Brendan Smith on apprenticeship curriculum shift to TUs

Thank you very much, Cahirley. Apologies, I missed the earlier part of the contributions as I was at another meeting. Just a few questions, please, and thank you for your presentations. Am I right in thinking now that the curriculum will be set by the technological universities? I presume that has been transferred, those responsibilities transferred, because they have academic councils and they may have better systems in place to ensure consistency in standards and the setting of standards to ensure that they're on a par, if not better, than with other international comparators. QQI then monitors the quality of the courses. That's their responsibility, I assume. And then Solace delivers the courses. So there is three parts to the delivery of apprenticeships, and I think it's exceptionally important that the provenance of the courses, there can be no question marks about them, but the quality of them and the reliability, and also that the standards are exceptionally high to ensure that people who attain these qualifications, that they literally have the international goal plate where they can present for job opportunities elsewhere. I assume that apprenticeships are being provided on the basis of the likely demands of the economy and of our society, the needs of our society, and also the opportunities that will arise in regard to economic growth taken into consideration in international developments. And the whole area of, say, cyber security, all of that. Is there a growing emphasis on bringing apprenticeships to new areas, apart from the traditional trades and crafts? And from what you are seeing, is there a quick enough delivery through the setting of the courses, through ensuring that the proper standards are attained and retained at all times, and that Solace is in a position to ensure that the widespread availability of such courses? Thank you, Oka Heardy. Thank you. Next. I'll come in first, that's good. So, Deputy, just on the what is the reassignment piece and what are we trying to achieve here, the goal is to strengthen the quality assurance processes around apprenticeship. So, just to go into a bit how it currently works and then how the shift is going to change. So, at present, Solace is responsible for the development of curriculum and assessment of each of the craft apprenticeships, so all 25, and QQI awards the certificates for the programs. So, you'll be aware that Solace is the state agency with responsibility for the provision of further education training programs. But, although they're responsible for the provision of it, it's important to note that the vast majority of the provision is not delivered by Solace, but is delivered by education, through education and training boards. So, the TUs, on the other hand, are our education providers, and they have a legislative basis for doing so, including for the academic council and all the expertise that that entails, like you mentioned. So, these academic councils and TUs have the responsibility already for the design and development of curriculum and assessment for existing TU programs, and they also have the power to award certificates directly, which neither Solace or the ETBs have the power to do. So, the objective is that apprenticeship will benefit from the academic expertise in the technological sector. So, what's being proposed is that a craft apprenticeship, an education provider will take on responsibility for curriculum and assessment and the awarding of the certificates. But, important just to note that we'll continue to have national programs for apprenticeships, and there will be one national curriculum rolled out to all participants. So, for example, all apprentices who sit the electrical program in the future will still be subject to the same national curriculum and achieve the same national certificate. The change is that it will be the providers who have responsibility for the curriculum rather than Solace, and to enable that, and the delivery will be through ETBs and TUs and not through Solace as well, just to make that point. And, to ensure that there is that consistency at a national level, there will be a new national quality assurance framework developed for craft apprenticeship, which is designed by the providers. QQI, in the new world, will remain responsible for external quality assurance to approve any given provider's quality assurance procedures, monitor and review the effectiveness of these. So, the change is that the TU or the IOT will make the awards and not QQI. Thank you, Emma Kyrie. But, so, you would have two... There'd be a twin-track approach to the development of curricula. One by the technological universities, and also, you said, by QQI. Anybody saw this? I might come in, Deputy, just to clarify QQI's role. So, currently, QQI are the awarding body in respect of the craft apprenticeships. As we move to the transfer system, QQI's role would be consistent with QQI's role for the Technological University's other awards, where they're the designating awarding body, and our role would be that overarching providing of the national standards, consistent with what we do with the established universities, and now the Technological Universities as designated awarding bodies. The curriculum and so on would be developed by the Technological Universities, but in order to ensure consistent standards, then there'll be a nationally agreed system of what those standards are. But the delivery would be done within the Technological Universities. And who will set the nationally agreed system? Who will determine that? That would be the Technological Universities, so that system is evolving, but with oversight from QQI, in terms of it being consistent with that overarching national quality assurance standards. And is the Department any role or any participation in setting those standards? Not as such, but the priorities in terms of emphasis of programmes might evolve, Sally. No, the Department doesn't have a role in that, so that role, as outlined by Lynne, will be led by the TUs, the education providers overseen by QQI and by Solace as well. The Department obviously works very closely with QQI and Solace in the progression of this plan as is implemented. And I take it that we won't have each Technological Universities going off to on their own curriculum, that there will be coordination and not a disparity in standards, that there will be a consistency in the curricula. Absolutely, and to be consistent, as Sally mentioned earlier, with the National Framework of Qualifications and Assurances, all of what that means in terms of levels and consistency of levels. Finally, when do you expect this new system to be in place? I'll go with that. So the high-level plan was submitted at the end of November, Deputy, and the indication certainly from colleagues in the Department is that that will be progressing. The timelines we're looking at at the moment, but the initial timelines within the plan were at the outside a sort of two-year plan for transition and full conclusion of it, but that's something that we've been asked to look at and consider. So if we can expedite that, it's something we'll certainly look at in partnership with colleagues in QQI and the higher education sector. But I think it's really important that when we're doing this, we put it into a solid footing, we get off on the right foot immediately and we put it into a solid system, a solid-based system. So working through the matters that people have worked through will take a bit of time, but it's something that everyone is absolutely committed to doing. I think it would be very important, and they know it's expedited as much as possible because of the bit of negativity in the blip and the system that occurred. I think we need to get away from that to ensure they know that the apprenticeships are held in the highest regard in regard to the standards that are being applied and the standards necessary. And obviously there's a huge need to increase the numbers participating as well. Thank you. Thank you.