Credit Rating Bodies Event – Sharing Good Practice
8 October 2010
1. The Background
The SCQF Handbook was launched in October 2009 and feedback had been very positive
particularly on its user-friendliness. One year on we wanted to bring all credit rating bodies
together to explore any issues that had arisen in its usage and in relation to credit rating.
The aims were to provide an opportunity to:



hear about developments;
provide suggestions for other guidance materials that would be useful;
discuss some of the issues that had arisen due to the growth in and awareness of the
SCQF.
2. The number of delegates
The target audience for the event was credit rating bodies. Around 40 participants attended
representing:








SQA;
4 new Credit Rating Bodies;
13 Colleges;
4 Universities;
The UHI Millennium Institute;
HMIE;
QAA Scotland; and
The Board of Management of the SCQF Partnership.
3. The Programme and workshops
Ray Harris, CEO of Scotland’s Colleges and Director of the SCQF Partnership, introduced
the day where he set out the importance of the SCQF for the Scottish education system. He
reinforced the importance for colleges to implement credit rating and made particular
relevance to the Curriculum for Excellence, recognising wider achievement and the
development of articulation routes.
George Brown, Head of Accreditation at SQA, gave an update on work-based leaning. Key
points from his presentation are that:




Over 200 SVQs have now been credit rated. Based on current predictions for review for
completing the full credit rating process is currently 2014 – 2015
SQA agreed that from 2010 all newly accredited or accredited SVQs must drop the level
before the number and use the SCQF level. So, for example the SVQ level 4 in Widget
making would become the SVQ 4 in Widget making (SCQF level 8). The plan would be
to drop the first number completely once all SVQs are credit rated
SQA is still looking at how to hold this information via some form of database. As an
interim measure they have started putting the level and credit value where available on
the SVQ info sheets. These can be found at http://www.sqa.org.uk/sqa/151.99.html
For MAs, because the possible outcome is individual dependent and not static (i.e. core
and options could vary) the agreement is that the individual will be certificated for the MA
by the SSC and this will include an SCQF profile of all those components which have
been credit rated.
3.1
The Workshops
Delegates attended two of the four workshops the topics of which were:




Third party and reputational risks
Third party and externality
Benchmarking learning against the SCQF
Awarding credit retrospectively.
Each facilitator was asked to note three points from their workshops which would be fed
back in the plenary session and would also be given to the SCQF Partnership. The points
that were given in the morning and afternoon workshops are summarised below:
3.1.1 Workshop 1. Third Party and Reputational Risk
The SCQF Partnership should adopt a continuing supportive and enabling role for credit
rating bodies. Continue to develop capacity building sessions for both credit rating bodies
and submitting bodies. More opportunities to share experiences would be beneficial. It was
suggested that events such as this be held twice a year.
3.1.2 Workshop 2. Third Party and Externality
Discussion around the issue of robust Quality Assurance versus the small organisation.
Concern was expressed that we might be creating barriers. Was the cost of externality
another barrier for organisations? Provide guidance for both credit rating bodies and
submitting bodies with a clear definition of what is meant by externality for both parties.
Handouts and leaflets with case studies would be welcomed.
3.1.3 Workshop 3. Awarding Credit Retrospectively
The potential for a lot of work to do here to map outdated qualifications held by older workers
and hence promote efficient workforce development. It was suggested that a good place to
start would be the Social Care and Healthcare sectors. The question was who would pay for
this work? The SCQF Database must retain old/outdated awards and handle issues of
version control. RPL could be used for the recognition of older qualifications. Develop some
additional broad guidance on the award of retrospective credit and develop case studies on
different approaches and how issues were dealt with.
3.1.4 Workshop 4. Benchmarking learning against the SCQF
The groups were not clear on what the difference was in the definitions of benchmarking and
credit rating. The groups identified a number of risks/threats associated with ‘uncontrolled’
benchmarking. However benchmarking might lead to organisations becoming credit rating
bodies. The forthcoming guidance will be welcomed. The group eagerly awaits the
forthcoming National Guidance.
4.
The Evaluation
There were 16 respondents to the event evaluation. Consideration was given to the
administration and organisation of the event, the relevance of the main presentations, the
relevance and quality of the workshops and the venue. Delegates were also asked about
further support from the SCQF Partnership they would find useful and for the three main
points that they took away from the event. They were also offered the opportunity to provide
further comment. Analysis of the responses is given below along with the comments
received.
4.1
The Administration
Overall the administration of the event appears to have gone well. All but one respondent
felt that the information they received before the event was excellent - good.
Table 1: The Administration of the event.
4.2
The relevance of the main presentations
The majority of respondents viewed the main presentations as relevant.
Table 2: The Relevance of the Main Presentations
4.3
The Workshops
The choice and relevance of the workshops appears to have met the needs of delegates.
Table 3: The Choice and Relevance of Workshops
Fewer delegates, (14), responded to the question on the quality of the workshops that they
attended. The majority of those who responded regarded them as excellent or very good.
Table 4: The Quality of the Workshops
4.4
The Venue and Catering
Both the venue and catering received excellent feedback.
Table 5: The venue and catering
4.5
Further support
11 respondents provided comment on the further support that is required from the SCQF
Partnership. There was a strong indication that this was a very welcomed event as it
provided the forum where issues can be discussed openly and to share the challenges of
credit rating activities. Almost all requested more credit rating body events such as this one
should be held.
Further guidance is required particularly around externality (guidelines 19 and 20). The
suggestion was given that this could be explained by the use of case studies.
4.6
Three Main Points
Almost all respondents provide three main points that they took away from the event. As
expected these were very varied and a summary of those raised most often is given. The
opportunity to share practice and activities and to explore models used by others and the
importance of consistency were strong points taken away by the majority of respondents.
Awareness that others shared the same concerns and issues was also highlighted. The
external quality assurance required around third party credit rating and issues around
benchmarking were also points that were raised. The progress of the SCQF in comparison
to other frameworks was mentioned along with positive views of the work of the SCQF
Partnership.
4.7
Other Comments
All the comments in this section were very positive and complimentary about the event. It
was viewed as worthwhile providing the opportunity to network with other credit rating
bodies. The openness of all to share views and air concerns was very much appreciated.
Delegates expressed an interest to hearing about any outcomes from the event. Some of the
comments are given below.
“Worthwhile event. Well organised.”
“Good day providing a useful opportunity to network with other credit rating bodies
and sharing activities openly.”
“Important development in ensuring continuity and consistency of participants with
shared views, helpful and useful in self auditing.”
“Really useful and enjoyable day and with lots to think about for taking the SCQF and
our learners forward in challenging times. SCQF is a big part of future solutions.”
“All round excellent event.”
“Excellent sessions/event. Thank you! Venue also excellent.”
5. The SCQF Partnership Response: Future Action
The SCQF Partnership thanks all the respondents for their feedback. It is very much
appreciated and really useful to us to plan our future objectives ensuring that they meet the
needs of all credit rating bodies. The outcome of this event will be:
1. Given as feedback to the Quality Committee who hosted the event;
2. Consultation with credit rating bodies on how often such events should be held.
3. The additional guidance suggested will be considered and added to the work of the
subgroup of the development of guidance materials for financial year 2010-2011.