TJ - The Publication for Learning and Development

Online editor

By Sue Mennell (March 2008 Issue)
0 Comments Comments
Article Rating:

Poor Best

Email to a friend | Print Version

The announcement that McDonalds, Flybe and Network Rail are to award their own nationally recognised qualifications, through their company training programmes, has received a mixed reaction.

The system, to be known as the Qualification Accreditation Framework (QAF), will involve employees completing a series of practical modules leading to a range of formal qualifications. For example, the McDonalds qualification in basic shift management will teach employees about the day-to-day running of a restaurant. Flybe’s airline trainer programme for cabin and engineering staff will offer qualifications from GCSE to degree level. Network Rail will award qualifications in technical engineering up to PhD level.

The qualifications respond in part to the accusation that schools and further education providers are sending young people out into the workforce lacking the skills that employers need.

John Cridland, deputy director-general of the Confederation of British Industry, which represents big business, welcomed the move as a significant milestone on the road to reforming qualifications so that they better reflect the skills needed in the workplace.

He said: “Companies currently invest £33bn every year in training their staff, but only one-third of employer training leads to qualifications because not enough official courses offer the competencies that employers require. Firms have instead run their own bespoke training programmes and formally recognising more of this employer training will lead to more relevant qualifications and give a greater recognition to business and employee investment in skills.

“Flybe, McDonalds and Network Rail deserve recognition for trail-blazing this initiative and making it easier for companies wanting to follow in their footsteps.”

John McGurk, learning, training and development adviser at the CIPD, warned: “Organisations must also be aware that skills training should be transferable to other roles and companies, allowing individuals to develop and contribute to the UK’s knowledge economy.”

However, critics suggest that the qualifications will have little value to employees outside the awarding organisation and will lack the credibility of other vocational qualifications, such as NVQs.

Judging by discussion on the TJ Online Discussion Digest, accreditation is a big issue. If employers and employees invest time and effort in a specially devised programme, it seems reasonable that they will want the credibility of that programme acknowledged.

What will the QAF mean for learners? Is this a good way of offering people who didn’t engage with education pre-employment an opportunity to boost their skills and qualifications? Or is it just a route to non-transferable skills that are virtually worthless outside the organisation within which they are earned?

As work-based qualifications become more widely available, is there a danger that students will skip further education and university, and all the opportunities for self-growth that they offer, in favour of a work-based education and qualifications route?

As trainers, what will the QAF mean for you?

Good or bad? What’s your view on the new QAF?

Have your say on this, and other issues relating to the world of L&D, by emailing us at discussion@trainingjournal.com

This month’s Digest

After reading Hints & Tips in January’s TJ, David Laughrin wrote: “Rob Cram suggests that ‘an exceptional coach will have a solution to fix your problem’. That, for me, would be the definition of a good consultant. I would suggest that an exceptional coach could help you find ways to fix your problem. If the coach does your work for you, will you ever learn?”

Here are some of the numerous replies, all of which can be found on the archive.

Geof Cox wrote: “An effective coaching relationship is about helping the coachee find the solution for themselves, not fixing it for them. The latter undermines responsibility and acceptance of the solution.”

Phil Lee said: “A coach’s role is to cut the umbilical cord coachees are often saddled with due to dependency style management/environment/upbringing factors and co-create proactive self responsibility thinking/behaviours/actions.”

But Dan Heany said: “When coachees are genuinely stuck, I take a more pragmatic line and judge whether to persist in true coaching fashion or to adopt a more mentoring or teaching style.

“I make it very clear to the coachee what I am about to do and give them the option to accept me stepping out of the coaching role or to ask me to stay in it, but where appropriate and where they consent, I will step into another role.”

Phil Canale added: “I too advocate using a number of techniques within a coaching session. After all, the coachee, more often than not, is not familiar with whatever model you are using, and the fact that you stray into mentoring/guidance/sharing your experiences and suchlike should not detract from the fact that you are helping someone.”

We have only displayed above the opening paragraph of this article. If you are a TJ subscriber, login now so you can download a PDF of this article in full, free of charge. For non-subscribers the PDF can be purchased for £9.00 see the "Buy Now" Option above.

Click here for a free 30 day trial to Training Journal

Back to top | Current TJ

 

Readers Comment

Comment on this story here >

Be the first to comment on this news story