Preparing for the Future: Consideration of the New Ofqual Regulatory Framework

March 1, 2010 at 12:25 | Posted in Ofqual Regulatory Framework | 2 Comments

On Friday 26th February we held an event in Birmingham to consider Ofqual’s proposals for a New Regulatory Framework. Members of staff and trustees from NOCN and OCNs were invited to ask questions and comment on the proposals. We thought it would be helpful to give this opportunity to people who were unable to attend the event last week and as such we have developed this space for people to post their comments. This space will be available until 5 pm Friday 5^th March.

Jill Brunt

NOCN event FEB – Presentation

Like this:

Be the first to like this post.

2 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

1.12 Guidance. It needs to be made clear what force ‘guidance’ will have. How will ‘guidance’ Para 1.12 differ from ‘regulatory requirements’ (para 1.17)?
1.18 Note that here is it stated that AOs provide a service to providers as well as learners. Ofqual will need to consider what it will require of AOs in terms of service to providers.
1.26 ‘large numbers of learners’ needs to be defined. 1,000?; 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000?
Can a member of the public make a complaint about Ofqual?
8.1 Consistency: what does ‘joined up’ mean
8.2 What does ‘stakeholder’ mean? Exactly who are Ofqual’s stakeholders and precisely what ‘stake’ does each of them have. How does one become a stakeholder? Who decides?
8.4 Qualification titles. What about Unit titles?
8.12 How will Ofqual address the potential or actual conflict of interest where an SSC is developing units or even whole qualifications?
8.14 Ofqual needs to work with QAA as well as the organisations listed
What is Ofqual’s role (if any) if a qualification is developed and delivered exclusively to people outside the UK? (see also 52) on page 73
11.7 Must an AO be an organisation with its registered office situated in the UK? What if it is a subsidiary of an organisation registered outside the UK?
How will Ofqual treat AOs which sub-contract or otherwise delegate some of their functions to other organisations? Might there be some functions (eg IT or HR) which would be unproblematic, but others (eg quality control) which would be more problematic? Does Ofqual have any views on the legal standing of any sub-contracting arrangements? Would it wish to approve such contracts? Would this be covered by the phrase ‘others who contribute to the awarding function’ in para 12.3 7) on p 60?
17.1 Guidance As stated above, Ofqual must be clear in its terminology. If both terms ‘guidance’ and ‘requirements’ are used, it must be clear what the difference is between these, and what the legal force is behind ‘guidance’ as opposed to ‘requirements’.
20.27 The use of fee-capping powers will need to be used carefully and proportionately. The costs of developing specialist qualifications for a limited market could well justify high fees, for example. In a more general market, it is unclear why Ofqual should not simply allow the market to determine the level of fees.
2.13 The question of what constitutes ‘public confidence is a tricky one! One group of organisations not mentioned is the press and other media yet it is often in the media that concerns about qualifications arise, for example about the standards of A levels or (to take a recent example) the question of Ofqual’s intervention with awarding bodies over the grade boundaries for GCSEs in 2009.
Ofqual will need to take a view, for example, about how far greater openness in how qualifications are marked and graded will serve to increase public confidence, and, in general to anticipate FOI enquiries rather than simply respond to them

Comment by Mike Farmer— March 4, 2010 #

Reply
Exam question

Comment by chunganghuang— March 23, 2010 #

Reply

National Open College Network Weblog