Dr. Padraig Walsh:

We do have one single framework which is depicted as a fan not a ladder in our presentation. That is to indicate people can get on and get off at different parts, as well as go back. Other countries have an earlier separation between vocational and further education. Many of these are, however, unforgiving and tend to be quite impermeable. QQI recently published a study on where FETAC learners go after qualifying. In 2009, of those who achieved major awards, 18% went on to higher education. This would not have been achievable before without a framework. Employers and higher education providers need to be able to recognise the qualification easily. Of those from 2009, 21% went on to reach a further FETAC level award and 56% presented in employment.

We host Qualifax, the national learners’ database, which gives information about community education, non-certified education, further and higher education and vocational awards. As part of our new establishment, QQI will also have to develop a national database which will indicate at what levels particular awards are on the framework.

Several members referred to duplication. Duplication in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. We duplicate the leaving certificate around the country. It is unnecessary duplication we would seek to weed out. We have come through two separate systems, the vocational education committee and the FÁS-SOLAS training system.

There are areas of overlap. For example, apprenticeship is obviously entirely confined to what was previously FÁS, and many of the other industry-focused ones are there. However, there are offerings that are duplicated. About one third of our total awards come through what was formerly the VEC sector and about one fifth through SOLAS and previously FÁS. A number of those overlaps are things one would want to offer in a number of places.

There were a number of questions on networking. One thing we would like to get across is that we recognise that community education is by its nature local. Ms Brady eloquently pointed this out. Much vocational education is by its nature local. We are not seeking in any of our policies to make it more difficult for people to attend at those particular programmes. What we are looking at in terms of things like networking is for people to be able, as I said in my presentation, to allocate their resources proportionately. Quality costs money. The maintenance of certification costs money. We would prefer it if people were working on supports rather than spending time duplicating programmes unnecessarily. When one has a zero fee-based system, there is a disincentive to submitting a load of separate programmes within the system. We are encouraging people to work together and work with us.

Everyone so far has talked about collaboration. We genuinely have had very good working relationships with the bodies around here. We have had very good engagement with the education and training boards, ETBI and SOLAS in moving the quality assurance arrangements we had under the former VEC and FÁS system to what will be single arrangements with the education and training boards that are obviously being rolled out over time.

Deputy O'Brien asked about value for money. One of the best ways of measuring value for money is through outcomes. What we looked at in terms of the further education and training awards in the study was being able to show that people are able to move on either to further education awards or to higher education. Senator O'Donnell and I were colleagues in Dublin City University for a long time. When I was there at the start, almost everybody who came into higher education came through the academic secondary school system because there was no recognition. One of the biggest strengths in the development of the national framework of qualifications is an understanding that the levels have moved into the lexicon of the common man and woman. Students use them. Taxi drivers will use the terms levels 7 and 8. That gives confidence to employers and people in higher education in looking at those qualifications. The other thing we have from that is that over time, as we have developed our national framework of qualifications, people have successfully progressed through the system.

We want to stress that in most cases there is no increase in fees for learners. There are no fees for level 1 to 3 programmes and people with medical cards. There are fees for validation of new programmes and a significant amount of programme validation has happened with FETAC, which is now QQI. Many of those programmes have now been validated and are out there and there is no requirement to re-validate them. Most of the fee - the cost that is based around the fee for providers - has to do with the evaluation of the quality assurance system that is in place. If the committee wants that to be looked at, it must cost money. It involves people meeting people and carrying out evaluations and authenticators looking at assessment. That costs money. We believe there are ways of networking or of developing through consortiums. Almost none of these people in the community education area operates without going through a network system. They have seen that this makes sense for them and will make sense for the way we work with them and the way we develop.

In respect of the discussion around apprenticeship, we welcome the publication of the review of apprenticeships that clearly recognises that a system where everybody is at level 6 and which is really a craft-based apprenticeship system is not fit for purpose. Along with all my colleagues here, we await the policy acceptance of that and are ready, able and willing to look at that. One of the strengths of the QQI is that we do not pass people on; we have a single national framework of qualifications and we deal with the higher education institutes and further education institutes.