Qualification Designers - How to Professionalise and Regulate?

Well, the era of the NZQf (New Zealand Qualifications Framework) is upon us, and qualification designers (aka unit standard writers, contract writers, NZQf consultants, academic staff, etc, etc) are now beginning to work within the new requirements for listing qualifications on the NZQf. (See NZQA's website for details.)

It seems likely that staff at NZQA, as much as any other NZQf user, are having to examine just how the new requirements will be put in to practice.  In January 2011 NZQA released a discussion paper it had commissioned to consider ways in which systems could be put in place to ensure consistency in meeting the Graduate Profile Outcomes which are to have a defining role within New Zealand Qualifications. (See here for discussion paper.)

The discussion paper is great food for thought.  One of its proposed methods for ensuring that Graduate Profile Outcomes will be consistently assessed by programme providers, is to ensure that the Graduate Profiles Outcomes are well written in the first place.  In turn, it is suggested that this should involve the use of high-quality qualification designers who are well-trained, experienced, and skilled.  To support this, the paper puts forward the idea that qualification designers should be 'professionalised' and 'regulated'.

I can see real advantages to creating a professional body for qualification designers, and to require some form of regulation for members.  As with the registered MasterBuilders approach, qualification developers (ITOs, NQS at NZQA, ITPs or PTEs) would have some assurance of the quality of people they contract or employ to design their qualifications.  Qualification designers themselves, as members of a professional body, would have a marketing edge for their skills and expertise.

If this proposal strikes a a chord with qualification developers (and, let's face it, the idea would need buy-in from this group as they are the ones paying the designers), then careful consideration would be needed in deciding how 'regulation' should take place.  How it should not happen is clear - it would be completely inappropriate for any one commerical entity (ie, any consultant or group of consultants currently contracting out as qualification designers, unit standard writers, curriculum designers, assessment writers etc) to simply put up their hand and say "I could do that".  It would be akin to Jane Bloggs Builders down the road being given the authority to judge their peers (aka competitors) and determine their fate in business.

IMHO, what is needed is an independent regulatory body made up of representatives from all key groups within the sector (ie, ITOs, ITPs, PTEs, NZQA etc).  This body would then need to consult widely with current qualification design practitioners to determine a fair and valid system for recognising excellence in practice.  Qualification designers come from a wide variety of educational and career backgrounds; it would not be an easy task to simply state a minimum qualification requirement or time-served factor needed for registration in to a profession.  Before anyone suggests them - I'd have to say that none of the existing unit standards, nor either of the National Certificates in Adult Education would be suitable, as they do not represent the full mix of complex skills and knowledge which are used by quality qualification designers.

The proposal to regulate and professionalise the role of qualification designers is sound.  The way forward to see this happen fairly and consistently needs careful consideration and inclusive consultation.