| home page | index of articles | ||||
| COTAC COTAC COTAC | |||||
|
COTAC Policy Group
Meeting Tuesday 12 January 2004 |
|
1. Introduction/background to the future development of Conservation NVQs There are three higher level National Vocational Qualifications for Building Conservation, i.e. Consultancy, Control and Building Site Management. These were developed and handed over to awarding bodies (in this case a joint body of made up of a partnership with Edexcel of CIOB, ICE BIAT and COTAC). As with a number of other sectors and qualifications there has been a struggle to get conservation NVQs taken up. In overall control is the Quality Control Agency (QCA). It funds work on qualifications sets and (regularly) changes the rules by which VQs are established and run. QCA have become increasingly strict on the take-up. If the conservation VQs are to remain live there must be adequate throughput of candidates in training. This is a source of frustration for awarding bodies that have struggled to get NVQs in place. As a result, consolidation of the qualifications is being considered where possible in order to establish candidate numbers at viable levels. This has already happened with the Conservation Site Management, which now combines Building, Civil Engineering and Conservation in a single NVQ award of Construction Management. There are appropriate core and optional elements for each discipline. There is enormous potential for such rationalisation. For instance the Transport sector levels 3, 4 and 5 and covering Highways, Planners and Traffic Engineers have been combined into a single award with core and options for Transportation. Review and development of qualifications is controlled by QCA. Level 4 Conservation Control Qualification is currently due for review with the possibility of a combined “Control” qualification covering Town Planning, Building Control and Conservation Control. This proposal is said to satisfy the demand for increasing fluidity in career development patterns and encouraging wide experience. There is a Town Planning level 3 Qualification and it may be feasible to combine this with Building and Conservation Control. The general opinion was that such a proposal would need further consideration since there are currently no level 3 qualifications for Building and Conservation Control. It was noted that level 3 qualifications are much more easily funded than higher levels and that even modern apprenticeship funding may be available. Although currently access to funds from government sources for training had a fairly low age limit, this may be removed or extended. As a result a level 3 intermediate qualification could be attractive for local authorities and their employees. It was confirmed that there are no pre-conditions to these reviews; it depended on the review groups to decide. It was noted that for Planners and Building Control Officers as well as Conservation Officers, there was an enabling role as well as their control and regulation function. Perhaps regeneration qualifications could also be brought into play. This changing role was another possible reason for non-take up of qualifications. The conservation officer role is now much more pro-active with the advent of Conservation Plans and the approach to joint agreements. The wider topic of National Occupational Standards was raised and reference was made to the Local Government Employers website. In contrast to others, Conservation has a problem because there is little support from employers. A joint agreement between employers and unions is needed. Attempts to enlist the support of English Heritage for NVQs had so far failed. It appeared that a stage has been jumped since the employers appeared not to have been involved in Conservation Control. (It would appear that EH is willing to support the case for a revision of the Conservation Control VQ) The Eagan review has a sustainable communities focus and in their responses, English Heritage, IHBC and COTAC have highlighted the importance of the historic environment. Also queried was whether there was any link with the current unification of consents review by DCMS. All this appears very much concentrated on the process not the needs of industry. It was confirmed that there was a strong interest in the relationship between Occupational Standards and professional qualifications etc. Construction is the furthest ahead of any sector in these developments. This study is to be pro-active by nature as reflected by its title “the Built Environment Development and Control”. The aim is to contact all relevant sectors including Planning, Building Control and Conservation Control in the next few days to enlist delegates for the review. A project leader is required for which some funding is available. The aim is to complete the work by August 2005. The process will include obtaining feedback for the Working Group arising from the experience of running existing qualifications. Reviewing and re-mapping is carried out in order to meet the needs of the current situation. The CIC occupational map for Construction as a whole is reviewed annually on a rolling programme with feedback obtained and fed into work on qualifications. Consultation will include all parts of the UK. In addition to the working group, the Validation Group will need to have a COTAC representative. There will then be an industry validation group with all information going back to the Validation Review Group and the passed to the Awarding Body to make generally available. The Progression Report, August 2003 available on the CIC website was referred to; a copy being tabled at the meeting. This was developed in conjunction with 8 professional organisations. CIC and its predecessor CISC have done a lot of work looking at the relationship between NVQs and academic qualifications e.g. degrees.
As a result sufficient information has been developed for an academic institution to be able to develop courses shaped to meet work needs. Employers can then more easily match practical work experience to the academic study component. Reaction of the professional institutes to VQs has been variable. Some such as the CIOB has invested heavily. If candidates have the relevant NVQs, they just need the professional interview to qualify for membership. The first diagram in the leaflet “STEP Contents” i.e. Standards, Training and Education for Progression shows how to link the Industry set Occupational Standards, the Further and Higher Education Standards benchmarked for academic degree qualifications by the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) and Professional Institutions Standards. Other diagrams in the leaflet illustrate the highly complex current situation, how matters could progress and be simplified It also suggests how individuals may progress through their career perhaps moving across to a similar and related but different qualification through demonstration and acquisition of suitable experience and knowledge. It was noted that COTAC had been working to realign NVQs with professional qualifications. 2. Central Government and Local Authority initiatives The IHBC Areas of Competence paper was tabled for information and comment together with a paper outlining the understanding of Sector Skills Context for Building Conservation. There does not appear to be an ideal fit with the Government’s Skills Strategy. Twenty-three Sector Skills Councils have been or are to be formed, a number of which, impact on conservation as noted in the paper, e.g. Construction Skills, LANTRA, Summit skills, PHCFM. To succeed it will be essential for all to work together and with CIC. English Heritage has suggested that the IHBC and IFA (Institute of Field Archaeologists) should consider merger. There are areas of overlap but also substantial differences. There is no statutory requirement for Conservation Officers while there is for Archaeologists. However, it is encouraging that English Heritage backed the national survey of local government conservation provision. Response to this is being worked on with English Heritage and DCMS. There is a potential problem with CABE since it seems to have taken over a lot of the urban agenda.
IHBC had hoped to get English Heritage to take a leading role in signing up to standards firstly at the London IHBC conference in 2000 and on other occasions subsequently but so far without success. The key is how to get employers to sign up to the standards. The LGA didn’t have any specific representatives for construction but are now establishing a regional organisation. Each of the regional officers will each be taking national responsibility for one sector. An individual has been identified for construction. CIC now needs to develop direct links with employers. CIC was also setting up a regional structure, some being in place. Now employers can meet regionally. These links to be further developed in order to move up competence and qualifications on the common agenda. It was noted that the CITB and professional organisations also have regional organisations and it was hoped these should be linked with CIC regions. The key is to get Conservation not just general construction education as a priority. It was noted that the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) tends to operate on a local/regional basis whereas the problems of Conservation needs a national approach. Local LSCs are working and linking together increasingly on a regional basis and there is a national LSC office, which may be able to help. The LSC has substantial funds available and has agreed these can be made available in association with the CITB. At present the government tend to judge local government on the process not on outcomes but it is hoped that the Best Value process may help in this regard. The CIC has information on another project which may be viewed on its website where standards have been used to improve performance. English Heritage and local authorities hold the key to improvement by adopting the standards. The CSCS cards, which are based on NVQs, are increasingly being specified as a requirement by clients and contractors. To summarise:
3. Engineers Accreditation system About fifteen months ago the structural and civil engineers recognised that, in order to be lead professional on English Heritage/Lottery projects, they would need to be accredited. They worked with the Edinburgh Group, since this body aimed at achieving consistency of accreditation for all professional disciplines. The two groups of engineers agreed to work together utilising the Edinburgh Group framework of units as a basis for their joint accreditation scheme. A relatively simple format has resulted which has been widely accepted by the engineers. Copies of the guide forwarded for this group. To date 160 forms have been issued and 4 applications made. It is right that all must rely on professional institutions to control their own standards for conservation through such professional registers. They now have their own momentum. The level 5 Conservation Consultancy is due to come up for review in the near future and there is likely to be some consolidation in line with the work of the Edinburgh Group. 4. The Way Ahead
It will be for the participants to agree on whether they should work on all elements together or separately. Normally a first step is broad agreement on definitions. A long shortlist of generic standards is drawn up and fitted into a matrix. Useful Links: CIC website
address www.cic.org.uk
|
|||
|
I |