Getting the best from the QCF for employers and learners

How do you make sure that the only vocational qualifications in the Qualifications and Credit Framework (QCF) are those required by employers? And (at the same time) open up choice to learners, making the new qualifications much more flexible?

Credit Works understands how to get the best from the QCF.

Since 2006 we have helped many Sector Organisations using our Process Map methdology to design in the flexibility wanted by employers and learners to new QCF qualifications. And we have the capacity to do this quickly and effectively. In three months in 2010, for Creative and Cultural Skills Sector Skills Council, we wrote 13 new vocational qualifications for people working in Creative Industries – in design, in working in the music business, in theatre lighting and costume and wardrobe, in venue operations and community arts administration. In 2010, (for the Skills Funding Agency) we also designed new qualifications for Skills Advisers and Skills Brokers; those people that help employers make the right choice of learning provider and provision for their businesses.

We are all entitled to Recognition of our Prior Learning

Recognising Prior Learning (RPL) is just ‘another form of assessment’. So why is so hard to get your prior learning recognised? Universities seem to manage it (for postgraduates anyway) so why can’t Further Education (FE) colleges and work-based providers? 

Initial assessment is only any good if it is ongoing...

To properly personalise learning, a comprehensive and effective Initial assessment and ongoing review (IAOR) process is needed, to fully understand learners and their needs, to help them plan their learning and support to help them to succeed.

Personalising Learning – what still needs to change?

Our research reveals a consistent pattern of issues that need to be faced if we are to really offer personalised learning - in the struggles of providers with the qualifications system ; in the absence of understanding and use of RPL for learners at work; in First Steps learning being characterised as a ‘bottom end’ funding stream rather than a learning experience for all tentatively starting again (see the First Steps report); in the failure of curriculum and qualifications to reach those without them; in patchy IAG services; in a lack of systematic ongoing review of progress and achievement.