Mummy Longlegs discusses an NVQ assessor who appears to be incompetent in the subject matter she assesses. I’m not going to add anything to what Mummy says here as she says it all. However, in the comments the NVQ process takes the predictable bashing and I’ve responded, but I’ll enlarge here.
There seems to be an attitude that the NVQ assessor does not need to be competent in the subject they assess. This is a myth. The occupational standards for the qualification will state what qualifications and experience are necessary for those carrying out assessment and verification activities. Last last year I was approached by a centre providing level 2 track engineering qualifications. They wanted to know if I could carry out assessments for them. Now, it’s true that I have a broad understanding of the activity. However, that is all I have. I asked to look at the occupational standards for the qualifications they were providing. As a minimum, an assessor would need four years experience and relevant qualifications in the discipline. Not having this, I declined. The verifier, being one step removed needed to have a broad understanding and access to technical expertise. As this is an old standard, it does not yet require occupational competence on the part of the verifier, but I would expect that to be rectified when the standard is next updated. Experience has shown that the verifier needs to have enough occupational knowledge to be able to sample the evidence and the judgements made by the assessors. You cannot agree with an assessor’s decision if you don’t understand the evidence they have used to reach it.
I currently assess the learning and development NVQs. I could not assess these activities without being qualified and having had sufficient real world experience in the activity. Yes, I am aware that some centres will find workarounds and ignore the standards. And, yes, I am aware that they manage to pull the wool over the eyes of the awarding body – particularly if the awarding body is unfamiliar with the industry concerned. Also, I am aware that sometimes in order to secure funding, the awarding body doesn’t always ask the searching questions that it really should.
All of this undermines the qualifications subsequently awarded to candidates and undermines the work those of us who do abide by the standards do. But that’s no different from any other part of life. However, it is simply not true that an assessor can assess without occupational competence gained in the workplace carrying out the task they are assessing. If they are, they are cheating the system.
Does that mean that anyone with a NVQ certificate assessed by an invalid person has an invalid certificate? If so that means that everyone who has an NVQ does not have a valid one. Not one of them.
Just about sums up their worth though.
Yes, there are people out there with certificates not worth the paper they are written on. I’ve met a few and have found that they lack the basic understanding of the assessment process and competence management. That doesn’t mean that everyone who has achieved their qualification cheated and that their qualifications are worthless.
In general, the L&D units are less inclined to be undermined than they were ten years or so back.