The nut we still need to crack

Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL)

Definition

RPL has been a formal feature of the New Zealand Qualifications Framework (NZQF) now called the New Zealand Qualifications and Curriculum Framework (NZQCF) since its inception in the early 1990s. RPL is also at times referred to as Recognition of Current Competency (RCC) and there has been ongoing discussion and debate nationally and internationally about the difference between the two, if any, and how they should be used in the qualifications structure in New Zealand. Currently, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) refers to RPL.

NZQA’s guidance document Recognising learning for credit: Guidelines for the recognition and award of credit for learning discusses this in more depth.[i]

Note: a point to differentiate between these two seems to commonly be around the issue of present day capability that a qualification could represent. For instance, someone who has gained a qualification some time in their past, such as completion of a trades apprenticeship but who no longer works in that field and therefore reviewing their credentials ?would be RPL. If they were currently working in the financial sector as a financial advisor and required to be trained and qualified, and additionally have to demonstrate maintenance of professional credentials, (which can potentially lapse in some fields) this could be considered RCC.

What is the value proposition of RPL?

For this discussion, RPL is considered a process where people can have learning they have previously done formally evaluated to gain credit towards a qualification they do not already hold. Usually this is to avoid unnecessary repetition of learning that someone has already done, in one context or another, whether formal or informal.

RPL here is not referring to benchmarking or credentialing full qualifications gained offshore although there could be some definition overlap in some of the processes used for both categories.

RPL’s value is in the way it can shorten, target and articulate training provision and support particularly in a vocational context.

Background

RPL was part of the new qualifications system developed in New Zealand in the 1990s because of the goal of recognising the skills and knowledge that learners and employees brought with them to learning. It was part of the shift from the models of time served and norm-referenced assessment towards ?standards-based qualifications where people can gain recognition for what they know and can do, and can ‘package’ that into meaningful bundles or qualifications. ?

For those who value models of either time-serving (such as old-style apprenticeships) or norm-referenced assessment (such as the former School Certificate or University Bursary exams) this is a philosophical challenge. Currently however under the tertiary education system tertiary providers are required to have policies and practices to enable RPL. There are a range of useful examples where this is readily applied for the benefit of either the learner or the institution; for instance, a learner transferring between institutions for a range of reasons can apply to have their leaning evaluated for recognition to avoid repeating ?programmes, and/or cross-credit to other qualifications.

The reasons to have a robust system that uses RPL processes are clear and include:

• reduced time in training for someone who already has some of the skills and knowledge needed for a qualification or a role;
• reduced pressure on, and more efficiency in, the tertiary system if RPL allows people to get upskilled for a role or roles more quickly by not being bound into a cohort or time-based approach;
• people gain the skills they genuinely still need to learn and qualify more quickly;
• being part of ?just-in-time learning, ie learning only what a learner needs, and when, rather than learning a wide range of skills that might not be required now or in the near future. There has been ongoing and growing demand for this from industry and individual employers as well as from learners;
• Reduction of costs to the individual, employer where they are involved and greater efficiency in the tertiary system.

Reasons RPL is seen as problematic

RPL has often been regarded with suspicion or seen as too hard.

• Poor perceptions persist around RPL processes and their credibility and whether they are sufficiently robust.? Questions are been raised about “the standard”. This suspicion might be because of a competitive model ?of training provision where providers are not supported to collaborate or work on high trust.
• Sometimes the graduates of an RPL process who haven’t gone through a ‘regular’ pathway of training are regarded with suspicion by peers or employers.
• RPL is not funded by the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC). Tertiary funding provides a perverse incentive to not offer RPL because it penalises providers whose learners complete qualifications in a shorter time than the funded time. There is little or no reason for a provider to offer more efficient/shorter courses when they are not only not funded to do so but may be penalised for it, let alone deploy a sound assessment process that supports a learner to complete a qualification in a shorter time.
• There can be penalties on the provider if a learner completes a qualification too soon, often harsher than for those where learners ‘drop out’ or don’t complete. In the real world context this seems counter intuitive where someone who gets up to speed faster than expected is usually rewarded in some way or other. The tertiary education system penalises learners and their providers for gaining formal skills more quickly than the average time.
• To address concerns around possible poor practice in the vocational sector NZQA and TEC have, over time, introduced rules and requirements for both funding and delivery that prohibit providers from using RPL effectively, even when it would clearly be beneficial. Over the last three decades there have been examples of providers who have addressed this by offering an RPL process that means shorter training times to already capable or near capable individuals thereby saving time, but by charging full cost recovery to the learner ie the full cost if the government component of funding were not present. It seems that most institutions advise it will be cheaper for a learner to enter into the full programme leading to a qualification, whatever the length of time, rather than apply for RPL.
• RPL is seen as ‘hard’ - ?hard for learners to generally show their competence, and hard for providers to effectively measure (assess) the evidence. Processes may need to be developed for each individual, and there are few or no incentives in the current system for that. There are exceptions, some of which occur in work-based learning training models, but they also have some curly provisos and may rely on volumes of total learners to absorb the cost.

What needs to change and why?

Current issues

Economics of the model

• In the current economic and social climate we need a model that recognises what people already know and can do, in relation to a determined set of outcomes, maybe a Graduate Profile Outcome or a role-specific Position Description, more than ever. It is expensive and wasteful to have people undertake training they don’t need. The cost is borne by the individual, their employer if they are in paid work, and by the taxpayer.
• Financial woes right across the tertiary education sector won’t be solved by sticking with a model that compels people to serve time in programmes of learning that lead to a qualification when they are inefficient and ineffective, and don’t meet the needs of employers and other stakeholders.? Enrolment numbers in some sectors suggest that employers and learners alike are already voting with their feet, ie not taking up formal training if it doesn’t provide clear value.
• There are sectors where regulatory requirements compel training towards qualifications, providing a forced incentive to undertake training. The importance of this is not disputed; however a person might demonstrate high levels of skills and knowledge that count towards being fully competent and it is efficient to make the most of that.
• The time-served concept sees hours on the job as necessary to ensure experience across the full range of situations a master tradesperson or craftsperson might meet, and to practice the skills enough times under supervision. This has value, but serving time alone won’t necessarily guarantee any of those conditions are achieved. Conversely, people frequently begin formal training because they already have many of the skills and knowledge required ?- people who have grown up on a farm, worked for their parent on a construction site during holidays, or gone to sea on their whānau fishing fleet can bring a wealth of experience to formal training. Providers who try to do things more efficiently (faster) don’t get the value of doing that? – ?instead the system penalises them.
• In many sectors, including the food and fibre sector, employees tend not to come direct from school, and many are moving across from other occupations. Current assessment for qualifications very seldom has a way to recognise what people can already do.?

Low trust of the system needs to change

• The NZQCF is mature. Robust quality assurance systems and processes give stakeholders more than reasonable grounds for having faith in the system. In relation to RPL this means a learner is assessed through a process that has quality checks against agreed standards and that the assessing organisation is monitored, checked and accountable. The level of checking in the vocational system in particular is high.
• Across the secondary and tertiary educational system professional trust is oddly skewed. The system has low trust at the lower end of the qualifications hierarchy, ie in schools (for instance, all that supervision of school exams for level 1 NCEA assessment) and in lower level NZQCF vocational programmes, where scrutiny of and concern about cheating, authenticity, validity etc is high. Through various entities and bodies and under legislation the taxpayer funds very robust processes for checking and managing assessment and many are, relatively speaking, low stakes - although the risk associated with learning and assessment at lower levels where there is practical danger, for example handling chemicals, is acknowledged. [And training for this in the workplace must occur, whether there is associated qualifications or not.]
• This can contribute to a focus in assessment on minutiae and to overlooking the overall competence of learner. In the worst case this can lead to situations where someone can perform, to order, a series of tasks or activities but might not be able to link these in a way that is realistic in a real life setting, or show understanding of varied circumstances that require judgement and integration of skills.
• It would be advantageous to the vocational education and training sector and to the country to actively embrace higher professional and collegial trust, perhaps in the way that universities appear to do, instead of the current low trust model. As an aside, it must be time to more actively support a strongly positive differentiated model of quality assurance so that high performers earn higher trust and lighter touch monitoring.
• No system can guarantee to be 100% error proof but all stakeholders, from the public to employers to providers and learners, can have high confidence in assessment, including RPL, for NZQCF qualifications. Low trust in the system is not warranted.
• The minders of the system, variously –TEC, NZQA, Ministry of Education, Workforce Development Councils and others - need to reconsider their reservations and processes of constraint to open up RPL for the benefit of learners, employers, enterprises and the economy.

Effective and efficient for RPL to take its place in the assessment system

Whatever way learning and assessment is funded there is a cost associated with it. When an individual already knows and can do something and can demonstrate that, there is wastage in requiring them to relearn, or pretend to relearn, rather than focussing on acquiring new skills that extend capacity and productivity in one way or another. It’s hard to see justification for this, especially at this time when:

• Employers are crying out for skilled workers
• Tertiary education fees can be prohibitive – why would someone pay to learn something they can already do? Why would the taxpayer require it?
• Enrolments are falling in some skill shortage areas as training is not aligned to either the needs or the skills of learner(s) or their bosses
• There is a call for shorter, needs-based just-in-time learning so that employees can be deployed rapidly then move onto new roles and settings
• The vocational system is involved in yet more systemic change, involving uncertainty and lack of clarity.

It doesn’t seem like good economics to prop up either the vocational or academic education systems by funding training in set blocks of time when that doesn’t match the needs of learners or the enterprises that might employ them. This is a scenario that seems doomed to crash as the real problem of the true cost of education and how to deliver isn’t addressed.

Opportunity

Training and learning, particularly on job learning, is always happening. It would be a bigger challenge to try to stop people learning than to make it happen. As soon as someone arrives in a workplace there is training – minimal though it might be in the hypothetical worst cases – and if nothing else, there is a minimum that is required by law, to ensure a safe workplace. A good manager structures the learning provided, and sequences it to support employees’ development and progression on job. In some workplaces this is very well developed and supported.

Further, people learn skills in a variety of contexts, not just in formal, paid employment. No learner arrives for training with nothing in their kete.

In any assessment process learning happens and the information gained for both the learner and assessor can be used effectively for ongoing development, formal or informal for that person. ?

Given this, it’s likely that in any cohort of vocational learners many will already know a bit, some or quite a lot of the expected outcomes. But our provider-based models don’t recognise that formally because they can’t.

Skills standards have now been mandated by NZQA and will be the new currency for credit. The way these are structured should assist with considering performance in a whole and contextualised way. RPL could be part of formative assessment that allows both the learner and the teacher/tutor (on job or off) to analyse where areas of skill already exist and what that learner needs to develop further to be competent, gaining efficiency and presumably motivation in that learner’s programme.

There have been years of discussion, projects and models in this country to try to effectively use RPL.? Those of us in the education sector know that many of these have been robust, defensible, sound models but almost none have endured. We know there are opportunities in some or all of the methods previously used – so I think it's time to have another go at some or all of these, with trust: sampling - testing and a focus on key critical activities; using professional conversation; observation by an expert; verification by a reputable practitioner; keystone assessments. All of these could and should have a part to play. [ii]

As the saying goes, follow the money. If the funding continues to be based on outdated learning models we have to wonder why people would bother with qualifications at all when they are expensive and not connected to real needs.

In this time of change and pressure in the tertiary education sector there is an opportunity to give RPL a credible place in the qualifications picture.

There are enormous pressures on the system and on communities. Why would people do something twice when it’s not needed? ?Our current government has a stated goal of doubling our country’s exports within 10 years. How will we actually do that? We need to be upskilling our people fast and furiously, adding value, so they can gain the skills we need for such an ambitious target.

Simply, RPL allows people to reduce time and cost and lets learners show their real capability.

Mitzi Austin September 2024

?

[i] https://www2.nzqa.govt.nz/assets/Tertiary/NZQAs-QA-system/Recognition-of-prior-learning/Guidelines-for-the-recognition-and-award-of-learning-for-credit.pdf? (retrieved 17-09-2024).

[ii] The Food and Fibre Centre of Vocational Excellence (FFCoVE) and Muka Tangata have developed a Skills Framework sets out a model for skills acquisition and development. The Framework sits above both formal and informal learning and is agnostic about the setting. A sound and trusted RPL process could link learners’ development to this to allow learners to see where they sit and what further steps they should and could take.

?