Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

IOSH Forums are closing 

The IOSH Forums will close on 5 January 2026 as part of a move to a new, more secure online community platform.

All IOSH members will be invited to join the new platform following the launch of a new member database in the New Year. You can continue to access this website until the closure date. 

For more information, please visit the IOSH website.

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 28 January 2008 07:15:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By RP
It may be time to review the titles of some qualifications above Level 4. QCA and the goverment are to introduce a new framework of qualifications, link below.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7209276.stm

This means that an accumilation of credits can lead to say, a roadworker gaining a diploma.

What should the NEBOSH qualifications be retitled, Doctorate???
Admin  
#2 Posted : 28 January 2008 08:44:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Andrew Cartridge
Please tell me, what is wrong with a roadworker gaining a diploma? provided the right amount of work has been put in ?????????????

Are we not being a tad elitist.

Andy
Admin  
#3 Posted : 28 January 2008 08:53:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Pete Longworth
Checking the link I think the diploma in question is set at a lower level than the NEBOSH diploma and is more like an "A" level.
I don't think RP was trying to suggest that a road sweeper is not capable of attaining the NEBOSH diploma. In this instance, strange as it may seem , I don't think elitism was at the core of the thread. (Not a swipe at you RP).
Admin  
#4 Posted : 28 January 2008 11:32:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jay Joshi

It is vital to know what the "level" of the qualification is before doing any type of comparing/equivalence.

The NEBOSH Diploma is a Level 6 qualification whereas the ones announced today are mostly up to level 3. A Doctorate is broadly a level 8 qualification

There is a National Qualifications Framework(NQF) from which The Qualifications and Credit Framework (QCF)has evolved.

The QCF is a new way of recognising achievement through the award of credit for units and qualifications. It provides flexible routes to gaining full qualifications,and enables qualifications to be achieved gradually.


Every unit and qualification in the QCF framework will have a credit value (one credit represents 10 hours, showing how much time it takes to complete) and a level between Entry level and level 8 (showing how difficult it is).

There are three sizes of qualifications in the QCF:

Awards (1 to 12 credits)
Certificates (13 to 36 credits)
Diplomas (37 credits or more).

So in the new framework you can have an award at level 1 or an award at level 8. This is because the qualification type 'award, certificate, diploma' represents the size of a qualification, not how difficult it is.

Each qualification title contains the following:

The level of the qualification (from Entry level at the bottom to level 8 at the top)
the size of qualification award /certificate / diploma ) details indicating the content of the qualification.

To understand the level of difficulty of the units and qualifications in the new framework it might be helpful to know that GCSEs (grade A*- C) are level 2, GCE A levels are level 3 and a PhD is a level 8. Knowing this can help to position the difficulty and challenge of each level in the framework.

McDonald's have achieved the standards for awarding accredited qualifications at Level 3.

Flybe will offer courses covering the work of cabin crews, engineers, call centre staff, some of which will reach Level 4 - degree level. Network Rail will offer courses up to A-level or Diploma standard at level 3 mainly to their track engineers at first.


For deatils refer to:-
http://www.qca.org.uk/qca_8150.aspx

http://www.qca.org.uk/li.../qca-06-2298-nqf-web.pdf

Admin  
#5 Posted : 28 January 2008 11:55:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Richie
Am I right in thinking that the only change here is that the organisations themselves will be awarding the quals without them being externally verified?

I have no problems with firms training and awarding, after all industry is (as has been the case for years) the main vocational training provider. Once they take on nationally recognised levels however, I would wish them to be independently verified at syllabus and candidate level.

If they are to be individually verified at candidate level I fail to see where the change lies?

Richie
Admin  
#6 Posted : 28 January 2008 14:21:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Pete48
If you read the opening statement of the article it says
"***** has won approval to offer courses which COULD FORM PART OF (my caps)of a qualification at the standard of A-levels or advanced Diplomas.

This is almost certainly a reference to the new Diplomas which start to come on stream in schools this September. The highest level diploma is equivalent to 3.5 A levels. (no don't question the 0.5 please!)
These Diplomas are an attempt to ensure a path to qualification based on more work related learning and skills development.
Contrary to the popular myths about companies like MacDonald's, (they suffer from the street myths as well) they have been great supporters of work related learning for youngsters and therefore I am not surprised that they are taking a leading role in these new developments.
If you want to know more about them from an educationalists view, you can go to the DCSF site (http://www.dcsf.gov.uk) and search on new diplomas.
I hope this information will be useful for those who might otherwise choose to mock or ridicule without the facts.

Usual disclaimer re any connections to MacDonald's. They are just one of many successful companies who are working hard with schools to offer opportunities to learn.
Admin  
#7 Posted : 28 January 2008 15:31:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By DP
I have an idea. Lets call internal training apprenticeships. joking apart any, organisation that is going to invest in its workforce must be applauded.
Admin  
#8 Posted : 28 January 2008 17:25:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jay Joshi
In order to be accredited by the QCA to be an awarding body(which the 3 mentioned are), there is a robust accreditation process.

Accrediting qualifications for the tests and trials:-

I understand that the 3 awarding bodies would have been required to use the "working specification for framework tests and trials" and meet the critieria in "The statutory regulation of external qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland 2004".

The statutory regulation of external qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland 2004 were not written to support a unit-based qualifications framework underpinned by a credit accumulation and transfer system and in some cases there is a prescribed process for disapplication of criteria

Detailed info at:-
http://www.qca.org.uk/qca_8150.aspx
Admin  
#9 Posted : 28 January 2008 19:59:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Richie
Can you imagine NEBOSH centres or Academic establishments awarding certificates without external verification at candidate level?

It would render them worthless. Nuff said.

Richie
Admin  
#10 Posted : 28 January 2008 20:38:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By RP
As said, not intending to be elitist in any way, my point is would the title of'diploma' fit with this equivilent to an A level given current titles referred to or will it cause confusion within any industry. My wife has spent 3 years getting a diploma and a futher 4 for a degree and then masters. What should it be called??...
Admin  
#11 Posted : 28 January 2008 22:15:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Pete48
RP. I agree that the choice of "Diploma" may well cause some confusion in industry and commerce. Some of us did voice this opinion in the earlier stages but our voice was either not heard or not accepted. However, this particular ship has now left port with the full weight of the education sector and HMG pushing it. We will have to learn to live with it methinks.
The principle, focused learning and skill development, is in my view, absolutely the right way forward and should provide a better matched workforce for employers in kids leaving school at 16 right through to 19. Like all study, I guess it will be an available route for mature students as well.
Workplace safety, for the 14-19 year old group, will be a key part of the study areas since significantly more of the learning has to be in the workplace or taught by those with experience of the workplace.(enter Ronald McD)
That has to be good news for H&S.
Admin  
#12 Posted : 29 January 2008 00:01:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jay Joshi
It is unfortunate that even now, there is lack of understanding that the QCA can only give an awarding body accreditation after a robust process.

Please let us not comment without knowing the details of what QCA accreditatoin entails.



Refer to:-
Item 61 on page 22 in the link below

http://www.qca.org.uk/li...ernal_qualifications.pdf


Whereas there may be some political bias, surely, there is nothing wrong with the concept of the new Qualifications and Credit Framework (QCF).

Gone are the days when there was a job/ single career for life --the QCF can be a possible route for those who do not or cannot be academically inclined.

Also, what is wrong if a plc is an awarding body? In order to become an awarding body, the "awarding function" has to be demonstated as independent of any training delivery function in the same orgnisation. At the end of the day, most if not all awarding bodies have charitable status, but will not survive unless they balance their books.

The comments on the BBC website in have your say are being made by people who have absolutely no idea of what QCA accreditation entails.


Admin  
#13 Posted : 29 January 2008 17:25:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jean
How about worth nothing! I worked with a consultant who had a NEBOSH Certificate who considered the NVQ4 was worth nothing because all I had to do was to pull items off the shelf. He didn't mention that I had to do the work to put them there in the first place. He advised a manager if she wanted an easy qualification with the minimum of effort to go for the NVQ4.

I guess the value of qualifications is subjective.

I'm finished ranting now....
Admin  
#14 Posted : 30 January 2008 10:27:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Tabs
Jean - you met a plonker, there are lots of them out there. Hopefully he won't be in a position to appoint people into jobs.

As for McDips, well done HMG! As a country we are looking at a bleak future if we don't keep looking at adapting to different ways of improving.

Many readers here would be amazed to know how many successful people have been a McD employee at some point.(I never was, but I know a few who were).

As for the name ... Perhaps the NEBOSH Diploma is wrongly named? I always thought far more work went into that than some of the Engineering Diplomas offered. But it doesn't matter really 0 someone looking for a Safety Professional is not going to accept a McDip as a suitable qualification, are they?
Admin  
#15 Posted : 30 January 2008 10:49:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jay Joshi
I do not think that the problem of designating names to professions and qualifications is a current problem. It has been ongoing for a very long time.

We have been using the terms "engineer", "certificate" and "diploma" for a very wide range of professions and qualifications. Therefore it makes sense to allocate a "level" to it and once that is widely known, there should not be a problem.

The alternative is to restict the use of these terms to a very limited number--Engineers to those in recognised engineeing professions represented in the Engineering Council and stop using the term for trade fitters and technicians, especially in the gas, electricity and HVAC industry.

Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.