Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Bob Fulton, MIOSH
Is it me or does anyone else think there is some clique within IOSH that do not and never have liked the NVQ 3 and are for this reason withdrawing Tech SP status because of it instead of revising the VQ. I have met many so called safety professionals with the diploma who couldn't match officers with the certificate or level 3. There used to be a saying when I worked in my trade that papers didn't make mechanics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
Bob,
I did not know that they (IOSH) were withdrawing the TechSP grade, presumably this is due to the chartered status affair?
Personally I would be sad to see it go, unless of course, it is replaced by something similar. I gained TechSP status last year through a NVQ 3 route - TUC Health and Safety Certificate course. For people like me a former H&S Rep it was the only practical solution to gain a respected grade. That is, without company sponsorship and the NEBOSH is very expensive.
I would not like to think that this move would discriminate against H&S Reps, God knows there is enough already ! Fortunately for me at least, I have decided that rather than pay the cost for a NEBOSH 2 for MIOSH status I have embarked on a MSc in H&S Management, still an expensive exercise.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Stuart Nagle
Bob.
I think the move towards offering Chartered Staus (at some time in the future) undoubtably has a bearing on the decision to revise acceptance of NVQs for membership status of IOSH. This I suspect would indeed cover be for the two principle grades of corporate member and what is known as TechSp, Perhaps as MIOSH (CSP - Chartered Safety Professional) & AMIOSH (ISP - Incorporated Safety Professional).
If you look at the membership criteria for other 'Chartered Bodies' able to award 'Chartered Status' to members - known as awarding bodies (see the engineering council site and SARTOR - Statndards and Routes to Registation - requirments) - you will see that all require a degree (BSc at least) and some (ICE for instance) require a MSc for full corporate membership with full C. Eng MICE (Chartered Engineer) designatory letters, as opposed to I.Eng MICE (Incorporated Engineer - Not a chartered engineer)
It is worth noting also that all these bodies, apart from attainment of the respective qualification, also require candidates to undertake a Professional Review interview, akin to the level of membership applied for. This consists of an interview (2 hours +) and to undertake a paper set by the assessors following interview. The process is mandatory.
If IOSH intend to persue the route towards becoming an Awarding Body, their systems will need to reflect those already established as the norm I think, in order to satisfy the Privvy Council who are the organisation (appointed by the Queen no less)that grant the Royal Charter and decide the conditions.
As the established route and criteria for 'Chartered Bodies' to award chartered status has been long established, I do not see that a seperate system could be invoked for IOSH to do things differently. However I stand to be corrected on this !!
It is worth noting though that all the awarding bodies (Chartered Institutions able to award the title of Chartered Engineer/ Chartered Surveyor etc) also have a route to membership that allows 'Mature Candidates' to undergo a MCR (Mature candidate Review) whereby the mature candidate can submit a long and detailed paper (somewhat onerous) and, if acceptable, be given a professional review interview akin to that (but much longer and arduous) given for acedemically qualified applicants, and if successfull also achieve the level of membership given to an acedemically qualified applicant.
I see no reason however, why IOSH (the leading H&S Professional Body) cannot review the NVQ's available to upgrade them (to IOSH & Privvy Council acceptable level - after all these are Government led and preferred methods of allowing all persons the opportunity to obtain qualifications)and also devise a direct entry examination (as the engineering council have) to permit prospective members who do not have an acedemic qualification or those seeking elevation within the institution to undertake an examination and peer review that would satisfy the criteria for the various grades of membership available.
Shutting the door, as it appears to be, without an alternative in such a style often leads to members becoming disgruntled (as has often happened in the past with other institutions) and setting up other professional bodies themselves, which often have a habit of becoming the leading light in the profession, outshining the former body, due to the fact that they are member interest led. An interesting scenario that has happened on more than one occasion in the last 30 years or so.
lets hope IOSH listens to the members it represents and takes a course of action that considers all of its members and those who aspire to be members in the future.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Pedley
Totally agree with you Bob.
The NVQ routes to recogised qualifications are perfect for demonstrating the skills safety pratitioners need to do their job effectively. If we lose the Tech SP qual, the NVQ 3 should be maintained.
Chartered status for the institution should not become an old boy network of academically qualified people who have little experience of working in the field (where it matters).
I have seen the change occur in the Institution of Fire Engineers since attaining chartered status. (I have been a corporate member since 1979). The influence of the Engineering Council makes it feel as though unless you enter with a degree, you have little chance of attaining chartered status. There is a general disregard for practical experience associated with the job as this is a difficult area to test or measure. For me the NVQ approach fits the bill perfectly.
The work of safety professionals is a massive mix and match of talent, within IOSH no one group should have dominance, I understand your fears Bob and hope the membership will engage in the debates to come on this topic.
Keep your chin up
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
The new NVQ 3 is not actually leading to the loss of the TechSP grade, this will continue. It is the effective lowering of the new standard to a level below that of the old NVQ that has resulted in the change that is occurring.
As I have 20+ years in the institution I think I qualify as an old boy and I can assure you that I personally and many others that I know have strong concern for the TechSPs in the institution. The "old boys network" I hope is disintegrating but I am doubtful that it will ever fully disappear. As long as corporate members continue to fight for the institution as a whole the future is bright. There are undoubtedly changes to membership structure in draft, I think, form and I know one extreme form of proposal was to abolish all grades; TechSP, MIOSH and FIOSH, in order to install a single membership grade. I trust that such a step will not occurr as it would aggrevate many to satisfy a few in my opinion.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Hazel Harvey
The TechSP grade isn't closing the only revision is that the new NVQ level 3 is not being recognised. All other accredited routes (NEBOSH Diploma part 1, TUC Course etc) will continue to meet the academic requirement for TechSP. The old NVQ 3did not have a great uptake in any case. It was very difficult to determine where the boundaries between 3 and 4 were in the old system. In the new system the level 4 reflects practice and can be in any employment sector.
The standards although belonging to EmpNTO had considerable input from IOSH during their development and have been accepted by IOSH Council as reflecting a modern approach to OSH . Also a process is currently underway developing the IOSH membership structure as required by the Corporate Strategy of 2000 is underway. All the items mentioned by Stuart are being considered and extensive reviews of other bodies similar to IOSH have been carried out.The outcomes of this process being undertaken by the Professional Affairs Committee, will be considered by Council and then sent to AGM (Bob!) in about 2 years time.Notification will be sent out via this web-site and SHP as it develops. There is an article about the position of the new NVQs relating to competence in the December issue of SHP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Youel
whilst the NVQ route is good enough for our fighter pilots [as well as the USA ETC. ]it is not good enough for others. Makes you think!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Nick House
If I have interpreted Hazel's response correctly, then she was not saying that the NVQ qualification in general was inferior, just that the NVQ 3 did not equate to the part 1 diploma (the other main route to TechSP status)as it was too vague.
Those who already hold the pt1 diploma who do not wish to take the pt2 course can still progress via the NVQ level 4 route.
My only question would be that will the people currently studying the NVQ 3 syllabus still be eligible for TechSP status upon completion, as it would be a little unfair to move the goal posts once the course has started - better to forewarn candidates thinking of taking up the course before they commit.
Regards
Nick.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
I am confident that those on the Admissions Committee understand the differences between the two syllabii and take the appropriate action.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Hazel Harvey
There is no contention that the NVQ isn't good enough. The revised level 4 will continue to be accepted as currently. The NVQ level 3 has actually changed is target audience, it is now aimed at those with some responsibility for health and safety but who would not be considered to be health and safety practitiners. This is why it is no longer accepted for the TechSP grade, it is however, a good qualification for those who want some recognition of their health and safety knowledge and experience. Those enrolled on the old level 3 Health and Safety Practice which is available until the end of this year will be accepted as meeting the academic requirement for TechSP. All City and Guilds Centres have been informed of the changes but if you are not sure please contact either me ot the Membership team for clarification.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Neal Robertson
I am TechSP qualified by NVQ 3 route and have 3yrs post qualification experience. I am into my second stint of IOSH CPD. Reading the postings above, it sometimes makes one wonder if the only tangible benefit of being a TechSP member is your monthly issue of SHP.
My main concern is that prospective employers will look upon my "old" NVQ as being substandard due to the downgrading for the "new" one.
What chance of IOSH awarding internal upgrades for existing TechSP`s who complete a set amount on CPD & an internal exam or interview - there are some members who are unable to undertake external examinations at present due to cost or time factors etc.
Any comments ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert JL Arthur
No one seems to have mentioned the key word so far and that is "competence" an S/NVQ Level 3 is a work based qualification which is assessed against laid down standards.
I have been a Health and Safety Manager of seven years and hold the Level 3.
I feel that the S/NVQ has a great deal of worth as it displays "what you can do rather than what you can remember"
After all would a driving examiner issue a pass because the learner can recite the Highway Code?. No, they would have to display "competence.
I used to deliver the NEBOSH certificate and I can assure you that anyone with a good memory and the right application can pass the examination, but it is how they apply that knowledge in the workplace that will determine "competence"
Worth thinking about!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ashley Williams
Its strange the comments on competece, I know of an old thread i was involved in where i commented on my old job. In my old job i worked for a small registered charity which provided free health and safety support to anyone in the country it was staffed by two TechSP's. I remember moaning to the discussion group about the nuber of MIOSH who would contact me for advice on trivial things like how do i do a risk assessment, where do I obtain MSDS etc, all things they should have known!.
I even had responses from a couple of FIOSH agreeing with my comments that for a MIOSH you need to be able to be able to recite things word for word.
To be a TechSP however you need to remember the information, be able to use it in everyday practical situations and be willing on average to be paid less than someone whos got a piece of paper but has no practical skills, which in my opinion makes the paper worthless!!!!
Ashley
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mark Warrington
Robert
I have to disagree with your reply to Bob's message on the subject of NEBOSH examinations. As a holder of the General Certificate, Dip1 and Dip2 I can assure you that at both diploma levels more is required than a good memory. The questions are designed to test depth of knowledge and practical understanding, it is not about writing down just what you have memorised.....you will certainly fail. Even at certificate level more is required than recital of standard responses that have been remembered.
I know of some working in health and safety who have successfully taken the NVQ route based on someone elses portfolio that has just been plagiarised. I would question whether the NVQ route proves their competency.
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.