Consultation on the NZQCF and the NZQA Rules

Kia ora. Thanks for joining us today to find out more about the proposed changes to the New Zealand Qualifications and Credentials Framework and NZQA’s rules.

We are proposing three main changes to the NZQCF. The first is a new visual representation of the framework, which includes micro-credentials and presents qualifications and credentials across a spectrum rather than a hierarchy. As the fan shape you see on the screen.

The second area is the level descriptors. We've worked with local and international experts on the descriptions of the labels and domains.

The first two domains which are currently knowledge and skills, have not changed. We've renamed the third domain to be context, autonomy, and responsibility instead of application. In the skills domain we now include subdomains. These cover the transferable competencies of critical thinking, communication and collaboration.

A fourth subdomain, called performance and practice, is intended to make vocational outcomes more visible. Each domain and subdomain has been revised to ensure consistency with the overall approach and clarified the steps up between levels.

The third change is to the qualification-type descriptions. This is what describes each qualification. We've updated the outcomes for qualifications at levels 1 to 6 to reflect the updated level descriptors.

We've updated the purpose statements of qualifications at levels 7 to 10. In particular, level seven diplomas now have entry requirements which reflects decisions made as part of previous consultation. We've also added outcomes in the description of doctoral degrees.

As well as making these changes, we've refreshed and updated the booklet, which describes the NZQCF in detail. We're also proposing changes to two of the NZQA rule sets to support the quality and integrity of the NZQCF.

And while we're at it, we're making some small corrections and minor technical changes. We will include the updated qualification-type descriptions and the level descriptors in the rules. That is the Qualification and Micro-credential Listing and Operational Rules and the Programme Approval, Recognition and Accreditation Rules. We will refer to the qualification-type descriptions in the criteria and include them in the appendix of the rules.

We want to make it explicit that a qualification must align with the qualification type. That is the level, credits, entry requirements and so on. We are considering if alignment should be best fit to the level rather than 100% matching against every descriptor. So your input on this would be appreciated.

A programme must align with the qualification it leads to. This currently happens, but we want to strengthen and clarify this by putting it in the programme rules and include the updated descriptions in the appendix for visibility.

We'll make one change to who can award qualifications and micro-credentials. That is removing qualification developer or micro-credential developer from the list. This means only providers who deliver programmes or micro-credentials or who hold programme approval or micro-credential approval can award it, or NZQA can also award them. A provider who develops the qualification and delivers it will, of course, be able to award it.

We will clarify that qualifications and micro-credentials can be awarded upon successful completion of a programme or micro-credential leading to the award. We think programmes should include the requirements for completion alongside the current requirements for progression within the programme

We could do this by expanding requirements for progression to becoming requirements for progression and completion. We would appreciate thoughts on whether this makes sense for providers and how you would do this.

We will also set out the information that an award certificate must contain. Currently non-degree qualifications at levels 1 to 7 and micro-credentials must meet NZQA specifications. We propose formalising this by putting it on the rules that they must meet the specifications.

This won't apply to universities who have their own specifications. We've updated the specifications and we'll make them available on the consultation web page soon for you to look at. As they are updated, we will allow time to transition from the current specifications to the new ones. That's if you need to make changes.

A New Zealand Record of Achievement is an official transcript showing all the qualifications, micro-credentials and standards a learner has achieved, if they have been reported to NZQA. It is verifiable online and able to be shared by PDF. If qualifications and micro-credentials are not reported to NZQA, they don't get on the learner’s Record of Achievement. If a qualification or micro-credential is on a learner’s record, NZQA is able to confirm that that person has been awarded the qualification or micro-credential.

This can be important for learners seeking recognition of their qualification in other countries, as overseas agencies will often come to NZQA to verify the qualification.

If you’re reporting completions by TEC, you don't need to report to us also, as they do come to us. Although you can report direct to us if you want them to appear quicker on the learner’s report. You can also report via Qualcheck, if you're set up for that, or our online portal.

Universities are not included in this rule, as they use My E-quals. They also report by TEC so the qualifications do appear on the New Zealand Record of Achievement.

The rules already require providers to have robust policies and processes for CRT and RPL. We propose extending this by asking providers other than universities to set out specific requirements for CRT and RPL within the programme.

This may include things like what parts or how much of a programme can be recognised, if there are specific learning outcomes or standards that should not be achieved through CRT or RPL, and so on.

CRT and RPL should be credited towards a programme. We don't think credit will usually be granted for 100% of a programme. This is because it's unlikely that what a learner has previously done is completely the same as the programme they’re enrolling in.

We will produce updated guidance on CRT and RPL, which will cover things like showing that the learner outcomes are being met, keeping records and assessments.

It's also worth noting that the parts of the programme credited through CRT or RPL or with standards previously gained cannot be claimed for funding or do not count for visa purposes.

We're expanding the list of what can be used as evidence of English proficiency, which is Rule 22, previously known as Rule 18. We propose accepting English as a subject at secondary schools in Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. This recognises the level of English language taught in these northern European schools. If they pass with certain grades, they have good language proficiency.

We also propose accepting prior schooling from Pacific Island countries. This is to reduce barriers for Pacific students and allow easier access to education in New Zealand. This is less about language proficiency and more about access and equity.

For example, a Pacific student who has residency does not have to meet rule 22, even if they did their prior schooling overseas. Some of these learners may need additional support, but we expect numbers will be low.

We also require all English language tests to be taken in a testing centre, not online or at home, and require tests to be verified, which already seems to be standard practice.

The proficiency requirements are a minimum and providers can set their own requirements over and above these. For example, you can choose not to accept certain tests or require higher scores for certain programmes.

To ensure the rules better enable the evaluation of applications using Te Hono o te Kahurangi quality assurance, applicants will provide a self-reflective summary which shows how the organisation meets the criteria, as expressed through ngā kaupapa o te Hono o te Kahurangi.

We're making some corrections to the rules, such as renumbering, punctuation and grammar corrections. The only substantial change is in the PTE registration rules. We will update the terminology for accounting principles, financial reporting, assurance reviews, and auditors reports to give greater clarity about what must be provided to NZQA. This will align with CAANZ recommendations.

If you have any questions, please contact us on rules@nzqa.govt.nz.

Kia ora.