apec integrated referencing framework for skills ... docs/2722/proposal... · mike coles ltd apec...

Mike Coles Ltd

APEC Integrated Referencing Framework for Skills Recognition and Mobility

Final report

Andrea Bateman and Mike Coles

January 2016

APEC Integrated Referencing Framework: Final Report

January 2016 of 76

Contents

List of figures ................................................................................................................................... 3

List of acronyms ................................................................................................................... 4

Executive summary .............................................................................................................. 5

Introduction........................................................................................................................ 15

A: The case for better recognition of skills across economies .................................................. 18

B: Strategies to support better recognition ............................................................................21

C: The IRF Concept ............................................................................................................. 29

Pillars of the proposed Framework ................................................................................................ 30

1. Occupational Standards Framework .................................................................................. 30

2. Regional Qualifications Framework .................................................................................... 32

3. Regional Quality Assurance Frameworks ............................................................................ 33

Concept design ............................................................................................................................... 33

Linkages of the IRF with national structures .................................................................................. 39

Developing capacity and commitment .......................................................................................... 41

Governance.................................................................................................................................... 41

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 42

D: Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 43

References ......................................................................................................................... 48

Appendices ........................................................................................................................ 50

Appendix 1: List of consultations and meetings ..............................................................................51

Appendix 2: Options for the APEC Integrated Referencing Framework ......................................... 53

Appendix 3: Feedback on the Options ............................................................................................ 62

Appendix 4: Glossary ..................................................................................................................... 70

Appendix 5: List of organisations ................................................................................................... 72

Appendix 6: Standards definitions .................................................................................................. 73

Appendix 7: International classification definitions ........................................................................ 74

Appendix 8: AQRF Referencing Criteria .......................................................................................... 75

Appendix 9: Draft APEC Occupational Standards Framework ....................................................... 76


January 2016 of 76

List of figures

Figure 1: APEC Integrated Referencing Framework: Concept Design ................................................ 10

Figure 2: Key aspects for facilitating recognition ............................................................................... 30

Figure 3: APEC Integrated Referencing Framework: Concept Design ................................................ 38

Figure 4: APEC Integrated Referencing Framework: Linkages with national structures ..................... 40


January 2016 of 76

List of acronyms

ABAC APEC Business Advisory Council

APEC Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation

ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations

AQRF ASEAN Qualifications Reference Framework

CARICOM Caribbean Community and Common Market

CEDEFOP European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training

DACUM Developing a Curriculum

EAS East Asia Summit

EAS TVET QAF East Asia Summit Technical Vocational Education and Training Quality Assurance

Framework

EQF European Qualifications Framework

ETF European Training Framework

HRD Human Resource Development

HRDWG Human Resource Development Working Group

ILO International Labour Organisation

IRF APEC Integrated Referencing Framework for Skills Recognition and Mobility

NQF National Qualifications Framework

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

OS Occupational Standards

OSF APEC Occupational Standards Framework.

PQF Pacific Qualifications Framework

QA Quality assurance

QF Qualifications Framework

RQAF Regional Quality Assurance Framework

RQF Regional Qualifications Framework

TVET Technical, Vocational Education and Training

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

VUSSC Virtual University for Small States of the Commonwealth


January 2016 of 76

Executive summary

This report was commissioned by Department of Education and Training, Australian Government to

support future work on developing an APEC Integrated Referencing Framework (IRF) for Skills

Recognition and Mobility. The new framework would aim to draw together into a cohesive

architecture the following key elements:

Occupational standards framework – which enables a comparison of the skills required for

specific occupations

Qualifications framework – which enables comparison of national qualification levels

Quality assurance framework – which enables confidence in the relevance and quality of

provision of training and qualifications.

The project aims to explore how these three elements can combine in one IRF to support recognition

arrangements in Technical, Vocational Education and Training (TVET) sectors across APEC.1

Within the APEC region it is accepted that there needs to be improved structures to support and

manage labour flows in the region to address skill shortages/mismatches. Among the problems to be

solved are:

The diversity or absence of occupational standards

Finding ways to adapt national and regional practices to increasing internationalisation

Limited recognition of skills and qualifications as a result of inconsistency of processes and

poor quality assurance

Limited incentives for people to train in new areas where there is a lack of visibility of new and

emerging skills in occupational standards and therefore in training programs

Low employer confidence of foreign workers being 'qualified' or 'skilled' in the areas that they

need.

The current problems would be remediated if, in the APEC region:

Knowledge and skills needed in occupations were described consistently by coordinating

Occupational Standards.

Recognition processes became more consistent by linking occupational standards and

national training standards, Qualifications Frameworks and Quality Assurance approaches to

regional occupational standards, Regional Qualifications Frameworks (RQFs) and Regional

Quality Assurance (RQA) systems.

Making competencies, qualifications and experience explicit.

An IRF bringing together occupational standards, qualifications frameworks and quality assurance

processes, could support the development of a zone of trust between the APEC member economies.

1 APEC currently include the following economies: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, People's Republic of China,

Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Peru, The Philippines,

Russia, Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, The United States and Viet Nam.


January 2016 of 76

As such, the IRF would facilitate better recognition processes, higher levels of labour mobility, and

potentially lead to better utilisation of human capital, improved labour market outcomes for migrant

workers and improved productivity.

It is important to note that, even if the concept of the IRF is well formulated, in order for it to foster

trust there needs to be an appreciation by people in key agencies (e.g. training providers,

qualifications bodies/quality assurance agencies, professional bodies, employers, employee

organisations, government ministries) that the IRF is helpful for understanding occupational

standards and the qualifications systems in other member economies.

Concept design

The concept design of the IRF aims to bring together three key aspects for facilitating recognition of

occupations and qualifications:

1. Relevance of the occupation or qualification

2. Level of complexity of the learning

3. Quality of the system.

The IRF is a model for the future and will take time to be fully conceptualised and agreed by

participating economies, and then additional time for it to be fully implemented. The IRF is currently

focused on the TVET sector however it does have the potential to be adapted and could be used for

other education sectors.

Although two of these frameworks (ASEAN Qualifications Reference Framework and East Asia

Summit TVET Quality Assurance Framework) are not new (i.e. that they are already developed), it is

how these frameworks interrelate and interact that makes this Integrated Referencing Framework

unique.

Each of these frameworks requires further exploration before it could be included in the APEC IRF:

1. The APEC Occupational Standards Framework requires trialing, finalisation and endorsement

by the APEC Human Resource Development Working Group (HRDWG).

2. The ASEAN Qualifications Reference Framework has only recently been endorsed with key

documents due for release at the end of 2015, and consultation with ASEAN would be

required to adopt this framework.2

3. The East Asia Summit TVET Quality Assurance Framework requires Ministerial endorsement

(at the time of preparing this report).

APEC Occupational Standards Framework

The APEC Occupational Standards Framework will provide the basis for APEC economies to develop

regional occupational standards by providing guiding protocols. This Occupational Standards

Framework includes:

Agreed protocol and criteria for development and review

2 ASEAN economies have agreed to complete referencing by 2018


January 2016 of 76

Agreed templates (that can be adapted as required).

It is proposed that APEC Occupational Standards developed under the APEC Occupational Standards

Framework will be made available for all economies to use as they see fit, including:

Economies using the APEC Occupational Standards for comparability and benchmarking

activities (rather than a model where there regional occupational standards are imposed on

economies)

Employers using the APEC Occupational Standards for recruitment, promotion, development

of job specifications, and skills audits

Industry using the APEC Occupational Standards to develop or benchmark their local or

national occupational standards

Professional associations using the APEC Occupational Standards as the basis for recognition

of skilled worker.

In addition, the vocational education and training sectors could use the APEC Occupational Standards

to develop their own qualifications or base their qualifications on national occupational standards

that were based on or benchmarked against the APEC Occupational Standards.

The APEC Occupational Standards Framework is designed to include a benchmarking exercise to

compare an APEC economy’s occupational standards to the agreed APEC sector occupational

standards. There is no benchmarking or referencing process that is peer reviewed. The finalisation of

an agreed APEC Integrated Referencing Framework would include criteria for referencing

occupational standards as is currently the case in the endorsed AQRF (and EAS TVET QAF) for

referencing a country’s qualifications and quality assurance systems.

APEC Integrated Referencing Framework – how it would work

To progress to a fully integrated referencing framework, APEC economy qualifications should be

subject to quality assurance arrangements and ideally be recognised within a national qualifications

framework.

In addition to the Occupational Standards Framework, two existing frameworks are used to provide

an international reference point for the level of complexity of the qualification (i.e. ASEAN

Qualifications Reference Framework [AQRF]) and to provide confidence in the quality assurance

arrangements (i.e. East Asia Summit TVET Quality Assurance Framework [EAS TVET QAF]).

Under the requirements of the AQRF, ASEAN Member States implement a common referencing process:

For Member States with a NQF, identify in a broad sense the best fit of levels of the national frameworks to that of the AQRF

For Member States without a NQF, identify for national qualifications types or for key qualifications, the best fit to the level of the AQRF

Include confirmation that the accrediting and registering agencies meet agreed quality principles and broad standards.

The referencing process requires that each Member State set up a national referencing panel of key stakeholders, and produce single report that is approved by major stakeholders, and made public.


January 2016 of 76

To facilitate mutual trust, each referencing report would confirm that each Member State’s

implementation of its quality assurance systems meets the agreed quality assurance principles and

standards, or if this confirmation is not possible, the referencing process and report should

demonstrate progress towards meeting these principles and standards. There are three international

quality assurance frameworks named within the AQRF, one of which is the EAS TVET QAF.3

The EAS TVET QAF requires each member country to undertake a detailed benchmarking exercise

and, again, a report is to be generated and shared amongst participating countries. However, it does

not include a robust referencing process as it was designed to be a self-benchmarking activity.

Consideration will need to be given to developing a robust referencing process based on referencing

criteria – if the EAS TVET QAF is treated as a stand-alone mechanism.

In relation to the AQRF, the referencing process links the AQRF with the EAS TVET QAF. As such, it is

anticipated that APEC economies would undertake the referencing to the qualifications framework

and to the quality assurance framework at the same time.

It is proposed that there will be two levels of engagement in the AQRF and EAS TVET QAF

referencing process for APEC economies:

Undertake a rigorous and transparent self-referencing and self-benchmarking to the AQRF

and EAS TVET QAF, with a report being made public. This is to be considered an interim

measure to a full referencing and benchmarking activity.

Undertake a full referencing and benchmarking activity to the AQRF and EAS TVET QAF that

fully meets the referencing criteria documented in the AQRF.

For the IRF to be fully operational there needs to be:

A robust national referencing process to benchmark APEC economies’ occupational

standards or vocational education and training standards against the APEC Occupational

Standards that meets the referencing criteria, including peer review. The provision of country

report would be a product of a national occupational standards referencing activity.

A full referencing and benchmarking activity to the AQRF and EAS TVET QAF that fully meets

the referencing criteria documented in the AQRF. The provision of country reports would be a

product of the referencing activity.

APEC outputs

To facilitate understanding and trust in qualifications systems (by providing transparency of

occupational standards, qualifications and NQFs, and quality assurance processes) the referencing

reports would need to be made available on an agreed APEC website. Referencing reports would

include alignment of:

Local or national occupational standards to APEC OS.

NQF to AQRF

3 The other two frameworks relate specifically to higher education: International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in

Higher Education (INQAAHE) Guidelines of Good Practice for Quality Assurance, and the ASEAN Quality Assurance Network (AQAN) ASEAN Quality Assurance Framework for Higher Education.


January 2016 of 76

National quality assurance systems to EAS TVET QAF.

To facilitate recognition of qualifications achieved by individuals, it is proposed that an APEC

Graduate TVET Statement template be developed for economies to use if they wish. This template

will be based on the APEC Diploma Supplement template and include the opportunity to outline an:

1. Annotation in relation to the APEC Occupational Standards

2. Annotation in relation to the AQRF

3. Annotation in relation to the EAS TVET QAF.

The APEC Graduate TVET Statement would not be an acknowledgement of regional recognition of

specific qualifications achieved, but could be used to inform receiving countries, employers and

institutions about the basis of the qualification (i.e. it is based on agreed APEC Occupational

Standards), how the qualification level aligns to the AQRF, and of the quality assurance arrangements

that underpin the qualification or NQF. The APEC Graduate TVET Statement could not contain the

information listed above unless a full referencing process across the three aspects (APEC OSF, AQRF

and EAS TVET QAF) has been undertaken and a referencing report being made public.

This template would need to be agreed by APEC economies and it is suggested that, as per the APEC

Diploma Supplement model, implementation within country is the remit of each economy’s

vocational and training sector responsible body, and that its usage is voluntary at the country level.

Socialisation of the APEC Graduate TVET Statement model will need to be undertaken. It is proposed

that the APEC Graduate TVET Statement template and associated information will be made available

on a dedicated APEC Integrated Referencing Framework website.


January 2016 of 76

The diagram below summarises the key aspects of the IRF.

Regional outputs

Referencing reports: APEC IRF website: Learner output:

Local or national OS to APEC OS

NQF to AQRF

QA systems to EAS TVET QAF

Endorsed frameworks

Agreed templates

Referencing reports

APEC Occupational Standards

Facility to compare local or national Occupational Standards with APEC Occupational Standards

Facility to compare NQFs with AQRF

Facility to compare QA systems with EAS TVET QAF

Graduate TVET Statement includes:

Alignment of qualification to APEC OS

AQRF alignment to NQF or the specific qualification

QA alignment to EAS TVET QAF

Figure 1: APEC Integrated Referencing Framework: Concept Design

A dedicated APEC IRF website would be an essential tool for the dissemination of the IRF and for

building trust in countries’ qualifications system. As previously mentioned it could contain all

referencing reports, but could also include:

Information related to the endorsed frameworks including concept notes and

referencing/benchmarking guidelines

Information related to APEC Graduate Statement template and guidelines for usage

APEC Occupational

Standards Framework

Agreed process for:

1. Development and endorsement (supported by templates)

2. Process for referencing local/national standards to regional

OS

EAS TVET Quality Assurance Framework (QAF)

Countries reference TVET QA systems to EAS TVET QAF and

report findings

ASEAN Qualifications Reference Framework (AQRF)

Countries reference national qualifications frameworks (NQFs) to the AQRF and report findings


January 2016 of 76

Facility similar to the EQF portal4 that allows for comparison of qualification frameworks,

quality assurance systems and occupational standards between economies.

Recommendations

Due to the complexity of the APEC Integrated Referencing Framework, it is anticipated that it will

develop and be confirmed at a different pace to that of the APEC Occupational Standards

Framework.

However, there are a number of issues that should be taken into account for progressing this work.

1. The IRF requires the APEC Occupational Standards Framework to be in place before it can

become a reality, including a referencing process.

2. The EAS TVET QAF requires finalisation and endorsement. The APEC economies will

need to consult closely with the EAS community to progress the EAS TVET QAF to

endorsement.

3. Adoption of the AQRF will require consultation with ASEAN member states.

4. It is important to note that definitions for AQRF and EAS TVET QAF are consistent and

have been agreed following extensive consultation with ASEAN and EAS member

countries. It is these definitions that would be adopted, where relevant, in the both the

APEC Occupational Standards Framework and the APEC Integrated Referencing

Framework. Therefore, any changes to the existing definitions need to be seriously

considered.

5. Neither the Occupational Standards Framework nor the EAS TVET QAF include a robust

referencing process as they are based on a self-benchmarking activity. Consideration will

need to be given to developing a peer reviewed referencing process with the IRF,

especially for the Occupational Standards Framework.

To take the APEC Occupational Standards Framework forward the following recommendations are

provided.

1. Finalise a strategy and timeline for implementation

It is important to maintain the momentum of development of the APEC Occupational Standards

Framework (OSF). It requires a socialisation strategy to ensure that the APEC economies are

conversant with the proposed OSF and to enable them to provide significant input into its

development.

2. Use case studies to inform the model

To test the OSF it is important for further development of APEC Occupational Standards

according to the OSF protocols. It is suggested that at least two case studies are established and

at least one of the industries chosen is from a distinctly different sector to that of transport and

logistics.

Feedback from the case studies should inform refinement of the model.

4 https://ec.europa.eu/ploteus/en/compare


January 2016 of 76

3. Confirm the body to take responsibility for the management of the framework

Within the OSF it is proposed that Human Resource Development Working Group (HRDWG)

would assist in determining areas of need for development of regional occupational standards

and for confirming endorsement of these standards prior to loading onto the agreed APEC

website.

In addition, the framework requires a body to ensure that it is fit for purpose and remains current.

There a number of options, including the APEC Secretariat, the APEC Business Advisory Council

(ABAC) or the HRDWG, which could take the governance role for the framework – consideration

needs to be given to how this body would link with a governing body for the APEC Integrated

Referencing Framework.

It is anticipated that finalising the governance arrangement will take a significant amount of

discussion with HRDWG, APEC Secretariat and ABAC and other parties to ensure that the

governing body is prepared to maintain the framework and the Occupational Standards.

To take forward the APEC Integrated Referencing Framework (IRF) a common understanding and an

agreement needs to be reached on key aspects of the framework, such as: purpose and principles, code

of practice, application of a regional qualifications framework and a regional quality assurance

framework, associated transparency tools as well as governance and collaborative management

arrangements.

For the APEC Integrated Referencing Framework (IRF) the following general recommendations are

proposed.

1. Strengthen APEC zone of trust

The current trend is towards larger geographical approaches to qualifications frameworks, quality

assurance procedures and defining skills/competences through occupational standards. The aim

is always to build zones of trust that will enable industry to have confidence in the skills of

workers and the free movement of people, goods and services.

It is therefore likely that the current globalisation trend will continue and a response from APEC

will be welcomed by the member economies in the region. The aim must be to respect local

approaches but to provide reference points in occupational standards, qualifications and quality

assurance that can guide developments in countries, act as a benchmark of good practice and

steadily and surely establish an APEC zone of trust that signals good understanding and high trust

in national provision.

2. Establish a vision

It is important for the APEC community to set out the case for a fully integrated approach,

including how it will build on current national and regional approaches and developments, how it

will yield added value and how it is future oriented. A fully integrated approach could evolve over

time and, therefore, establishing a vision will assist in developing priorities and drive action.

3. Provide a model for discussion

The model for discussion is based on three interrelated generic parts that are regional in nature

and are not national approaches. These include:


January 2016 of 76

1. A newly developed Occupational Standards Framework (OSF) based on current practices

2. The ASEAN Qualifications Reference Framework (AQRF)

3. The East Asia Summit TVET Quality Assurance Framework (EAS TVET QAF).

Thus the integrated model itself is new, but most of the elements of it are not.

The fully integrated approach requires the development and finalisation of the OSF.

Recommendations for the OSF have already been discussed. However, for the IRF to be fully

operational there needs be an agreed referencing process related to occupational standards. This

refinement is best included in the development and finalisation of the IRF, as including it in the

OSF will delay the endorsement of that framework and it models the approach in the stand-alone

EAS TVET QAF.

The EAS TVET QAF is based on self-benchmarking and sharing a country report. There is no

national referencing process in the stand-alone model, but it is linked to the robust referencing

process of the AQRF. Clarification of the model will need to be included in the IRF.

The fully integrated approach also requires the finalisation and endorsement of the EAS TVET

QAF and agreement by ASEAN economies to broaden application of the AQRF to all APEC

economies.

4. Develop a strategy for development

Regardless of the model proposed by the APEC community there is a need to establish a strategy

for development including:

Setting the agenda for future development

Establishing an IRF project task force and making clear the lines of responsibility and

tasks through agreed terms of reference. A taskforce will provide the initial management

arrangements, provide advice, be spokespersons for their country and also assist in

seeking country feedback or assist in in-country consultations.

Establishing timelines, milestones, resource requirements, key agencies, technical

support for future development of the model. Establishing timelines and milestones will

provide structure to the enhancement of the model.

5. Engage with countries that are developing frameworks, quality assurance and occupational

standards

No regional framework functions in isolation, and there is an increasing need to engage with

other countries and regional communities that are developing such frameworks (i.e. occupational

standards, qualifications, and quality assurance). It is important for the IRF project taskforce to

link with and be informed by other models, including those that are incorporated in the APEC IRF.

A key role of a project taskforce would be to:

Engage with the countries and broader community

Test the model and promote it more generally

Refine the approach to developing occupational standards.


January 2016 of 76

6. Set up a governing body of key players

Finally, if the APEC IRF is to ‘have a future’ and be fully functioning there needs to be clear

governance arrangements established. Establishing a governing body (be it an advisory council or

a board) that is not only representative of the country members but also of industry would:

Govern the process

Be a focal point for stakeholders

Maintain the momentum of the initiative.


January 2016 of 76

Introduction

This report was commissioned by Department of Education and Training, Australian Government to determine how individual referencing frameworks for recognition can combine to support recognition arrangements in Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) across APEC economies.5 This report aims to support work related to the creation of an APEC Integrated Referencing

Framework (IRF) for Skills Recognition and Mobility. The new framework would aim to draw together

into a cohesive architecture the following key elements:

Occupational standards framework – which enables a comparison of the skills required for

specific occupations

Qualifications framework – which enables comparison of national qualification levels

Quality assurance framework – which enables confidence in the relevance and quality of

provision of training and qualifications.

An IRF could help provide a more consistent approach to recognition procedures through providing

guidance on training standards, qualifications and quality assurance procedures.

An IRF is a potentially useful response to skills shortages and skills mismatches within the APEC

region and may be part of improved structures to support and manage labour flows in the region.

The field of recognition of knowledge, skills and competences is complex and there is no single model

that informs local practice. Different countries/regions have worked in different ways to bring

coordination between occupational standards, qualifications systems and quality assurance

procedures at the local level. The advent of regional qualifications frameworks and international

quality assurance processes have made it possible to consider the potential of a more coordinated

international approach to recognition that includes occupational standards. In this sense the APEC

proposal is future oriented, ambitious and, because of its potential scale, unique.

This report draws upon a wide range of information in relation to strategies to mutually recognise

qualifications and skills. It aims to inform a potential model for an IRF that integrates the key

structures to facilitate recognition of qualifications and skills in the APEC region.

It is important to note that an APEC wide approach to recognition is not achievable if:

Facilitating recognition is not a principle adhered to by participating

countries/agencies/providers.

There is no mechanism for recognition to occur across the region.

5 APEC currently include the following economies: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, People's Republic of China,

Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Peru, The Philippines,

Russia, Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, The United States and Viet Nam.


January 2016 of 76

A mechanism does not generate trust between countries on the quality of the qualifications

undertaken, their basis in occupational or educational standards and the certificates that are

issued.

Quality standards are not transparent and fully implemented across each participating

country/provider/qualification.

There is no specific regional governance of the recognition process.

If a zone of trust6 between the APEC member economies is to be achieved in terms of the elements of

the IRF, there needs to be an appreciation by people in key agencies (e.g. training providers,

qualifications bodies/quality assurance agencies, professional bodies, employers, employment service

providers, employment policy makers, relevant government ministries) that the IRF is helpful for

understanding occupational standards and the qualifications systems in other member economies.

Methodology

This project was based on the outcomes of a range of qualitative data collection and analysis

methods. The project proposed building on existing mechanisms and developing a concept to ‘fit the

APEC context’; consequently, key methods included literature review and consultation with key APEC

economies.

The range of collection methods included: a literature review; discussions with key stakeholders; and,

participation at relevant meetings (APEC Business Advisory Council (ABAC) meeting, APEC Transport

& Logistics project workshop and the initial IRF concept meeting).

Literature review – was related to regional frameworks and strategies for the recognition of

qualifications, including models for occupational standards development. A summary of the

literature review is included in Section B of this report.

Discussions with key stakeholders in APEC, including senior government officials, businesses,

educators and policy makers. A list of interviewees are included in Appendix 1.

Participation at relevant meetings, e.g. APEC Business Advisory Council (ABAC) Connectivity

Working Group meeting in Melbourne (August 2015), which provided insights into the issues

related to labour mobility and the recognition of skills.

Participation at APEC Transport & Logistics project workshop in Manila (September 2015),

which provided valuable insights into the process for developing and validating regional

occupational standards.

Participation at a workshop in Manila to discuss the IRF concept with 12 APEC economies

(September/October 2015). The concept options and feedback from the participants are

included in Appendix 2 and Appendix 3.

6 Coles & Oates 2004


January 2016 of 76

Structure of the report

This report is structured in four parts:

Part A The case for better recognition of skills across economies – This section outlines the case for establishing both an Occupational Standards Reference Framework and a fully Integrated Referencing Framework.

Part B Strategies to support better recognition – This section summarises the various mechanisms that support recognition and a discussion of the issues related to developing a fully integrated framework work for APEC economies.

Part C The IRF Concept – This section outlines the concept design for a fully Integrated Referencing Framework.

Part D Recommendations – This section outlines the key recommendations for the establishment of an Occupational Standards Reference Framework, and for a fully Integrated Referencing Framework.

A glossary of terms is included in Appendix 4 and list of organisations and structures are included in

Appendix 5. A summary of definitions (e.g. skills, occupations, vocation) from key texts is included in

Appendix 6 and from international classification standards in Appendix 7.

A draft APEC Occupational Standards Framework is included Appendix 9.


January 2016 of 76

A: The case for better recognition of skills across economies

People and jobs are increasingly globally mobile. In addition, organisations, information and

occupations are also increasingly internationalised. This globalisation is an undeniable trend and

countries and regions are faced with developing policies and strategies in the context of the global

economy that has free trade of goods and services and free movement of capital, technology and

skills. Globally, there are significant differences in individual country implementation strategies to

recognise skills and qualifications; these differences are important to embrace as they reflect local

conditions. However, at the regional level countries need to design a coordinated strategy on how to

cope with the challenges of globalisation.

The International Organisation for Migration (2015) notes that worldwide there are an estimated 232

million international migrants and 740 million internal migrants. About 50% of international migrants

reside in ten urbanised, high-income countries (such as Australia, Canada and the United States,

several countries in Europe, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates).

However, migration flows are changing and a much wider range of cities around the world have

become destinations for migrants.

This global mobility of labour has led to the increasing need to facilitate the recognition of

qualifications and skills. How occupational standards and qualifications are recognised takes many

forms and requires countries to implement a range of complementary strategies. To facilitate

recognition processes, stakeholders need confidence in the outcomes of the programs undertaken

and the certification process of individual countries.

Within the APEC region it is accepted that there needs to be improved structures to support and

manage labour flows in the region to address skill shortages/mismatches. Among the problems to be

solved are:

The diversity or absence of occupational standards

Finding ways to adapt national and regional practices to increasing internationalisation

Limited recognition of skills and qualifications as a result of inconsistency of processes and

poor quality assurance

Limited incentives for people to train in new areas where there is a lack of visibility of new and

emerging skills in occupational standards and therefore in training programs

Low employer confidence of foreign workers being 'qualified' or 'skilled' in the areas that they

need.

In response to the need to support and manage labour flows in the APEC region:

The HRD Joint Ministerial Statement (September 2014) has acknowledged the significance of

‘promoting effective management of labour mobility and encourage, including on a sectoral

basis, further research and dialogue on this issue’.

The Joint Statement on the 2015 High Level Policy Dialogue on Human Capacity Building

(May 2015) has indicated the need to ‘work towards a common understanding of competency

standards and/or framework for national competencies across APEC economies’, to

‘encourage economies to continue improving the quality of education and training’ and to


January 2016 of 76

‘build on the existing qualification referencing frameworks to establish a mutually agreed

qualifications referencing system for APEC economies, to support increased labour mobility

within the region.’

The HRDWG Action Plan (2015–2018) has noted that to help APEC economies manage their

labour markets efficiently and drive economic growth its actions should include:

o improving ‘recognition of qualifications and competencies…’

o identifying ‘opportunities for improving recognition of qualifications,

competencies and training systems to facilitate skills mobility…’

o taking ‘into account the experiences of lessons learnt from other international

fora where APEC economies may participate’

o supporting ‘a long-term, regional, and sector-based framework of

cooperation on facilitating mobility of skilled workers’.

The APEC Advisory Council has proposed the ‘Earn, Learn, Return’ model within the APEC

region. This model could be enhanced by the proposed the IRF, especially the proposal to

develop a sector-based regulatory structure built around a new category of an ‘APEC worker’,

and for anAPEC-wide regulatory convergence of training, assessment and certification of

skills and qualifications for each position in each sector.

More comparable occupational standards

It is logical for economies to organise their own occupational standards based on local labour market

needs and values. Defining a one-size-fits-all set of ‘international occupational standards’ is for most

economies a step too far. However, increasing internationalisation means that for most businesses

there is a desire for standards to be openly comparable to those in other countries so that they have

certainty of access to a reliable and skilled labour force. Some guidelines on design and developing

occupational standards that define the tasks expected by employers in specific occupations could

lead to better comparability whilst preserving local autonomy.

Adapting to international practices

Cooperation between economies on ways of better meeting international expectations for skills,

qualifications and quality assurance can support reforms in national practices as well as providing

regional tools for collaboration. For economies, working outside formal trade agreements there is a

need for individual economies to seek ‘soft’ approaches to working collaboratively to realise better

recognition for skills and qualifications. Currently there is only limited guidance on how this

collaboration could be facilitated.

Improved recognition of skills and qualifications

Currently recognition can be achieved through the use of different tools for defining occupational

standards, structure and levels of qualifications and quality assurance procedures. Inevitably, using a

variety of approaches across sectors and economies leads to confusion and a general lack of

confidence in recognition procedures that operate transnationally. Some anchor points that are

generally known and appreciated can support growing trust and better recognition.


January 2016 of 76

Incentives for people to train

People with ambitions to be mobile in their work need to be sure that the currency of their learning

outcomes and their qualifications is as high as possible. Training according to standards that are

informed by internationally agreed guidelines is likely to improve perceptions of relevance and quality

of learning outcomes by recruiters and trainers in other countries.

Recruiting skilled and qualified people

Employers seeking to broaden their recruitment practices to include applicants from other countries,

perhaps as a result of skills shortages in their own country, are faced with a multitude of different

national approaches of training and qualifications, different ways of defining sector skills standards

and different ways of carrying out quality assurance. There are no regional anchor points they can use

to be more confident in their recruitment potentially leading to underutilisation of human capital,

skills mismatch, low labour market outcomes for migrant workers and loss of productivity.

In summary, the current problems would be remediated if, in the APEC region:

Knowledge and skills needed in occupations were described consistently by coordinating

Occupational Standards

Recognition processes became more consistent by linking occupational standards and

national training standards, Qualifications Frameworks and Quality Assurance approaches to

regional occupational standards, Regional Qualifications Frameworks (RQFs) and Regional

Quality Assurance (RQA) systems

Making competencies, qualifications and experience explicit.


January 2016 of 76

B: Strategies to support better recognition

Mechanisms that support recognition take many forms. This list below is not exhaustive but provides

examples of various mechanisms that support the recognition of qualifications and of skills.

Table 1: Mechanisms that support recognition

Mechanisms Examples

1. Regional qualifications frameworks, including transnational qualifications frameworks or common reference frameworks7

European Qualifications Framework (EQF)

Transnational Qualifications Framework for the Virtual University for Small States of the Commonwealth (TQF for the VUSSC)

Pacific Qualifications Framework (PQF)


Caribbean Community (CARICOM)

2. Regional quality assurance frameworks 8

East Asia Summit TVET Quality Assurance Framework

European Quality Assurance Reference Framework for VET

Pacific Register of Qualifications and Standards: quality assurance standards

3. Multilateral arrangements related to qualifications

International conventions:

o Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region (Lisbon Convention)

o UNESCO Asia Pacific Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications in Higher Education

APEC Higher Education Diploma Supplement model

4. Bilateral and Multilateral arrangements related to occupations or occupational standards

Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Agreement - occupations

ASEAN mutual recognition agreements:

o Occupations

o Occupational standards.

5. Stand-alone national procedures

Referencing to other national qualifications frameworks

Referencing to a regional frameworks or models for occupational/training standards

Referencing to International classification systems (e.g. educational and occupational)

Credential evaluation and skills assessment

6. Industry sector specific procedures

International standards agreements, e.g., in maritime, in civil aviation

Professional body or licensing agreements, e.g., engineering, chefs

Organisation and vendor programs Source: Adapted from Bateman 2015

7 Common reference frameworks are generally the result of an agreement of a community of countries. They are addressed separately due to the specific nature of these agreements. 8 Regional quality assurance frameworks are generally the result of an agreement of a community of countries. They are

addressed separately due to the specific nature of these agreements. Although not directly related to recognition of qualifications they underpin the trust within the process.


January 2016 of 76

The literature review provides a detailed overview of these existing mechanisms. However, the three

key mechanisms proposed for the APEC Integrated Referencing Framework (IRF) are discussed

below.

1. Occupational standards frameworks

Published papers and reports on occupational standards are vast and stretch back to the 1960’s and

beyond. The focus of much of the literature is on the design of standards ensuring they are fit for

purpose, on the implementation of sets of occupational standards, and on the benefits and adverse

effects of the use of occupational standards.

Occupational standards detail the skills and knowledge required for an occupation and can inform the

development of qualifications to ensure they are relevant to the needs of the labour market; they can

also inform employers and learners of a job profile or occupation. The European Training Framework

(ETF 2014) indicates that in the European Union countries there are three distinct groups of countries

whereby:

1. Occupational standards take the form of a more or less comprehensive classification system

whose primary function is supporting labour market monitoring

2. Occupational standards are designed as benchmarks for measuring occupational

performance, either in a work context or in an educational context

3. Occupational standards describe the occupation targeted by a qualification. It is noted that in

this group they are generally developed in an integrated process with education standards,

although this is not always the case in some countries internationally.9

How countries define and document occupational standards varies. Occupational standards are

generally developed around occupations or job roles. In some countries occupational standards are

limited to specifications of an occupation and do not include function statements. Alternatively some

countries use function statements (variously termed competency standards, competencies or units of

competency) which are broadly speaking documented job tasks within an occupation. In many

instances, occupational standards do not include specifications related to education and training or

qualifications.10

A summary of definitions (e.g. skills, occupations, vocation) from key texts is included in Appendix 6

and from international classification standards in Appendix 7.

Within this report occupational standards are defined as statements of activities and tasks related to

a specific job and to its practice.11

Recognition of occupational standards generally takes the form of bilateral arrangements or

multilateral arrangements. Bilateral arrangements tend to involve a degree of comparison and

benchmarking and have no further reach than that of the two parties.12 Multilateral arrangements,

however, tend to rely on broader acceptance of occupation standards. Multilateral agreements are

9 ETF 2014 10 Exceptions include Australia and UK apprenticeship specifications. 11 Adapted from Cedefop Glossary (2011) 12 Bateman 2015


January 2016 of 76

generally linked to labour mobility within a region and vary in format and detail, but they either agree

to recognise occupations or occupational standards:

Occupations – the focus is on an occupational outcome

Occupational standards – the focus is on the job role and skills and knowledge required for an

occupation, and may be linked to qualifications and associated curriculum.

There are two main or generic international approaches to defining occupational standards (the

DACUM method and functional analysis), but there are a multitude of variations on these approaches,

for example, the creation of job profiles.

The ILO has developed a set of guidelines for developing regional model competency standards,13

and has also developed competency standards for various industry sectors, including manufacturing,

construction, welding services and domestic work. These regional competency standards are viewed

as a set of benchmarks that define the skills, knowledge and attributes required for a particular

sector. The standards are designed to be used as a basis for developing national standards and as a

regional reference point. It is not known the level of use of these standards by countries.

Similar approaches are also undertaken by professional or licensing bodies that have standards or

apply standards from other professional bodies to control the levels of membership of their

profession and may have in place mutual recognition arrangements.14 Professional bodies that are

commonly referred to in any discussions related to mutual recognition generally relate to the

maritime (e.g. International Maritime Organisation), trades (e.g. electrician), medical or related

medical professionals (e.g. doctors, nurses), accountants and engineers. The arrangements generally

relate to some form of license, registration or membership. In addition, a large number of

multinational organisations define and manage training programs and offer their own ‘industry

standard’ qualifications.

In the context of recognition of skills developed through formal training there are a range of

multilateral arrangements, including international conventions,15 regional mutual recognition

agreements (e.g. ASEAN mutual recognition agreements) and use of transparency tools (e.g. APEC

Diploma Supplement for Higher Education). In addition, many countries have established official

recognition authorities which make decisions on recognition through credential evaluation.

One underlying assumption related to the recognition of occupational standards is the level of trust

that can be placed in the consistent interpretation of occupation standards and how they link to

qualifications and of the qualification process and certificate issued. This trust is engendered by two

key factors:

Transparency and common understanding of a country’s qualifications and how they are

developed and approved, as well as its education, training and qualifications institutions, for

example, as made evident through an agreed National Qualifications Framework (NQF)

13 ILO 2006 14 Bateman 2013 15 Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region (Lisbon Convention) and the UNESCO Asia-Pacific Regional Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications in Higher Education


January 2016 of 76

The quality assurance process that operates in each country. Without an accompanying

quality assurance system a national qualifications framework ‘is unlikely to be effective in

building the quality of and trust in national qualifications’.16

2. National and regional qualifications frameworks

Qualifications frameworks are a relatively new development, and in 2015 Cedefop17 estimated that

over 150 countries have established or are establishing a NQF18. This rapid expansion is generally

accepted to be as a result of the establishment of a regional qualifications framework; for example, a

number of ASEAN countries are establishing or planning a NQF as a result of the need for a regional

economic focus and the recent establishment of the ASEAN Qualifications Reference Framework

(AQRF).

A qualifications framework is described as ‘an instrument for the development, classification and

recognition of skills, knowledge and competencies along a continuum of agreed levels. It is a way of

structuring existing and new qualifications, which are defined by learning outcomes’ (Tuck 2007 as

cited in ETF 2013, p. v). Typically, qualification frameworks (education sector specific or national)

classify qualifications according to a hierarchy of levels, the qualifications allocated to a particular

level depending on their complexity and challenge, and in many instances they also have a volume of

learning measure.19 The development of NQFs has also seen the increasing use of learning outcomes

as a basis for the qualifications.

NQFs can bring transparency and clarity to qualifications issued within a country, can facilitate a

common understanding of qualification systems, or can bring change to existing qualifications

systems. Such initiatives are linked to recognition of qualifications as they provide a basis for analysis

and comparison of qualification types (e.g. bachelor) between countries. Increased transparency can

benefit learners, employees and employers and those who deal with understanding people’s

qualifications national and internationally for employment, student mobility and labour mobility.

NQFs can also support a greater alignment between qualifications with knowledge, skills and

competencies and their relationship to occupational (and broader labour market) needs, and can

facilitate involvement of industry in the system. The European Union has produced a fuller

description of the added value of NQFs.20

Linked to NQF initiatives are those of regional qualifications frameworks (RQFs). These frameworks

function differently to national qualifications frameworks and are seen more as translation devices

through which countries can compare their qualifications across borders without entering into

lengthy and time consuming bilateral approaches with other countries. These frameworks are used in

communities of countries to facilitate transnational mutual trust in qualifications and promote

student and worker mobility; therefore, they are linked to other initiatives related to mutual

recognition of qualifications, of goods and of services.

16 Bateman & Coles 2013 17 Cedefop 2015a 18 See UNESCO 2015a and 2015b for a full description of all the known NQFs and Regional frameworks 19 Usually measured as credit points equating to hours of student effort or as a duration (of years). 20 European Union 2010


January 2016 of 76

A key concept in the development of these regional approaches is that they support and add value to

national approaches. In no case do they replace or reduce the scope of the national approach.

However, they do have a coordinating effect and this is often due to the guidance offered to countries

on the commonalities and differences between the national approach and the approaches in other

countries. It seems that the regional developments facilitate policy learning21 between countries in

the community.

It is countries which have a regional, economic or social identity, or wish to see one develop, that have

cooperated in the development of regional qualifications frameworks. A RQF or a common reference

framework is defined as ‘a means of enabling one framework of qualifications to relate to others and

subsequently for one qualification to relate to others that are normally located in another

framework’.22 Regional common reference qualification frameworks can:

Deepen integration and harmonisation

Create a common identity

Facilitate:

o transparency of multiple complex systems

o mobility of workers and students

o recognition and credit transfer

Support economic imperatives such as removal of barriers to trade.23

There is considerable variation in the characteristics of RQFs; they vary in their purposes, coverage of

sectors, design and use.24 There are several regional qualifications frameworks or common reference

frameworks at various stages of development or implementation, each with a different focus or

emphases, e.g. European Qualifications Framework (EQF), Transnational Qualifications Framework

for the Virtual University for Small States of the Commonwealth (VUSSC), Caribbean Community

(CARICOM) framework, Pacific Qualifications Framework (PQF) and the ASEAN Qualifications

Reference Framework (AQRF).

Of interest for APEC economies is the PQF and the AQRF; however, the AQRF is of particular interest,

as it is linked to a free trade zone, and has similarities with the EQF, the most established common

reference framework. The AQRF is a common reference framework that will function as a translation

device to enable comparisons of qualification levels across participating ASEAN countries.25

Both the EQF and the AQRF require countries to undertake a referencing process.26 The referencing

process requires countries to compare their NQF levels (i.e. their level descriptors) with the level

descriptors of the regional framework. The referencing process is made consistent through the use of

a set of referencing criteria that each country should use to show how the country’s qualification

system relates to the RQF. One of these criteria covers the quality assurance arrangements within the

21 Grootings 2007, ETF 2004 22 Commission of European Communities 2005, p. 13. 23 Coles (2012) personal communication as cited in The ASEAN Qualifications Reference Framework (Bateman & Coles

2014) 24 Keevy, Chakroun & Deij (2010), Tuck (2007) 25 Bateman & Coles, ASEAN 2014 26 The AQRF referencing criteria are included in Appendix 3.


January 2016 of 76

national qualifications system, as quality assurance is considered critical to ensuring trust in the

linking of NQF levels to the RQF (AQRF/EQF). In the case of the EQF, behind each set of links (NQF to

EQF) are country reports whereby the countries describe their qualifications system and show how

the referencing criteria are met. Country reports are the result of extensive consultation with

stakeholders, and national referencing panels include independent external representation to

improve the transparency of the process. Country reports are peer reviewed by other EU countries

and EU expert agencies.

3. Quality assurance and regional quality assurance frameworks

The field of quality assurance is also well represented in literature, but the focus on international

approaches is relatively recent. Much of the discussion of international quality assurance is generally

embedded within NQF discussions; however, recent reviews are now considering quality assurance as

an approach linked to NQFs. Regional quality assurance frameworks in the TVET sector have been

developed in Europe and for the East Asia Summit countries;27 there also established regional

frameworks in higher education. Recent reviews from Cedefop provide a summary of quality

assurance at agency and provider levels (Cedefop 2011a, Cedefop 2015c).

NQFs can also be seen as part of the quality assurance process in that they can act as a mechanism for

the quality of NQF qualifications. In this way NQFs can support the wider national quality assurance

processes. In some instances quality assurance arrangements may not include reference to a NQF,

especially when the NQF is seen simply as a classifier (and/or register) of all qualifications in a country,

or when NQFs can be directly linked to more established and transparent quality assurance

processes. NQFs and associated quality assurance processes are at the core of building trust in

qualification outcomes and whether qualifications are an accurate reflection of what a person knows

and can do.

Quality assurance processes are focused on providing confidence in educational services provided by

training organisations under the remit of relevant authorities or bodies. Quality assurance of

education and training includes:

The product, through the approval of educational, or occupational or certification standards

The education and training providers, through approval processes based upon key

requirements (e.g. infrastructure, financial probity and health, staff qualifications and

experience, management systems, delivery systems, and student support systems)

The monitoring and auditing of provider processes and outcomes, including student learning

and employment outcomes and student and user satisfaction levels

The control, supervision or monitoring of assessment, certification and graduation

procedures and outcomes

Provider or system wide evaluations of quality, including evaluations by external agencies

27 Requires endorsement by EAS Education Ministers.


January 2016 of 76

The provision of public information on the performance of providers, such as program and

component completions, student and employer satisfaction.28

The key aim of a regional quality assurance framework is to develop mutual understanding amongst

member countries of the quality assurance arrangements for providers and qualifications. In addition,

a regional quality assurance framework can act as:

An instrument to promote and monitor the improvement of member countries’ education

and training systems

A reference instrument that outlines benchmarks to help member countries to assess clearly

and consistently whether the measures necessary for improving the quality of their education

and training systems have been implemented and whether they need to be reviewed

A self-assessment instrument that can include internal and external assessment which can be

made public.29

There are varying models or frameworks at regional level of which the East Asia Summit Technical and

Vocational Education and Training Quality Assurance Framework (EAS TVET QAF) is of particular

interest in the development of the APEC Integrated Referencing Framework. The EAS TVET QAF is a

recently developed quality assurance framework covering 18 countries.30 The key purposes of the

EAS TVET QAF are to:

Enable countries to promote and monitor the improvement of their quality assurance

systems

Facilitate cooperation and mutual understanding between member countries

Support other initiatives within and across the region that enhance connectivity, integration,

education and labour mobility.31

The EAS TVET QAF is based on a number of components:

Principles (transparency, accountability, continuous improvement, flexibility and

responsiveness, comparability)

Quality standards (agency standards plus advisory provider standards – both based on

establishment, accountability and improvement elements)

Quality indicators (based on themes focused on context, input, process and output/product

indicators).

The EAS TVET QAF is one of the quality assurance frameworks that ASEAN Member States are to use

in the referencing process to benchmark their quality assurance processes. As part of the

28 Bateman, Keating, Gillis, Dyson, Burke & Coles 2012, p. 8 & 9. 29 Bateman, Keating, Gillis, Dyson, Burke & Coles 2012 30 The 18 member countries of the East Asia Summit (EAS) include the ten Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)

countries (Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and

Vietnam), as well as Australia, China, India, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Russia and the United States. 31 Bateman, Keating, Gillis, Dyson, Burke & Coles 2012


January 2016 of 76

development project for this quality assurance framework eight countries32 have already undertaken

a self-assessment activity of their quality assurance arrangements assisted by a self-assessment

template and project consultants to develop an action plan for improvement.

Conclusion

In recent years significant developments have taken place in the fields of occupational standards

development, qualifications frameworks development in countries and regions, and in the

development of quality assurance processes in countries and internationally. Generally speaking,

these three areas have developed independently until the wider international role of regional

qualifications frameworks evolved.

There is clearly scope to explore a more coordinated approach for the APEC economies to

occupational standards, qualification recognition and quality assurance systems. An Integrated

Reference Framework could benefit the APEC economies, drawing on:

(i) a consistent approach to occupational standards that support and guide national competency

standard and qualifications,

(ii) a framework that offers better recognition of qualifications; and

(iii) a common approach to quality assurance.

32 Lao PDR, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam


January 2016 of 76

C: The IRF Concept

The field of recognition of knowledge skills and competences is complex, there is no single model that

informs local practice and different countries/regions have worked in different ways to bring





Integrated Reference Framework (IRF) proposal is future oriented, ambitious and, because of its

scale, unique.

An IRF bringing together occupational standards, qualifications frameworks and quality assurance

processes, could support the development of a zone of trust between the APEC member economies.

As such, the IRF would facilitate better recognition processes, higher levels of labour mobility, and

potentially lead to better utilisation of human capital, improved labour market outcomes for migrant

workers and improved productivity.

It is important to note that even if the concept of the IRF is well formulated, in order for it to foster

trust there needs to be an appreciation by people in key agencies (e.g. training providers,

qualifications bodies/quality assurance agencies, professional bodies, employers, employee

organisations) that the IRF is a useful tool for understanding occupational standards and the

qualifications and quality assurance systems in other member economies.

The key focus of this section is to outline a conceptual approach that will facilitate recognition of skills

and qualifications across APEC economies. The literature review has shown that countries or regional

communities do not currently rely on any one mechanism to facilitate recognition of occupations and

qualifications for student and labour mobility, but utilise a range of strategies that may (or may not)

be integrated and complementary to each other.

The concept design of the IRF aims to bring together three key aspects when facilitating recognition

of occupations and qualifications for student and labour mobility:

1. A common understanding of skills required for specific occupations and relevance of the skills

held by individuals for specific occupations

2. Level of complexity of the learning

3. Quality of the system.


January 2016 of 76

Figure 2: Key aspects for facilitating recognition

Pillars of the proposed Framework

The three pillars of the proposed IRF include:

1. A regional occupations standards framework.

2. A regional qualifications framework

3. A regional quality assurance framework.

A range of options for the design of the IRF was developed; these are described in Appendix 2. The

options were presented to participants at the initial consultation meeting in Manila (October 2015)

and their feedback is included in Appendix 3.

The initial consultation meeting, involving 12 APEC economies, provided clear feedback as to the

scope and purpose of the proposed IRF and of its component parts. This feedback is included in the

discussion of the three elements of the IRF below.

1. Occupational Standards Framework

Many national TVET systems use occupational standards as the basis of the qualifications or licensing

requirements. These occupational standards are generally based on the notion of competence, but as

they are based on local needs and values, how they are described and documented as well as how

they are used varies.

Shared or common occupational standards are used across a range of countries and regions, e.g.,

Caribbean. How these occupational standards are used by the participating countries varies. Given

increasing internationalisation and the need for employers to be able to make decision about labour

needs and choices, a process that will develop some comparability of standards – but still allowing

countries and employers autonomy – is needed.

To establish the Occupational Standards Framework for the APEC economies clear protocols need to

be documented and agreed by the APEC economies. These protocols would confirm the definition

and application of APEC occupational standards, and describe how these occupational standards will


Framework

Quality Assurance

Referencing Framework

Qualifications Referencing Framework

Quality

Level

Relevance


January 2016 of 76

be developed at a regional level, agreed and reviewed. The Occupational Standards Framework

should also include how the APEC countries and employers can use these occupational standards to

evaluate skills of employers, to review existing competencies and qualifications, or to assist in the

development of local or national competencies or qualifications.

A pilot program has been conducted on developing regional transport/logistics occupational

standards. The APEC Transport & Logistics project working group trialed an agreed process (including

validation by industry) and also a benchmarking exercise undertaken at the end of the occupational

standards development process. The benchmarking exercise was undertaken on an individual

economy basis by the working group representatives and compared existing occupational standards

in APEC economies and the agreed APEC sector occupational standards.33 The APEC Transport &

Logistics project working group also trialed a series of templates and a common process for

developing regional occupational standards, which could be adapted as part of the framework. The

standardised template for the development of competency specifications includes the following

sections:

Occupational standard title (based at job task level)

Application/descriptor

Skills statement (list of skills required)

Knowledge statement (list of knowledge required)

Responsibility (level of supervision or autonomy)

Certification (notes relationships to licenses or regulations)

Date agreed.

The initial IRF consultation meeting of 12 APEC economies in Manila (October 2015) provided clear

feedback as to the design of the Occupational Standards Framework. The Occupational Standards

Framework outline was to include:

Scope and purpose

Principles

Agreed protocol for the development of regional occupation standards.

There was no indication from the participating economies that the regional occupational standards

should or must be used as common standards by all economies. Instead a more flexible model was

envisaged. The regional occupational standards could be used to:

Inform the development or review local or national occupational standards, and/or

qualifications

Provide benchmarks for employers for evaluating labour needs

Provide additional information for employers when employing staff that have been trained

against occupational standards based on the regional occupational standards.

33 This was not a national referencing activity similar to that proposed in the AQRF.


January 2016 of 76

In relation to national qualifications, the options for the Occupational Standards Framework include

utilising an adjusted APEC Diploma Supplement at a national level, with reference to the regional

occupational standards, if the qualifications are based or partially based on the standards. The initial

draft of the APEC Occupational Standards Framework is included as Appendix 9. A range of

templates have been developed to support the process; these have not been included in the final

report, but were a component of the final products at the conclusion of the project.

2. Regional Qualifications Framework

Given the uptake of NQFs around the world and the complementary development and

implementation of regional qualifications frameworks, it is natural for the APEC economies to

consider the notion of an Asia Pacific Qualifications Framework. Initial research was undertaken in

2009 whereby qualifications frameworks in the APEC region were mapped and a proposal made for a

regional Asia Pacific Qualifications Framework.

A common reference framework for the APEC economies would not only facilitate mutual

understanding of qualifications, but could also generate further implementation of NQFs in

participating countries that do not as yet have a NQF. However, since the notion of the Asia Pacific

QF was explored the ASEAN Qualifications Reference Framework (AQRF) has been developed and

endorsed. The AQRF can be considered to be a state of the art reference framework as it draws on all

the international experience of developing and operating a regional QF, especially European

experience with the EQF.

It therefore makes sense to consider the AQRF as a part of the IRF. APEC economies would be

required to reference their qualifications systems to the AQRF. ASEAN countries are currently

referencing their qualifications systems to the AQRF by meeting a set of referencing criteria (included

in Appendix 8).

A range of possibilities exist for APEC economies when referencing to the AQRF. These include:

1. Undertaking a self-referencing process using the AQRF criteria, or

2. Undertaking a formal referencing process of qualifications systems to the AQRF to make the

qualifications systems more transparent.

3. Using an adjusted APEC Diploma Supplement at national level, and making reference to the

regional level descriptors of the AQRF, based on either the self-referencing or formal

referencing process.

Feedback from the countries at the initial consultation meeting indicated that:

A self-referencing process that was both rigorous and transparent could be the first step

towards formal referencing of NQF to the AQRF

The AQRF was a logical regional qualifications framework to utilise

An adapted APEC Diploma Supplement could be utilised to record the alignment of the

qualification to the NQF and the AQRF.


January 2016 of 76

3. Regional Quality Assurance Frameworks

The EAS TVET Quality Assurance Framework provides a basis to assist member economies in

reviewing or establishing a robust quality assurance system. This framework has a self-assessment

tool that also includes a stepped process for developing an action plan. At this stage nine EAS

countries have undergone a self-assessment process. The majority of EAS member countries are also

members of APEC.34

How the EAS TVET Quality Assurance Framework will be applied in the APEC IRF will depend on the

potential use by stakeholders and the governance arrangements of the framework discussed below. It

could be utilised to assist the completion of an adjusted Diploma Supplement or be part of a country’s

referencing process, confirming how the quality assurance processes in each country meet the EAS

TVET Quality Assurance Framework.

In order to make the qualifications systems more transparent for member economies framework

options include:

1. Undertaking a self-benchmarking process, or

2. Undertaking a formal benchmarking process of the national quality assurance arrangements to

the EAS TVET Quality Assurance Framework

3. Utilising an adapted APEC Diploma Supplement at national level, with reference to the regional

quality assurance standards of the EAS TVET Quality Assurance Framework.

Feedback from the countries at the initial consultation meeting indicated that:

A self-benchmarking process that is both rigorous and transparent could be the first step

towards formal benchmarking exercise of the quality assurance system within a country to

the EAS TVET QAF

An adapted APEC Diploma Supplement could be utilised to record the alignment of the

quality assurance system within a country to the EAS TVET QAF.

Concept design

The concept design of the proposed APEC Integrated Referencing Framework (IRF) is based on three

key frameworks. The IRF is a model for the future and will take time to be fully conceptualised and

agreed by participating economies, and then additional time for it to be fully implemented. The IRF is

currently focused on the TVET sector however it does have the potential to be adapted and could be

used for other education sectors.

The APEC Occupational Standards Framework requires trialing, then finalisation and endorsement by

APEC. The ASEAN Qualifications Reference Framework has only recently been endorsed with key

documents due for release at the end of 2015; and the EAS TVET Quality Assurance Framework

requires EAS Educational Ministerial endorsement.

34 Except for India, Laos, Cambodia and Myanmar


January 2016 of 76

Although two of these frameworks (ASEAN Qualifications Reference Framework and EAS TVET

Quality Assurance Framework) are not new (i.e. they are already developed), it is how these

frameworks interrelate and interact that makes this Integrated Referencing Framework unique.

Each of these frameworks requires further exploration before it could be included in the APEC IRF:

1. The APEC Occupational Standards Framework requires trialing, finalisation and endorsement

by the APEC Human Resource Development Working Group (HRDWG).

2. The ASEAN Qualifications Reference Framework has only recently been endorsed with key

documents due for release at the end of 2015, and consultation with ASEAN would be

required to adopt this framework. 35

3. The EAS TVET Quality Assurance Framework requires endorsement by EAS Education

Ministers (at the time of preparing this report).


The APEC Occupational Standards Framework will provide the basis for APEC economies to develop

regional occupational standards by providing guiding protocols. This Occupational Standards

Framework includes:

Agreed protocol and criteria for development and review of occupational standards

Agreed templates (that can be adapted as required).

It is proposed that APEC Occupational Standards developed under the APEC Occupational Standards

Framework will be made available for all economies to use as they see fit, including:

Economies using the APEC Occupational Standards for comparability and benchmarking

activities (rather than a model where there regional occupational standards are imposed on

economies)

Employers using the APEC Occupational Standards for recruitment, promotion, development

of job specifications, and skills audits

Industry using the APEC Occupational Standards to develop or benchmark their local or

national occupational standards

Professional associations using the APEC Occupational Standards as the basis for recognition

of skilled workers.

In addition, the vocational education and training sectors could use the APEC Occupational Standards

to develop their own qualifications or base their qualifications on national occupational standards

that were based on or benchmarked against the APEC Occupational Standards.

The APEC Occupational Standards Framework is designed to include a benchmarking exercise to

compare an APEC economy’s occupational standards to the agreed APEC sector occupational

standards. There is no benchmarking or referencing process that is peer reviewed. The finalisation of

an agreed APEC Integrated Referencing Framework would include criteria for referencing

35 ASEAN economies have agreed to complete referencing by 2018


January 2016 of 76

occupational standards as is currently the case in the endorsed AQRF (and EAS TVET QA) for

referencing a country’s qualifications and quality assurance systems.

APEC Integrated Referencing Framework

Feedback from the initial consultation noted that the proposed purpose and principles of the IRF

could include:

Proposed purposes:

Supporting economic integration not just mobility

Supporting development of skilled workforce

Facilitating labour mobility and skills recognition and/or development to support economic growth

Sharing knowledge and benchmarking best practices across member economies

Supporting development of qualifications and national qualification frameworks, and quality assurance of qualifications systems.

The principles to underpin the IRF includes:

Make participation flexible and voluntary with efficient and effective processes

Make clear linkages between the three separate frameworks

Provide mutual benefits for individual workers and economies

Take into account the differences in stages of economic development

Take into account the differences in qualifications systems

Utilise and leverage linkages of qualifications among countries

Promote development between public and private sector.

To progress to a fully integrated referencing framework, APEC economy qualifications should be

subject to quality assurance arrangements and ideally be recognised within a national qualifications

framework.

In addition to the Occupational Standards Framework, two existing frameworks are used to provide

an international reference point for the level of complexity of the qualification (i.e. ASEAN

Qualifications Reference Framework [AQRF]) and to provide confidence in the quality assurance

arrangements (i.e. EAS TVET QAF).

Under the requirements of the AQRF, ASEAN Member States implement a common referencing process:

For Member States with a NQF, identify in a broad sense the best fit of levels of the national frameworks to that of the AQRF

For Member States without a NQF, identify for national qualifications types or for key qualifications, the best fit to the level of the AQRF

Include confirmation that the accrediting and registering agencies meet agreed quality principles and broad standards.

The referencing process requires that each Member State sets up a national referencing panel of key stakeholders, and produce a single report that is approved by major stakeholders, and made public.


January 2016 of 76

To facilitate mutual trust, each referencing report would confirm that each Member State’s

implementation of its quality assurance systems meets the agreed quality assurance principles and

standards, or if this confirmation is not possible, the referencing process and report should

demonstrate progress towards meeting these principles and standards. There are three international

quality assurance frameworks named within the AQRF, one of which is the EAS TVET QAF.36

The EAS TVET QAF requires each member country to undertake a detailed benchmarking exercise,

and again a report is to be generated and shared amongst participating countries. However, it does

not include a robust referencing process as it was designed to be a self-benchmarking activity.

Consideration will need to be given to developing a robust referencing process based on referencing

criteria – if the EAS TVET QAF is treated as a stand-alone mechanism.

In relation to the AQRF, the referencing process links the AQRF with the EAS TVET QAF. As such, it is

anticipated that APEC economies would undertake the referencing to the qualifications framework

and to the quality assurance framework at the same time.

It is proposed that there will be two levels of engagement in the AQRF and EAS TVET QAF

referencing process for APEC economies:

1. Undertake a rigorous and transparent self-referencing and self-benchmarking to the AQRF

and EAS TVET QAF, with a report being made public. This is to be considered an interim

measure to a full referencing and benchmarking activity.

2. Undertake a full referencing and benchmarking activity to the AQRF and EAS TVET QAF that

fully meets the referencing criteria documented in the AQRF.

For the IRF to be fully operational there needs to be:

A robust national referencing process to benchmark APEC economies’ occupational

standards or vocational education and training standards against the APEC Occupational

Standards that meets the referencing criteria, including peer review. The provision of country

report would be a product of a national occupational standards referencing activity.

A full referencing and benchmarking activity to the AQRF and EAS TVET QAF that fully meets

the referencing criteria documented in the AQRF. The provision of country reports would be a

product of the referencing activity.

APEC outputs

To facilitate understanding and trust in qualifications systems (by providing transparency of

occupational standards, qualifications and NQFs, and quality assurance processes) the referencing

reports would need to be made available on an agreed APEC website. Referencing reports would

include alignment of:

Local or national occupational standards to APEC OS

36 The other two frameworks relate specifically to higher education: International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies

in Higher Education (INQAAHE) Guidelines of Good Practice for Quality Assurance, and the ASEAN Quality Assurance Network (AQAN) ASEAN Quality Assurance Framework for Higher Education.


January 2016 of 76

NQF to AQRF

National quality assurance systems to EAS TVET QAF.

To facilitate recognition of qualifications achieved by individuals, it is proposed that an APEC

Graduate TVET Statement template be developed for economies to use if they wish. This template

will be based on the APEC Diploma Supplement template and include the opportunity to outline an:

1. Annotation in relation to the APEC Occupational Standards

2. Annotation in relation to the AQRF

3. Annotation in relation to the EAS TVET QAF.

The APEC Graduate TVET Statement would not be an acknowledgement of regional recognition of

specific qualifications achieved, but could be used to inform receiving countries, employers and

institutions about the basis of the qualification (i.e. it is based on agreed APEC Occupational

Standards), how the qualification level aligns to the AQRF, and of the quality assurance arrangements

that underpin the qualification or NQF. The APEC Graduate TVET Statement could not contain the

information listed above unless a full referencing process across the three aspects (APEC OSF, AQRF

and EAS TVET QAF) has been undertaken and a referencing report being made public.

This template would need to be agreed by APEC economies and it is suggested that, as per the APEC

Diploma Supplement model, implementation within country is the remit of each economy’s

vocational and training sector responsible body, and that its usage is voluntary at the country level.

Socialisation of the APEC Graduate TVET Statement model will need to be undertaken. It is proposed

that the APEC Graduate TVET Statement template and associated information will be made available

on a dedicated APEC Integrated Referencing Framework website.


January 2016 of 76

The diagram below summarises the key aspects of the IRF.

Regional outputs



NQF to AQRF


Endorsed frameworks and guidelines

Agreed templates

Referencing reports









Figure 3: APEC Integrated Referencing Framework: Concept Design

A dedicated APEC IRF website would be an essential tool for the dissemination of the IRF and for

building trust in countries’ qualifications system. As previously mentioned it could contain all

referencing reports, but could also include:

Information related to the endorsed frameworks including concept notes and

referencing/benchmarking guidelines

Information related to APEC Graduate Statement template and guidelines for usage

APEC Occupational

Standards Framework

Agreed process for:



OS



report findings


Countries reference national qualifications frameworks (NQFs) to the AQRF and report findings


January 2016 of 76

Facility similar to the EQF portal37 that allows for comparison of qualification frameworks,

quality assurance systems and occupational standards between economies.

Linkages of the IRF with national structures

The IRF will not only foster but also rely on a range of national structures and initiatives, especially to

enable economies to undertake the referencing process of their qualification and quality assurance

systems. The diagram below shows how the IRF could interrelate with national structures and how it

could be used by employers.

Each APEC economy has in place national training structures, such as a qualifications system (which

may or may not include a fully implemented NQF) and quality assurance arrangements, but these will

vary enormously across countries.

Within economies, training programs and/or qualifications may or may not be based on occupational

standards, but there may be occupational standards for labour recognition. The concept in the future

is that economies will develop training programs and/or qualifications based on or designed to meet

or exceed the APEC Occupational Standards to promote comparability, consistency in content and,

most importantly, training that meets the needs of industry.

But, as with any qualifications system, to further promote trust a transparent quality assurance

system needs to be in place. In essence quality assurance focuses on the:

Approval and monitoring of program/qualifications

Approval and monitoring of providers.

As part of the referencing and benchmarking process economies will evaluate their qualifications

system against the AQRF and the EAS TVET QAF.

In the labour sector, employers could use the IRF to review the sector APEC Occupational Standards

to:

Develop their own local occupational standards

Determine recruitment and promotion pathways

Develop job descriptions.

In addition, the APEC Graduate TVET Statement could provide employers with additional

information regarding qualifications and the link to occupational standards, as well as key

information related to the economy’s qualifications system.

In future, professional associations could use sector APEC Occupational Standards information on the

APEC Graduate TVET Statement and information of the individual worker’s experience to recognise

skilled labour and provide a ‘proposed’ APEC Certified Workers Card. Such processes are outside the

remit of this project as it requires a much stronger level of engagement of professional associations

across a range of sectors. However, it can be assumed that each professional association would need

37 https://ec.europa.eu/ploteus/en/compare


January 2016 of 76

to have regional agreements in place with similar national associations or with a regional association

based on agreed regional processes to be able to issue an APEC Certified Workers Card.

Linkages with the proposed key aspects of the IRF, with employer and national structures and

initiatives potentially in place within each IPEC economy are represented in the diagram below.

Regional outputs



NQF to AQRF


Endorsed frameworks and guidelines

Agreed templates

Referencing reports









Figure 4: APEC Integrated Referencing Framework: Linkages with national structures

APEC Occupational

Standards Framework

Agreed process for:



OS



report findings

Employers use APEC OS for:

1. Development of local or national OS

2. Recruitment, promotion, development of job descirptions

Professional associations use:

1. APEC OS and individual experience to recognise skilled labour - APEC Certified Workers Card (potential)

ASEAN Qualifications Reference Framework

(AQRF)

Countries reference national qualifications frameworks (NQFs) to

the AQRF and report findings

National Training Structures

Training and/or assessment program/qualification is based

on/designed to meet (or exceed) the APEC OS.

Based within a QA system:

1. Approval & monitoring of program/qualification - within an

NQF

2. Approval and monitoring of providers.


January 2016 of 76

Developing capacity and commitment

For the IRF to become fully functional the main stakeholders involved in its operation and use need to

be meaningfully engaged in its refinement and implementation. The IRF is a major undertaking for

both designers and users and the aspect critical to its success is the fact that it is trusted.

This trust has a social, technical and political component. The technical dimension is perhaps the

most obvious. Without architecture for the regional approach there would be no IRF; however, for

optimum impetus and trust in the IRF there needs to be a political commitment or endorsement of

the need for an IRF and guidelines for the Occupational Standards. Without this political element the

business stakeholders are likely to be limited to sectoral approaches and they will find it difficult to

engage with the development and use of the IRF with a national approach in mind.

The social dimension is equally important – in the design phases there should be maximum

engagement with the business stakeholders (labour market experts, employers, employees, and

relevant government agencies). The engagement needs to be characterised by broad ownership, high

levels of consultation and good and open dissemination and communications. These three

dimensions taken together indicate the need for a carefully thought through design and

implementation plan and with time enough for engagement and timelines which maintain

momentum of the project.

International initiatives can inform strategies for developing capacity and commitment of APEC

economies to progress the Integrated Referencing Framework.

For example, the AQRF has sought commitment from participating members to a number of critical

issues, for example, implementation of learning outcomes and timeline for referencing, which

extends the notion of ‘voluntary’ to a level of extended commitment. In terms of establishing a zone

of trust, one lesson that that can be derived from the AQRF is the equal focus on a quality assurance

framework from concept design to endorsement.

The AQRF development has also been supported by an extended capacity development program and

required consistent representation from ASEAN member states.38

Governance

The governance arrangements for the APEC IRF need to be determined by participating economies

with consideration of the issues noted below. In part, the governance arrangements will depend on

the level of engagement by the economies in terms of how the three frameworks will be deployed

under the APEC IRF.

The AQRF is owned by the ASEAN Member States. The main issue for the ASEAN Member States is

the maintenance, use, evaluation and updating of the AQRF. In addition, there is a need to provide

guidance and support to participating countries if the AQRF is to be effective. There is also a need for

the maintenance of the framework, as well for monitoring its effectiveness and its implementation

across member countries. It is anticipated that the AQRF will be managed through the ASEAN

38 The AQRF work plan included 2 meetings per year (duration of 1 day) preceded by 2 day capacity development workshops. Focus of workshop was generally related to key decisions to be made in the meeting.


January 2016 of 76

Secretariat, with a representative Advisory Committee and that a national level there will be a

national focal point for collaboration. Regardless as to where the responsible agency is located, there

needs be full acceptance of its authority amongst participating ASEAN countries, and importantly, a

willingness of those countries to cooperate and provide the necessary data and information to enable

the agency to perform its functions.

With the EAS TVET Quality Assurance Framework there is no clear Secretariat to take responsibility

of the framework. Possibilities for the future include the ASEAN Secretariat under an arrangement or,

indeed, an APEC secretariat if the APEC IRF is supported by such an arrangement. However, close

consultation with the EAS community will need to be undertaken to determine how the EAS TVET

QAF governance arrangements can be coordinated with or linked to the IRF governance

arrangements.

Conclusion

An Integrated Reference Framework (IRF) bringing together regional occupational standards, a

qualifications reference framework and quality assurance reference processes, could support the

development of a zone of trust between the APEC member economies in the outcomes from TVET

programs. It is anticipated that the IRF will lead to better recognition processes and as a result

improved levels of labour mobility. The proposed model will allow for flexibility of approach and allow

for APEC economies to engage as they see fit and as it suits their context and circumstance.


January 2016 of 76

D: Recommendations

Due to the complexity of the APEC Integrated Referencing Framework, it is anticipated that it will

develop and be confirmed at a different pace to that of the APEC Occupational Standards

Framework.

However, there are a number of issues that should be taken into account for progressing this work.

1. The IRF requires the APEC Occupational Standards Framework to be in place before it can

become a reality, including a referencing process.

2. The EAS TVET QAF requires finalisation and endorsement. The APEC economies will need to

consult closely with the EAS community to progress the EAS TVET QAF to endorsement.

3. Adoption of the AQRF will require consultation with ASEAN member states.

4. It is important to note that definitions for AQRF and EAS TVET QAF are consistent and have

been agreed following extensive consultation with ASEAN and EAS member countries. It is

these definitions that would be adopted, where relevant, in the both the APEC Occupational

Standards Framework and the APEC Integrated Referencing Framework. Therefore, any

changes to the existing definitions need to be seriously considered.

5. Neither the Occupational Standards Framework nor the EAS TVET QAF include a robust

referencing process as they are based on a self-benchmarking activity. Consideration will

need to be given to developing a peer reviewed referencing process with the IRF, especially

for the Occupational Standards Framework.


The current APEC Transport and Logistics project has provided a proven process and a series of

templates for the protocols that underpin the APEC Occupational Standards Framework. In addition,

the consultation undertaken in Manila (October 2015) provided significant feedback on the proposed

design of the framework, including the scope, purpose, detail and level of pitch of the occupational

standards, use of classification standards, process for development and links to other references (e.g.

training standards, NQFs, regional qualifications frameworks). As such, a significant step has been

taken to finalising the framework. A draft model has been developed and now requires further

discussion and refinement (refer to Appendix 9).

There are no perceived barriers to the finalisation of a stand-alone APEC Occupational Standards

Framework as the model for development of regional occupational standards has already being

trialed. However, to develop an extended model, including a full referencing process of local or

national occupational standards to a set of agreed sector APEC Occupational Standards, would

require further time and would link with the development and endorsement of the IRF.

For the APEC Occupational Standards Framework the main issues are the:

Establishing a website for communicating an disseminating the framework and the


Determining the governance arrangements.


January 2016 of 76

To take the APEC Occupational Standards Framework forward the following recommendations are

provided.

1. Finalise a strategy and timeline for implementation

It is important to maintain the momentum of development of the APEC Occupational Standards

Framework (OSF). It requires a socialisation strategy to ensure that the APEC economies are

conversant with the proposed OSF and to enable them to provide significant input into its

development. A socialisation strategy should include:

At least one workshop to further communicate the OSF to APEC countries and to

emphasise its social and economic benefits.

Establishment of the website, including an information flyer

Determining key contact points within each country responsible for communicating the

OSF.

Maintaining ongoing engagement with key stakeholders.

Developing a targeted and strategic campaign to build and maintain regional political

support.

2. Use case studies to inform the model

To test the OSF it is important for further development of APEC Occupational Standards

according to the OSF protocols. It is suggested that at least two case studies are established and

at least one of the industries chosen is from a distinctly different sector to that of transport and

logistics.

Feedback from the case studies should inform refinement of the model.

3. Confirm the body to take responsibility for the management of the framework

Within the OSF it is proposed that Human Resource Development Working Group (HRDWG)

would assist in determining areas of need for development of regional occupational standards

and for confirming endorsement of these standards prior to loading onto the agreed APEC

website.

In addition, the framework requires a body to ensure that it is fit for purpose and remains current.

There a number of options, including the APEC Secretariat, the APEC Business Advisory Council

(ABAC) or the HRDWG, which could take the governance role for the framework – consideration

needs to be given to how this body would link with a governing body for the APEC Integrated

Referencing Framework.

It is anticipated that finalising the governance arrangement will take a significant amount of

discussion with HRDWG, APEC Secretariat and ABAC and other parties to ensure that the

governing body is prepared to maintain the framework and the Occupational Standards.

APEC Integrated Referencing Framework

To take forward the APEC Integrated Referencing Framework (IRF) a common understanding and an

agreement needs to be reached on key aspects of the framework:


January 2016 of 76

Purpose and Principles – to foster a common understanding of the purpose and

principles that underpin the IRF

Code of Practice – to establish how member economies are expected to maintain

commitment to the IRF.

RQF and RQAF application – to deepen understanding of APEC economies’

qualifications systems

Associated transparency tools – to enhance and support the implementation of the

IRF

Governance and collaborative management – to ensure smooth evolution and

deepening trust, and to monitor arrangements – to identify challenges to the zone of

trust.

The following general recommendations are proposed.

1. Strengthen APEC zone of trust

The current trend is towards larger geographical approaches to qualifications frameworks, quality

assurance procedures and defining skills/competences through occupational standards. The aim

is always to build zones of trust that will enable industry to have confidence in the skills of

workers and the free movement of people, goods and services.

Until the late 1900’s traditional approaches to education, training and qualifications have built on

the cultures and traditions in countries. These are inevitably different from one another and

generally fit-for-purpose in the country concerned. However, in recent years the traditional

inward looking approaches to education, training and qualifications have begun to take on a more

outward looking international stance, where the status of education, training and qualifications

has to be understood and trusted by those seeking jobs and those investing in businesses and

recruiting staff.

It is therefore likely that the current globalisation trend will continue and a response from APEC

will be welcomed by the member economies in the region. The aim must be to respect local

approaches but to provide reference points in occupational standards, qualifications and quality

assurance that can guide developments in countries, act as a benchmark of good practice and

steadily and surely establish an APEC zone of trust that signals good understanding and high trust

in national provision.

2. Establish a vision

It is important for the APEC community to set out the case for a fully integrated approach,

including how it will build on current national and regional approaches and developments, how it

will yield added value and how it is future oriented. A fully integrated approach could evolve over

time and, therefore, establishing a vision will assist in developing priorities and drive action.

3. Provide a model for discussion

The model for discussion is based on three interrelated generic parts that are regional in nature

and are not national approaches. These include:

A newly developed Occupational Standards Framework (OSF) based on current practices

The ASEAN Qualifications Reference Framework (AQRF)


January 2016 of 76

The East Asia Summit TVET Quality Assurance Framework (EAS TVET QAF).

Thus the integrated model itself is new, but most of the elements of it are not.

The fully integrated approach requires the development and finalisation of the OSF.

Recommendations for the OSF have already been discussed. However, for the IRF to be fully

operational there needs be an agreed referencing process related to occupational standards. This

refinement is best included in the development and finalisation of the IRF, as including it in the

OSF will delay the endorsement of that framework and it models the approach in the stand-alone

EAS TVET QAF.

The EAS TVET QAF is based on self-benchmarking and sharing a country report. There is no

national referencing process in the stand-alone model, but it is linked to the robust referencing

process of the AQRF. Clarification of the model will need to be included in the IRF.

The fully integrated approach also requires the finalisation and endorsement of the EAS TVET

QAF and agreement by ASEAN economies to broaden application of the AQRF to all APEC

economies.

It would be fruitful to:

Use APEC fora to continue to discuss the potential value in the model, the implications,

and the support it will need by APEC, countries and businesses. A flyer outlining the

concept design will facilitate discussion and raise awareness in APEC economies and

internationally.

Ensure the continued link with the APEC OSF development to ensure that definitions and

approach do not go out of ‘sync’.

Look closely at the countries, businesses and regional bodies that could be involved and

make it clear where they have scope to inform and support the model.

Produce case studies which show the value of an IRF.

4. Develop a strategy for development

Regardless of the model proposed by the APEC community there is a need to establish a strategy

for development including:

Setting the agenda for future development

Establishing an IRF project task force and making clear the lines of responsibility and

tasks through agreed terms of reference. A taskforce will provide the initial management

arrangements, provide advice, be spokespersons for their country and also assist in

seeking country feedback or assist in in-country consultations.

Establishing timelines, milestones, resource requirements, key agencies, technical

support for future development of the model. Establishing timelines and milestones will

provide structure to the enhancement of the model.

5. Engage with countries that are developing frameworks, quality assurance and occupational

standards

No regional framework functions in isolation, and there is an increasing need to engage with

other countries and regional communities that are developing such frameworks (i.e. occupational


January 2016 of 76

standards, qualifications, and quality assurance). It is important for the IRF project taskforce to

link with and be informed by other models, including those that are incorporated in the APEC IRF.

A key role of a project taskforce would be to:

Engage with the countries and broader community

Test the model and promote it more generally

Refine the approach to developing occupational standards.

6. Set up a governing body of key players

Finally, if the APEC IRF is to ‘have a future’ and be fully functioning there needs to be clear

governance arrangements established. Establishing a governing body (be it an advisory council or

a board) that is not only representative of the country members but also of industry would:

Govern the process

Be a focal point for stakeholders

Maintain the momentum of the initiative.


January 2016 of 76

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2013) ANZSCO - Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations, version 1.2, 2013, accessed September 2015, at http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/1220.0Chapter32013,%20Version%201.2

Australian/New Zealand Standard (AS/NZS) ISO 9000:2006: Quality Management Systems—Fundamentals and vocabulary, June 2006.

Bateman (2015) Mutual recognition of qualifications: Process for PACER Plus: Report to OCTA, Office of the Chief Trade Advisor, Vanuatu.

Bateman, A (2013) Review of quality assurance mechanisms for post-secondary education in the Pacific, Education Resource Facility, Australian Government Aid Program.

Bateman, A and Coles, M (2014) The ASEAN Qualifications Reference Framework, ASEAN Secretariat, Jakarta, Indonesia.

Bateman & Coles (2015) APEC Integrated Referencing Framework for Skills Recognition and Mobility: Literature review and discussion paper.

Bateman, A, Keating, J, Gillis, S, Dyson, C, Burke, G & Coles, M (2012) Concept Paper: EAST ASIA SUMMIT Vocational Education and Training Quality Assurance Framework, Volume II.

Cedefop (2011a) Assuring quality in vocational education and training: The role of accrediting VET providers, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

Cedefop (2011) Glossary: Quality in education and training, Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

Cedefop (2015a) National qualifications framework developments in Europe – Anniversary edition, Luxembourg: Publications office of the European Union.

Cedefop (2015c) Handbook for VET providers: Supporting internal quality management and quality culture, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

Coles, M. and Oates, T., 2004, Zones of Mutual Trust, Cedefop Thessaolonikki Coles, M and Werquin, P (2006) Qualification system: Bridges to lifelong learning, OECD, Paris.

Commission of European Communities (2005) Commission Staff Document: Towards a European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning, p 13.

European Training Foundation (2013) Global National Qualifications Framework Inventory, European Training Foundation, Italy.

European Training Foundation (2014) Making Better Vocational Qualifications: Vocational qualifications system reforms in ETF partner countries, ETF, Torino.

European Union (2010) The Added value of NQFs in implementing the EQF, EQF Note 2, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

Fretwell, D, Lewis, M, Deij, A (2001) A Framework for Defining and Assessing Occupational and Training Standards in Developing Countries, Information Series No. 386, World Bank.

Grootings (2007) National qualifications frameworks - A strategic approach for developing comprehensive VET reform policies, ETF, Torino

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/1220.0Chapter32013,%20Version%201.2


January 2016 of 76

HRD Joint Ministerial Statement (September 2014)

HRDWG Action Plan (2015-2018)

International Labour Organisation (2006) Guidelines for Development of Regional Model Competency Standards (RMCS), ILO Office, Bangkok.

International Labour Organisation (2007) International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO), version ISCO-88, accessed September 2015 at http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/isco/

International Labour Organisation (2012) International Standard Classification of Occupations ISO-88: Volume 1 Structure, Group Definitions and Correspondence Tables, Geneva.

International Organization for Migration (2015) World Migration Report 2015, Geneva.

Joint Statement on the 2015 High Level Policy Dialogue on Human Capacity Building (May 2015)

Keevy James, Chakroun Borhene & Deij Arjen (2010) Transnational Qualifications Frameworks, European Training Foundation.

National Training Board (1992) National Competency Standards: Policy and Guidelines, 2nd edition, National Board Canberra.

UNESCO 2015a, Global Inventory of Regional and National Qualifications Frameworks, Volume I: Thematic Chapters, UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning, Hamburg, Germany

UNESCO 2015b, Global Inventory of Regional and National Qualifications Frameworks, Volume II: National and Regional Cases, UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning, Hamburg, Germany

Wheelahan, L, Buchanan, B and Yu, S (2015) Linking qualifications and the labour market through capabilities and vocational streams, NCVER, Adelaide.

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/isco/


January 2016 of 76

Appendices


51

Appendix 1: List of consultations and meetings

The consultant undertook the following activities:

Participation at relevant meetings e.g. APEC Business Advisory Council (ABAC) meeting in

Melbourne (August 2015)

Participation at APEC Transport & Logistics project workshop in Manila (September 2015)

Consultation with ASEAN Secretariat (Dorothea Lazaro and Glenda Reynes)

Consultation with Vietnam (Mr Cao Quang Dai, General Department of Vocational Training,

Ministry of Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs)

Consultation with Malaysia (Zita Mohammed Fami, Malaysian Qualifications Authority and

ASEAN Taskforce Working Group member)

Consultation will Chinese Taipei delegation after Manila meeting (Ms Ying-Ming (Angie) Sun and

Mr Chu-Chiang (Joseph) Liu, Ministry of Labor)

Led the meeting of APEC Integrated Referencing Framework for Skills Recognition and Mobility

(Manila 30 September – 1 October 2015). The list of participants are included below.

Name Organisation Economy

Dr Melissa McEwen (Project Lead)

Department of Education and Training Australia

Ms Carrie Roche (Project Manager)

Department of Education and Training Australia

Ms Andrea Bateman (Consultant)

Bateman & Giles Pty Ltd Australia

Ms Michele Lucas VETASSESS Australia

Mr Prashil Singh VETASSESS Australia

Ms Amanda Thomas Transport and Logistics Industry Skills Council Australia

Mr Paul Walsh Transport and Logistics Industry Skills Council Australia

Mr Marcos Costela Ministry of Foreign Affairs Chile

Ms María de los Ángeles Sobarzo

Ministry of Education Chile

Mr Alfie Ulloa Chile Productivity Commission Chile

Ms Ying-Ming (Angie) Sun Ministry of Labor, Chinese Taipei

Mr Chu-Chiang (Joseph) Liu Ministry of Labor, Chinese Taipei

Mr Agus Susilo Ministry of Manpower, Indonesia

Mr Bachtiar Siradjuddin Badan National Sertificasi Profesi, Indonesia

Mr Suck-keun Jang Human Resources Development Service of Korea Republic of Korea

Mr Seonyong Choi Ministry of Employment and Labor Republic of Korea

Ms Ka-ram Lee Human Resources Development Service of Korea Republic of Korea

Dr Jeong Yoon Cho KRIVET Republic of Korea

Ms Norisniwati Binti Ab Rahim Department of Skills Development, Ministry of Human Resources

Malaysia

Ms Suhaila Binti Abdul Samad Department of Skills Development, Ministry of Human Resources

Malaysia

Ms Karen Chalmers New Zealand Qualifications Authority, New Zealand

Ms Wilma Paka Department of Higher Education, Research, Science and Technology,

Papua New Guinea

Mr Kinsella Geoffrey National Training Council Secretariat – Ministry of Labour and Industrial Relations

Papua New Guinea

Ms Yessica Herrada Solano Ministry of Education Peru


52

Name Organisation Economy

Ms Irene Isaac TESDA Philippines

Ms Charish Mungcal Department of Labor and Employment Philippines

Ms Paulene Michelle Lim Department of Labor and Employment Philippines

Ms Corazon Gonzales Department of Labor and Employment Philippines

Ms Geraldine Labayani Department of Labor and Employment Philippines

Ms Wannee Gomongawin Department of Skill Development Thailand

Ms Jullada Meejul Thailand Professional Qualification Institute Thailand

Ms Naruephon Boonyaban Department of Skill Development, Thailand

Mr Cao Quang Dai

General Department of Vocational Training, Ministry of Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs,

Vietnam

Mr Tran Xuan Phuc General Department of Vocational Training, Ministry of Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs,

Vietnam

Ms Amy Torres International Labour Organization Thailand

Ms Giannia Uy APEC Business Advisory Council Philippines


53

Appendix 2: Options for the APEC Integrated Referencing Framework

The following options were provided to the participants at the initial consultation workshop in Manila,

October 2015.

1. Occupational Standards Framework application

The Occupational Standards Framework in essence is a new stand alone framework that is to be

embedded in a broader integrated framework, as such within the Occupational Standards Framework a

number of critical aspects need to be determined prior to any formal documentation being developed.

These being:

Purpose and principles

Levels of pitch and detail of occupations standards

Process for the development and monitoring of the occupational standards (such as a code of

practice or guidelines), including definition and format of the occupational standards

Potential uses of occupational classifications standards and advice to users (mainly employers)

Possible links to Training Standards.


It is important in any community that to build and enhance trust that there is a clear understanding of the

key purposes of the framework as well as any underpinning principles that the community considers

important.

Table 1: Purpose and principles of the Occupational Standards Framework

Purpose and principle application

Minimal model More extensive model

Purpose Purpose is assumed – not described

Key purposes of APEC Occupational Standards Framework are developed and agreed by APEC economies

Principles Principles are assumed – not described

Key principles of APEC Occupational Standards Framework is developed and agreed by APEC economies

Occupational standards development

The basis of the Occupational Standards Framework is coming to an agreement on the definition and

format of the occupational standards, on the development process by employers and the process for

reaching an agreement by participating APEC economies. In addition, given that occupational standards

are to reflect occupations there needs to be an agreed process for reviewing the occupational standards.

How occupational standards will be used by APEC economies and employers also needs to be agreed.

The AQRF includes 11 criteria to inform the referencing process but these are supported by detailed

guidelines. A similar model could be utilised in the Occupational Standards Framework to support

participating economies. Through the experience of other regional framework it has been shown that

countries need support in referencing and associated functions. It is anticipated that implementing the

Occupational Standards Framework will be no different. As such an extended model would include

detailed guidelines that would assist countries to develop regionally agreed occupational standards

according to an agreed template; it will address employers and potential users as to how to use the


54

occupational standards for developing national occupational standards and for benchmarking existing

national or local standards against the regional standards.

Table 2: Level of advice

Specificity of occupational standards

Minimal approach More extended approach

Process documentation A set of simple criteria developed to inform the process

Detailed guidelines are produced to assist developers and end users

Use of occupational standards Use by economies and employers for benchmarking is voluntary

To be applied in development and review of national occupational standards and/or qualifications

Occupational standards level

Occupational standards describe an occupation, they can include competency descriptions for job tasks

but many do not. The APEC Transport and Logistics group have documented the occupational standards

utilising competency specifications. On the other hand, the apprenticeship standards developed by

employers in the UK document the occupational standard at occupational level and do not specify any

competency specifications at job task level.

The APEC community needs to give consideration to how occupational standards will be used, e.g.

benchmarking standards, which will inform the level of specificity desired in the occupational standard.

Table 3: Level of specificity of occupational standards



Level of detail Occupational Standards are described at occupational level, a statement rather than detailed specifications

Occupational Standards include detailed specification of competencies.

Use of additional information – occupational and educational classification standards

The use of classification standards to provide a common way of understanding of the scope and

complexity of the occupational standards, and documenting the level of the occupation is an aspect that

should be explored in the Occupational Standards Framework.

The AQRF level descriptors could provide a basis for outlining the level of complexity of learning for the

proposed occupational standards. The most current version, ISCO-08, classifies skills based on four levels;

these levels could be utilised in the proposed Occupational Framework. Whether the AQRF levels and the

two classification standards are all used needs to be determined by the APEC economies. It may be that

educational classification standards and the AQRF are not appropriate in the documentation of

occupational standards, but this would need to be discussed and agreement reached.


55

Table 4: Classification standards and level of AQRF

Classification of occupational standards


AQRF application AQRF is not used to determine level of complexity of learning

AQRF is used to determine level of complexity of learning

ISCED application International education classification i.e. ISCED is not used to determine level of proposed qualification

International education classification i.e. ISCED is used to determine level of proposed qualification

ISCOS application International occupational classification i.e. ISCOS is not used to determine category and/or level of occupation

International occupational classification i.e. ISCOS is used to determine category and/or level of occupation

Link to training standards

APEC economies vary in their application of occupational standards and the link (or lack of link) to

prescribed training standards. It is possible that the Occupational Standards Framework also includes the

development of agreed Training Standards to better inform and assist regulating agencies and TVET

providers as to training expectations. Other approaches could include companion documents to provide

information for countries to develop their own training standards. However getting agreement on training

standards given the various approaches to delivery and assessment across the APEC countries may pose a

significant barrier to achieving agreement.

Table 5: Training standards

Training standards Minimal approach More extended approach

Documented training standards to link with the agreed Occupational Standards

Countries decide the best way to describe and prescribe training standards

APEC working groups in the development of occupational standards also provide agreed training standards

Documented companion volume to provide advice to countries for developing Training Standards.


APEC working groups in the development of occupational standards also provide agreed advice through a companion volume.

2. APEC Integrated Referencing Framework

How the APEC Integrated Referencing Framework will be utilised may take a longer period of time to

discuss, explore and establish. It is important to ensure that it meets the APEC community’s needs.

Consideration needs to be given as to how the APEC Integrated Referencing Framework could be used by

educationalists and employers. The APEC Integrated Referencing Framework could be brought together in

a number of ways, and put simply could be an extended model or a simplified minimal model.

Not all aspects of the issues below need to be addressed in the immediate future however they have been

posed here to raise awareness of the potential of and issues related to developing a fully extended APEC

Integrated Referencing Framework. A commitment from the APEC community is required however to

ensure that these issues can be explored further and for the model to evolve.


56


Both the ASEAN QRF and the EAS TVET QAF have clearly articulated the purpose of each framework and

also a set of underlying principles. To establish the APEC Integrated Referencing Framework the

economies to facilitate a common understanding could outline its purpose and the principles that underlie

it. To facilitate APEC economies’ ownership of the APEC Integrated Referencing Framework an extended

model would be desirable.

Table 6: Purpose and principles



Purpose Purpose is assumed – encompassing the AQRF and the EAS TVET QAF

Key purposes of APEC Integrated Referencing Framework are developed and agreed by APEC economies

Principles Principles are assumed - encompassing the AQRF and the EAS TVET QAF

Key principles of APEC Integrated Referencing Framework is developed and agreed by APEC economies

Code of practice

Neither the ASEAN QRF nor the EAS TVET Quality Assurance Framework have a code of practice.

However in the ASEAN QRF the formulation of a code of practice is embodied in the endorsed AQRF

specification where principles for the operation of the AQRF are laid out as a procedure for referencing to

it. The ASEAN QRF task force resolved that the principles and criteria for referencing were, for the time

being, the ‘code of practice’. In addition, the AQRF will be supported by guidelines referencing, which are

in the development stage.

In the EAS TVET Quality Assurance Framework the concept document does not include guidelines or a

procedure for benchmarking quality assurance systems, but does include a process for self-assessment

and an action plan including standardised templates. This in itself may require further enhancement to

ensure that EAS countries undertake or utilise the framework in a consistent way and produce a country

report in a consistent structure.

The proposed APEC Integrated Referencing Framework could be strengthened by a code of practice or

guidelines on how countries and key stakeholders such as employers shall utilise the framework in a

consistent way.

Table 7: Code of practice

Code of application Minimal model More extensive model

Code of practice Code of practice is assumed in other frameworks

Code of practice outlines how the APEC Integrated Referencing Framework shall be utilised

Guidelines No guidelines required Guidelines developed to support key users of framework


57

Using an RQF

The ASEAN Qualifications Reference Framework requires participating countries to reference to the

framework according to a procedure and guidelines. The options for the APEC countries is to apply the

ASEAN QRF to its fullest extent or to utilise it for determining the level of the proposed qualification

and/or the level of occupation. The extended model would strengthen the community of trust amongst

the APEC economies. The minimal model does not necessarily enhance the development of a community

of trust amongst APEC economies or provide for a common understanding of economy education and

training systems, but does provide for a consistent reference point for learners, employers and those

responsible for comparing occupations and qualifications.

Table 8: Using an RQF

RQF application Minimal model More extensive model

Levels of Occupational Standard Levels are utilised as a reference point in the development of an Occupational Standard

Levels are utilised to determine level of each Occupational Standard

Building trust APEC economies undertake a self-assessment and confirm to other participating economies the level alignment

A full referencing process occurs as per ASEAN QRF processes, and a single report produced and shared.

Extended approach – includes report published on dedicated APEC website – refer to governance.

Using an RQAF

For the referencing process, the ASEAN Qualifications Reference Framework requires countries to refer to

one or more established quality assurance frameworks as the basis for the agreed quality assurance

principles and broad standards. The AQRF referencing criteria notes the following frameworks including

(but not limited to):

East Asia Summit Technical Vocational Education and Training Quality Assurance Framework

(includes the quality principles, agency quality standards and quality indicators)

the International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE)

Guidelines of Good Practice for Quality Assurance 39

ASEAN Quality Assurance Network (AQAN) - ASEAN Quality Assurance Framework for Higher

Education.40

A critical question for the APEC economies is how a quality assurance framework assists in the evaluation of

programmes, qualifications or occupational standards. In addition, whether APEC economies undertake a

full referencing process or whether the referencing is to be a self assessment and assertion that the quality

assurance system meets a benchmark or that there is a plan in place to ensure that there is a commitment

to improve the national quality assurance system.

39 Requirements for full member. 40 Requirements for full member.


58

Table 9: using an RQAF

RQAF application Minimal model More extensive model

Comparing qualifications or occupational standards

QA benchmarks are reference point in the development of occupational standards and link to training standards and/or qualifications

QA benchmarks are used to inform evaluation processes of education and training systems

Building trust APEC economies undertake a self-assessment of QA and confirm to other participating economies the degree of adherence and document an action plan for improvement

A full referencing process occurs as per ASEAN QRF processes, and a single report produced and shared that includes referencing to a QA benchmark.

Extended approach – includes report published on dedicated APEC website – refer to governance.

If it is agreed that the APEC economies will undertake a referencing process, then key questions that need

to be agreed to by the APEC economies includes: If one or more of the three frameworks are not used, then

how will APEC economies be assured that the quality assurance principles and standards, applied by an

individual APEC economies are suitable? Should APEC economies agree on a list of quality assurance

frameworks, or should a set of principles be established to inform the selection of quality assurance frameworks,

or should APEC economies seek approval for alternative quality assurance frameworks?

It is noted that in the case of European countries that implementing the EQF, they are expected to ensure

that quality assurance is carried out in accordance with a common set of principles noted below.

Quality assurance policies and procedures should underpin all levels of the European Qualifications Framework.

Quality assurance should be an integral part of the internal management of education and training institutions.

Quality assurance should include regular evaluation of institutions, their programmes or their quality assurance

systems by external monitoring bodies or agencies.

External monitoring bodies or agencies carrying out quality assurance should be subject to regular review.

Quality assurance should include context, input, process and output dimensions, while giving emphasis to

outputs and learning outcomes.

Quality assurance systems should include the following elements

o clear and measurable objectives and standards;

o guidelines for implementation, including stakeholder involvement;

o appropriate resources;

o consistent evaluation methods, associating self-assessment and external review;

o feedback mechanisms and procedures for improvement;

o widely accessible evaluation results.

Quality assurance initiatives at international, national and regional level should be coordinated in order to

ensure overview, coherence, synergy and system-wide analysis.

Quality assurance should be a cooperative process across education and training levels and systems, involving

all relevant stakeholders, within Member States and across the Community.

Quality assurance orientations at Community level may provide reference points for evaluations and peer

learning’.


59

Neither the ASEAN QRF nor the EAS TVET QAF include quality assurance principles that address key

underpinning issues in relation to the deployment and level of engagement of quality assurance strategies

at a national level. The use of quality assurance criteria could be an area of development to enhance

commitment within the proposed APEC Integrated Referencing Framework.

Table 10: Quality assurance principles

Quality assurance application Minimal approach More extended approach

Quality assurance principles Quality assurance principles are not required, given the QA Framework.

Quality assurance principles are included in the APEC Integrated Referencing Framework to further assist users to understand quality assurance systems.

Associated transparency tools

Associated transparency and recognition tools provide APEC member economies to enhance and support

the implementation of the APEC Integrated Referencing Framework. The use of an APEC Diploma

Supplement model at TVET level would allow participating economies, that have developed and approved

qualifications derived from the regional occupational standards, to identify this alignment through

supporting issuance documentation that accompany a certificate e.g. diploma or degree papers. The

supplement could also link the AQRF levels and alignment to the EAS TVET Quality Assurance Framework.

The APEC Higher Education Diploma Supplement could be expanded to include whether the qualification

achieved is based on or addresses APEC occupational standards, the NQF alignment to the AQRF, and a

description of the quality assurance processes (which could be incorporated into the education system

field) and benchmarked against the EAS TVET Quality Assurance Framework.

This application could be the minimalist linking device for an APEC Integrated Referencing Framework.

However, the APEC Diploma Supplement does not lend itself to documenting the working experience of a

worker unless it can be verified by the issuing institution. For unqualified experienced workers, other

recognition strategies would need to apply.

Table 11: APEC Diploma Supplement

APEC Diploma Supplement Minimal approach More extended approach

Supporting documentation such as APEC Diploma Supplement

Voluntary use by APEC member economies

Required by all participating APEC member economies that utilise the regional occupational standards

Template APEC member economies utilise their own template

APEC Integrated Referencing Framework approved template is

provided.

Governance

Governance may be seen as having an official function and a strategic planning function.

How the APEC Integrated Referencing Framework could be implemented and the level of oversight

desired by the member economies is something that needs to be explored. Should the notion of an

integrated framework for recognition be accepted by member economies as something that will

coordinate current practices, build on international developments and yield improvements to recognition


60

practices then, beyond design of such a system, the ongoing governance needs to be considered.

Notwithstanding that the integrated framework may use provision such as the ASEAN Qualifications

Reference Framework and the EAS Quality Assurance Framework, with their own associated governance

arrangements, there will be a need to:

1. Manage how these frameworks are used within the APEC community and how APEC might play a

role in the future development of the two frameworks;

2. Develop how a common framework for occupational standards might be developed, even if it is

based on existing good practice around the world;

3. Assessing how effective the integrated framework is through monitoring its use and exploring new

developments to the framework.

A governing body (such as an Advisory Council or Board) of representatives of potential users of the

integrated framework would need to be established. This governing body would also need to have some

membership links to the management boards of the associated frameworks such as the yet to be

established international AQRF Committee.

This governing body would need to report to the APEC secretariat (or Human Resources Development

Working Group) and the APEC community more generally and take its terms of reference from them.

Table 12: Governance

Governance Minimal approach More extended approach

Office of the APEC Integrated Referencing Framework

Based in the APEC secretariat

In other organisations, rotating between participating economies on a cyclical basis

Governing body of the APEC Integrated Referencing Framework

1 representative from each participating economy plus one expert

More than 1 member per economy, other members, observers, experts.

The successful implementation of the APEC Integrated Referencing Framework depends on the APEC

economies ensuring that the architecture and functions of the APEC Integrated Referencing Framework is

understood across the main stakeholder groups in countries and awareness of the general population is

raised. The potential added value of the APEC Integrated Referencing Framework, in, for example, easing

barriers to labour mobility, also needs to be addressed.

Table 13: Communications strategy

Communications Minimal approach More extended approach

National communications strategy

APEC Integrated Referencing Framework is mentioned in official documents

A long term, well targeted, rolling program of communications activities is devised that raises the profile of the APEC Integrated Referencing Framework and its potential value.

APEC communications strategy

Communications is left to the APEC economies

Each APEC economy is requested to make its communications strategy available to other countries. General APEC Integrated Referencing Framework materials are created for APEC economies to adapt (language and style).


61

Communications Minimal approach More extended approach

Web based facility Communication through web based facility is left to APEC economies

APEC secretariat utilises a dedicated website to the APEC Integrated Referencing Framework, that includes at a minimum APEC approved documentation (e.g. Guidelines for development of APEC occupational standards) as well as occupational standards; but may also include country referencing reports, NQF level descriptor comparisons.

For the success of the APEC Integrated Referencing Framework it is important to evaluate and update the

framework, including assessing its effectiveness and whether it is providing the enabling function for

member economies. Monitoring and evaluation strategies will require APEC economies to cooperate and

provide the necessary data and information to fully evaluate the effectiveness of the framework.

Other strategies that could be considered include independent review by external experts after a period of,

say five years, of implementation or an annual data or survey returns from each country evaluating member

economy feedback in relation to:

success of Occupational Framework in assisting in the development of occupational standards

effectiveness of the APEC Integrated Reference Framework in relation to use and deployment of

the AQRF and EAS TVET QAF

support and capacity development needs.

Table 14: Monitoring arrangements

Monitoring arrangements Minimal approach More extended approach

Monitoring and evaluating effectiveness of APEC Integrated Referencing Framework

APEC Integrated Referencing Framework does not include monitoring and evaluating of its effectiveness but is left to member economies to reflect on their own use and effectiveness.

APEC Integrated Referencing Framework includes periodic monitoring of its effectiveness


62

Appendix 3: Feedback on the Options

Notes from APEC meeting – Manila (30 September – 1 October 2015)

This summary provides an overview of the feedback and discussions pertaining to the options raised in a Discussion Paper for an APEC Integrated Referencing Framework for Skills Recognition and Mobility distributed to workshop participants ahead of the meeting.

Occupational Standards Framework The group was asked to consider the purpose and principle application for an occupational standards framework (table below).



Purpose Purpose is assumed – not described

Key purposes of APEC Occupational Standards Framework are developed and agreed by APEC economies

Principles Principles are assumed – not described

Key principles of APEC Occupational Standards Framework is developed and agreed by APEC economies

1. The group was provided with the following purposes for an occupational standards framework to start

the discussion:

Facilitate common understanding of occupations

Facilitate labour mobility

Suggested from the groups - purposes:

Identifying core elements and skill levels in occupations

Supporting worker mobility so that skills recognised in labour markets appropriately

Enhance economic integration

facilitate labour and capital migration across borders

Business mobility

Reference point for economies developing occupational standards frameworks

Develop occupational career paths

Identify training needs/skills gaps

Exchange of information on best practices in competency based training and assessment

Provide opportunities for capacity building

2. The group was presented with the following principles for an occupational standards framework to

start the discussion:

Flexibility of application within individual countries

Industry lead development and review of occupations standards

Suggested from the groups - principles:


63

Government facilitated with strong linkage to industry (PPP – validated by industry)

Able to be applied in any economy(flexible)

Able to be trusted across economies

Identify priority occupations across economies

Member countries to contribute in development/validation

Provide flexibility in packaging own qualifications relevant to own country industry practice

Linking principles to quality assurance and qualifications referencing

3. The group was asked to consider and provide advice on a preferred approach for the specificity of the occupational standards – a minimal versus a more extended approach (table below).

Three examples were provided for consideration:

i. A UK Apprenticeship Standard – minimal approach ii. APEC Transport & Logistics occupational standards – middle approach

iii. A CARICOM occupational standard – detailed approach

Feedback:

The group indicated that the ‘middle road’ - occupational standards are to provide general statements at occupational level plus competency specifications related to job tasks (statements/standards) – possibly with some aspects of the ‘less detailed sample’

Given the OS sample preferred – this will drive the definition for occupational standard for the Framework

4. The group was asked to consider and provide advice on a preferred approach for the development of

training standards – a minimal versus a more extended approach (table below).

Training standards Minimal approach More extended approach

Documented training standards to link with the agreed Occupational Standards


APEC working groups in the development of occupational standards also provide agreed training standards

Documented companion volume to provide advice to countries for developing Training Standards.


APEC working groups in the development of occupational standards also provide agreed advice through a companion volume.



Level of detail Occupational Standards are described at occupational level, a statement rather than detailed competency specifications

Occupational Standards include detailed specification of competencies.


64

Feedback:

Training standards will be left to the member economies

Option of a companion volume is to be trialed with Transport & Logistics pilot.

5. The group was asked to consider options for the application of an Occupational Standards Framework:

Options:

Voluntary application versus mandatory application by all member economies? Applicable to only the member economies involved in the development? Requires agreement by all member economies?

Feedback:

Should not be mandatory.

Reach agreement from all member countries

Involve ABAC

Provide option to be involved on voluntary basis

Benefits allows incremental model for capacity building for member countries, to allow transition to full implementation on needs basis on priority occupations

Voluntary, group may start implementation, and later on other groups may join

Occupational standards framework voluntary, countries at different development stages

Countries not involved can benefit from framework also

As more countries join the more recognized the framework will become

All countries should agree on requirements;

6. The group was asked to consider what information would be required in an Occupational Standards

Framework:

Basis of Framework will be a set of guidelines Outline:

Introduction to the Guidelines (background information, purpose and principles) Introduction to Occupational Standards (including agreed definitions for competence,

occupational standards, competency specifications etc) Process for developing, agreeing and reviewing APEC Occupational Standards Using the APEC Occupational Standards (potential links to Training Standards) Useful resources Standard templates.

Feedback:

Include:

Introduction to OS Framework

Glossary

Development and monitoring of occupational standards is to be government facilitated with strong linkage with and/or input by industry (PPP – validated by industry)

All member countries to contribute in development/validation


65

Integrated Referencing Framework 1. The Group was asked to consider the purpose and principle application of an Integrated Referencing

Framework (table below).



Purpose Purpose is assumed – encompassing the other frameworks

Key purposes of APEC Integrated Referencing Framework are developed and agreed by APEC economies

Principles Principles are assumed – encompassing the other frameworks

Key principles of APEC Integrated Referencing Framework is developed and agreed by APEC economies

Feedback: Suggested from the group – Purpose

Integrated with labour mobility to support economic growth

Promoting labour mobility and skills recognition and/or development

Supporting development of skilled workforce

A common framework for knowledge sharing and benchmarking best practices across member countries.

Create quality assurance of skilled labour

Developing qualifications

Support labour force productivity

Create regional development of workforce

Transfer of knowledge of skilled workers across region

Economic integration not only mobility

Explicit for APEC wide facilitate economic integration in terms of labour and capital

Facilitate workers migration and mobility

Recognising mobility of companies across economies accessing skilled labour to enable them to operate effectively

Suggested from the group – Principles:

Providing mutual benefits for individual workers and countries

taking into account the differences in stages of economic development

Utilise and leverage linkages of qualifications among countries

Promote development between public and private sector

Effective implementation strategies

Mutual recognition of skills that will be supported by integrated framework

Flexible and voluntary, efficient and effective processes

Make linkages between the three separate frameworks

2. The Group was asked to consider an agreed approach to leveraging off existing regional qualifications

and quality assurance referencing frameworks or developing new for APEC (table below).


66

Option 1 Option 2

Adopt AQRF and its guidelines Adopt EAS TVET QAF

Develop APEC QF and develop own guidelines

Questions considered by the group:

What are the benefits of each Option?

What are the issues with each Option?

What will be significantly different in an APEC QF/APEC QAF?

If adopt the AQRF & EAS TVET QAF, how can we add value above and beyond the frameworks? To achieve APEC ownership?

If develop an APEC QF/APEC QAF, how might it impact on countries that span two regions?

Feedback:

Adopt existing frameworks.

For AQRF – adopt architecture; maybe develop own purpose and principles.

For EAS TVET QAF – adopt as well – consider seeking to re-badge as APEC TVET QAF.

3. The Group was asked to consider aspects related to the application of a regional qualifications

framework (table below).

RQF application Minimal model More extensive model

Levels of Occupational Standard

Levels are utilised as a reference point in the development of an Occupational Standard

Levels are utilised to determine level of each Occupational Standard

Building trust APEC economies undertake a self-assessment and confirm to other participating economies the level alignment

A full referencing process occurs as per ASEAN QRF processes, and a single report produced and shared. Extended approach – includes report published on dedicated APEC website – refer to governance.

Feedback:

More extensive model was supported.

Although there was a suggestion that there may be a staged process – whereby countries undertake a transparent self assessment and make public.


67

4. The Group was asked to consider aspects related to the application of a regional quality assurance

referencing framework (table below).

RQAF application Minimal model More extensive model

Comparing qualifications or occupational standards

QA benchmarks are reference point in the development of occupational standards and link to training standards and/or qualifications

QA benchmarks are used to inform evaluation processes of education and training systems

Building trust APEC economies undertake a self-assessment of QA and confirm to other participating economies the degree of adherence and document an action plan for improvement

A full referencing process occurs as per ASEAN QRF processes, and a single report produced and shared that includes referencing to a QA benchmark. Extended approach – includes report published on dedicated APEC website – refer to governance.

Feedback:

More extensive model was supported.

Although there was a suggestion that there may be a staged process – whereby countries undertake a transparent self assessment and publish.

Possible note that the EAS is a less structure network and therefore is there an option of making to an APEC TVET QAF to take it forward into the future?

Concept note: The following notional concept was proposed for recognition.

Three pillars:

Occupational Standards Framework

Regional qualifications framework

Regional quality assurance framework

Transparency tools: APEC Diploma Supplement (Higher Education)

Graduate identification The graduate’s achievements Description of the qualification Description of the awarding institution Description of the higher education system (including qualifications frameworks and quality

assurance) Certification information

APEC Certified Worker (card)

The concept was described verbally – see diagram below. The concept is essentially that there will be a graduate statement and an APEC worker card to identify skills. If regional framework referencing has occurred:

The graduate statement would include additional information – outlining the regional QF level of the qualification, and the APEC occupational standards that the qualification is based on (if


68

relevant). The statement would also include the level of alignment of the qualifications system (at agency level) to the regional QAF.

The worker card – shall be the outcome of the qualification based on an APEC occupational standard. This would be the portable card for worker mobility purposes. How this fits with other recognition processes was not explored.

Feedback: Concept was discussed and the group supported further development of an Integrated Framework.


69


70

Appendix 4: Glossary41

Function statements Specifications related to job tasks or functions within an occupation. This is a working definition for this report.

National Qualifications Framework

Instrument for the development and classification of qualifications according to a set of criteria or criteria for levels of learning achieved. This set of criteria may be implicit in the qualifications descriptors themselves or made explicit in the form of a set of level descriptors. The scope of frameworks may be comprehensive of all learning achievement and pathways or may be confined to a particular sector, for example initial education, adult education and training, or an occupational area. Some frameworks may have more design elements and a tighter structure than others; some may have a legal basis whereas others represent a consensus of views of social partners.42

Occupational standards

Occupational standards are statements of activities and tasks related to a specific job and to its practice.43

Qualification Qualifications are a meaningful and coherent cluster of learning outcomes that meet the specified qualification type descriptors, that are capable of being assessed and are subject to external quality assurance processes.

Qualifications framework

Instrument for development and classification of qualifications (at national or sectoral levels) according to a set of criteria (such as using descriptors) applicable to specified levels of learning outcomes.44

Qualifications system Qualifications system includes all aspects of a country's activity that result in the recognition of learning. These systems include the means of developing and operationalising national or regional policy on qualifications, institutional arrangements, quality assurance processes, assessment and awarding processes, skills recognition and other mechanisms that link education and training to the labour market and civil society. Qualifications systems may be more or less integrated and coherent. One feature of a qualifications system may be an explicit framework of qualifications.45

Quality assurance Quality assurance is a component of quality management and is ‘focused on providing confidence that quality requirements will be fulfilled’46.

In relation to education and training services, quality assurance refers to planned and systematic processes that provide confidence in the design, delivery and award of qualifications within an education and training system. Quality assurance ensures stakeholders interests and investment in any accredited program are protected.

Quality assurance framework

A set of principles, guidelines, tools and standards that act as a reference for guiding the consistent application of quality assurance activities.47

Quality assurance Quality assurance system includes all aspects of a country's activity related to

41 Majority of these definitions are included in the ASEAN QRF. 42 Coles & Werquin (2006) p. 22. 43 Cedefop Glossary (2011), p. 109. 44Cedefop Glossary (2011) p. 82. 45 Coles & Werquin (2006), p. 22. 46 AS/NZS ISO 9000:2006: Quality management systems—Fundamentals and vocabulary, p. 9. 47 Adapted from Cedefop Glossary (2011), p. 21


71

system assuring the quality of education and training. These systems include the following elements:

clear and measurable objectives and standards, guidelines for implementation, including stakeholder involvement,

appropriate resources,

consistent evaluation methods, associating self-assessment and external review,

feedback mechanisms and procedures for improvement,

widely accessible evaluation results.48

Referencing Referencing is a process that results in the establishment of a relationship between the national qualifications framework and that of a regional qualifications framework.

Regional qualifications framework

A broad structure of levels of learning outcomes that is agreed by countries in a geographical region. A means of enabling one national framework of qualifications to relate to another and, subsequently, for a qualification in one country to be compared to a qualification from another country.

Training standard A training standard could be an educational standard as noted in ‘Achievement Standards’ or could be a standard that is less detailed and provides advice related to training expectations and inputs, such as associated achievement standards; resources (for example staff, students, materials) which should be available in an institution; duration or volume of learning of the programme; NQF level of qualification. This working definition for the literature review includes both these notions.

48 Cedefop Glossary (2011), p. 19.


72

Appendix 5: List of organisations involved in developing regional frameworks

The field of recognition of knowledge skills and competences is complex, there is no single model that

informs local practice and different countries/regions have worked in different ways to bring





proposal is future oriented, ambitious and, because of its scale, unique.

To begin to illustrate the complexity of the field the following list provides a summary of key agencies

or structures that require explanation.

Acronym Name Description

AQRF ASEAN Qualifications Reference Framework

The ASEAN Qualifications Reference Framework, a common reference framework, functions as a device to enable comparisons of qualifications across ASEAN member states.

CARICOM Caribbean Community and Common Market

Caribbean Community and Common Market is an organisation of Caribbean nations and dependencies. Its main purposes are to promote economic integration and cooperation among its members, to ensure that the benefits of integration are equitably shared, and to coordinate foreign policy.

EQF European Qualifications Framework

The EQF is a translation tool that helps comparison between qualifications systems in Europe and supports mobility of people.

IMO International Maritime Organisation

IMO is the United Nations specialised agency with responsibility for the safety and security of shipping and the prevention of marine pollution by ships.

PQF Pacific Qualifications Framework

The PQF is a reference for linking the national qualifications framework and/or individual qualifications of each PIC. It functions as a translation device for Pacific Island qualifications.

RQF Regional Qualifications Framework

A broad structure of levels of learning outcomes that is agreed by countries in a geographical region. It is a means of enabling one national framework of qualifications to relate to another and, subsequently, for a qualification in one country to be compared to a qualification from another country.

VUSSC Virtual University for Small States of the Commonwealth

VUSSC is a network initiated by and built on the support of Ministers of Education of developing small states of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth of Learning coordinates the development of VUSSC on behalf of Commonwealth Ministers of Education.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caribbean

http://www.vussc.org/


73

Appendix 6: Standards definitions

Source Skills Job tasks Job Vs Occupation Occupational standard Sector Vocation Vocational stream

NTB May be intellectual, manual, motor, perceptual or social. Most tasks require a combination of these and involve the application of cognitive and psychomotor functions together with appropriate knowledge.

Discrete, identifiable and meaningful component of work that is carried out by a person for a specific purpose and leads to a specific outcome. The performance of a task requires the application of skills and knowledge.

Are built from a collection of units (of competency)

ILO RMCS May be intellectual, manual, motor, perceptual or social. Most tasks require a combination of these and involve the application of cognitive and psychomotor functions together with appropriate knowledge.

Discrete, identifiable and meaningful component of work that is carried out by a person for a specific purpose and leads to a specific outcome.

Sets of competency standards in streams of occupational or industry sector groupings

Fretwell et al Job - Hire for a given service or period. Occupation - relates to a person and his/her role in the labour market (e.g. accountant). It is a more general concept than a job.

Developed around occupations not jobs. Includes duties that must be performed by a person to function successfully in an occupation.

Defines a group of related economic entities or enterprises (e.g. financial sectors, mining sector, and agricultural sector).

Wheelahan et al

Refers to practice — what people do in jobs, and the knowledge, skills and attributes they are required to use. A vocation is based on a continuum of knowledge and skill, in which work, vocational education, and higher education are linked, and is premised on the capacity to accrue knowledge and skills in a coherent, cumulative fashion

Vocational stream links the occupations that share common practices, knowledge, skills and personal attributes, thereby allowing individuals to specialise within the field of practice or move laterally into related occupations. Vocational streams have the potential to support vocations that underpin practice in broad fields.


74

Appendix 7: International classification definitions

Source Skill Skill level Job Occupation ISCO Is defined as the

ability to carry out the tasks and duties of a given job.

As a function of the complexity and range of tasks and duties to performed in an occupation.

A set of tasks and duties performed, or meant to be performed, by one person, including for an employer or in self employment

The kind of work performed in a job. The concept of an occupation is defined as a 'set of jobs whose main tasks and duties are characterized by a high degree of similarity' A person may be associated with an occupation through the main job currently held, a second job, a future job or a job previously held.

ANZSCO The ability to competently perform the tasks associated with an occupation

As a function of the range and complexity of the set of tasks performed in a particular occupation. The greater the range and complexity of the set of tasks, the greater the skill level of an occupation.

A set of tasks designed to be performed by one person for an employer (including self-employment) in return for payment or profit. Individual persons are classified by occupation through their relationship to a past, present or future job.

A set of jobs that require the performance of similar or identical sets of tasks. As it is rare for two actual jobs to have identical sets of tasks, in practical terms, an 'occupation' is a set of jobs whose main tasks are characterised by a high degree of similarity.

Source: ILO 2012, ABS 2013


75

Appendix 8: AQRF Referencing Criteria

The referencing process includes 11 criteria:

1. The structure of the education and training system is described.

2. The responsibilities and legal basis of all relevant national bodies involved in the referencing process are clearly determined and published by the main public authority responsible for the referencing process.

3. The procedures for inclusion of qualifications in the national qualifications framework or for describing the place of qualifications in the national qualification system are transparent.

4. There is a clear and demonstrable link between the qualifications levels in the national qualifications framework or system and the level descriptors of the AQRF.

5. The basis in agreed standards of the national framework or qualifications system and its qualifications is described.

6. The national quality assurance system(s) for education and training refer(s) to the national qualifications framework or system are described. All of the bodies responsible for quality assurance state their unequivocal support for the referencing outcome.

7. The process of referencing has been devised by the main public authority and has been endorsed by the main stakeholders in the qualifications system.

8. People from other countries who are experienced in the field of qualifications are involved in the referencing process and its reporting.

9. One comprehensive report, setting out the referencing and the evidence supporting it shall be published by the competent national bodies and shall address separately and in order each of the referencing criteria.

10. The outcome of referencing is published by the ASEAN Secretariat and by the main national public body.

11. Following the referencing process all certification and awarding bodies are encouraged to indicate a clear reference

to the appropriate AQRF level on new qualification certificates, diplomas issued.49

49 Bateman & Coles, ASEAN 2014


76

Appendix 9: Draft APEC Occupational Standards Framework

Appendix 9 is a separate document.

apec integrated referencing framework for skills ... docs/2722/proposal... · mike coles ltd apec...

Documents