the increase in the number of NVQs over the last few years is very encouraging as last year over 300 of those entering MIOSH were NVQ holders.
It should be borne in mind that the exam based qualifed people will all be required to develop an NVQ type portfolio of their skills before that can be admitted to the proposed CMIOSH category and as an NVQ holder you will know exactly how difficult this is when it is done well.
IOSH cannot publish a list of NVQ centres as it is not information which is ours, this is the remit of the awarding bodies. In a similar way we don't publish a list of NEBOSH centres, NEBOSH do. I have recommended to people in the past that they ask certain questions of the centres they are considering and I would still hold to this view. There are new centres appearing all the time and we still (and will continue) to monitor the quality of the portfolios being produced as part of our quality control system.As the professional body in OSH we cannot leave this exclusively to an awarding body.
The model currently being proposed is not a great deal different to that used by other chartered professional bodies when assessing their members for individual chartered status. It is only different in that IOSH is accepting that the NVQ route is a valid as any other exam based route and whereas most professionl bodies normally require practice based portfolios before progressing members this is not appropriate for NVQ holders who have already done this. The open exam is seen as the best method for ensuring that the knowledge element is properly assessed.
If there is any prejudice about the NVQ it is from some employers and what IOSH want to demonstrate with the proposed system is that all Chartered Members (subject to the Privy Council of course) are competent practitioners, irrespective of how they initially qualified.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David Kinnison
Hazel
As I understand it the Nebosh diploma is being alined with the new NVQ level 4 in terms of knowledge requirements. Not the other way round. As stated in April's SHP. So both NVQ and Diploma newly qualified practioners should be at the same standard in terms of 'knowledge' by 2004/5.
An NVQ, as I am sure you are aware of, is assessed and verified by 1) An assessor 2) an Internal verifier and 3) an External verifier (all qualified in H&S). Candidates have always had to demonstrate knowledge but what is becoming apparent is that IOSH has a problem with this. Effectively, candidates have already demonstrated the 'knowledge' requirement which is indepedent of the candidate's own working environment: standards have been set by ENTO. So the open book exam is just a device to satisfy IOSH because it does not accept that the NVQ assessor's can assess whether or not their candidates have met the 'kwowledge' requirement. Whilst some centres may not as thorough as others: we are getting tarred with same brush.
As Jim pointed out some centres and awarding bodies will differ in quality but surely that is upto ENTO and C&G to sort out.
Yes, standards are important for the MIOSH or CMIOSH to mean anything.
I believe IOSH had a contribution on the new NVQ standards, which in my opinion move more towards theory than practice, and thus IOSH has been able to guide the NVQ standards to its own direction. I just find difficult to comprehend how IOSH had guided and shaped the NVQ to its way thinking and then still insists on additional verification.
Whatever route to qualification: its tough and no easy ride.
I have a suggestion, all NVQ qualified practioners show their portfolios to IOSH with reference to their experience, skills, and demostration of 'knowledge'. Should further clarification be required then the practioner could be asked to respond which I am sure they would all respond to because they want the 'MIOSH badge'.
In conclusion, membership is for IOSH to award not for practioners to demand. If the bar is raised for NVQ qualified then so it. I am worried candidates will be disinclined to go through a process of additional examination (perhaps rename it 'assessment/verification': I can live with that).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Hazel Harvey
Richard,
The NEBOSH Diploma is being aligned to the national standards in OSH Practice at level 4 not the NVQ. The NVQ is a qualification which also uses the national standards but in a diffent way. In addition to this IOSH have also produced a series of outline learning objectives for the HE sector qualifications based on the national standards (By far the biggest route to IOSH membership now). The standards are the benchmark by which IOSH sets its membership criteria and we have been very happy to work with ENTO in developing these.
The open exam called an asessment is worth consideration and I will pass it on to the Professional Affairs Committee.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By paul cormack
I, too, hold an OSH NVQ4 and believed this was "hard-earned". But IOSH (and others, including QCA) have expressed real concern about the delivery of National and Scottish Vocational Qualifications by a number of agencies up and down the country. If these concerns spur IOSH to introduce an interim measure to validate S/NVQ underpinning knowledge, then, by all means, send us the forms.
If this helps to improve the measure of our profession, then IOSH should get all the support it needs.
I also hold NVQ5 Management, but my MSc apparently holds far more sway with employers. It will take much time yet to resolve people's perceptions...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.