Introduction
Having written National Occupational Standards (NOS), assisted in drafting them and sitting in on many a review panel, I’d like to think I’ve learnt a thing or two about them. They are the bedrock on which many vocational qualifications (VQs) are based and have stood the test of time… until now.
Just as you may well have a classic car in the garage and a gramophone in your attic. You are much more likely in 2024 to drive an electric or hybrid vehicle and listen to your music on a digital streaming service. So, old things can be good and lay the basis for modern approaches, but do we still need to rely on them?
NVQs (National Vocational Qualifications), historically rooted in National Occupational Standards (NOS), have long been seen as a robust means of assessing practical, workplace-based skills. NOS were designed to be detailed benchmarks of the skills, knowledge, and understanding required to perform competently in various job roles. While this approach has provided a clear link between vocational qualifications and real-world occupational requirements, criticisms have emerged about the relevance and dynamism of NOS-based qualifications in a modern, changing job market.
Static Nature of NOS
One of the key criticisms of NOS-based NVQs is their inherent rigidity. NOS are often slow to update (almost always by committee), meaning they can lag behind advancements and evolving industry needs. In most sectors the static nature of NOS makes it challenging to ensure qualifications are always aligned with the most current skills and competencies required by employers.
This issue raises concerns about whether NOS-based NVQs can effectively prepare learners for the demands of the modern workplace. The long cycles of NOS reviews and updates, sometimes led by Sector Skills Councils (SSCs), but more commonly by Standard Setting Organisations (SSOs) can result in outdated standards that fail to address emerging skills gaps, leaving learners with qualifications that may not fully reflect contemporary industry practices. SSOs have no regulatory power but can influence the direction of NOS development, which could be a cause for concern depending on controlling factors. For example, if an SSO NOS development group was chaired or led by a major employer or sponsored by a trade association, then conflicts of interest surrounding the direction of NOS development would naturally arise.
Challenges in Validating Competence
Another challenge with NOS-based NVQs is the focus on “tick-box” assessments, which critics argue can lead to superficial validation of competence. Assessors often rely on physical or electronic portfolios of evidence, observation, and written reflections, which may not always capture the full complexity of a learner’s abilities, especially in dynamic roles that require adaptability and problem-solving.
Of more concern, however, is that NOS based assessments are an exercise in benchmarking. This approach encourages learners to meet minimum standards, rather than fostering deeper understanding or encouraging excellence, by means of a grading system for example. The emphasis on meeting pre-defined standards rather than demonstrating overall competence in more fluid, evolving job roles can undermine the richness of vocational learning.
Is There a Better Way?
As industries continue to evolve a more dynamic approach to assessing competence is needed. Competency-based assessments must adapt to reflect changing practices, integrate emerging technologies, and encourage continuous learning.
There is growing interest in more agile, real-time approaches to competence assessment. Continuous assessment models, where learners are assessed on an ongoing basis in a variety of contexts, allows for better measurement of true competence, particularly in fields that require problem-solving, innovation, and collaboration.
NOS-Based NVQs: Left Behind?
With the pace of change in many industries, the concern is that NOS-based vocational qualifications risk being left behind. Other countries, such as Germany and Switzerland, have taken a more integrated approach to vocational training, combining academic learning with on-the-job training in more dynamic and flexible models. These systems allow for more tailored, industry-responsive qualifications that can adapt more quickly to changing needs.
Conclusion
While NOS-based NVQs have provided a structured and standardised method for assessing competence, they are facing increasing criticism for their static nature and the limitations of their assessment methods. The modern workplace demands more agile, innovative approaches to skill assessment that can keep pace with industry change. There is a pressing need to rethink how vocational competence is assessed to better prepare learners for the future.
Commentaires