30th July 2008, 09:58 AM
In essence, I'm not happy that VC will pass people on the portfolio element on the say so of someone assessing an individual on other criteria. If nothing else, if the work assessed is of a higher standard than that required and is in a submittable format, then it will be in an easy format for VC to assess rapidly. It doesn't have to be 'fast tracked', it will already be by being of the appropriate level and in an easliy accessible format.
There's my 2p.......
[/quote]
I've had a chat with the IFA people following on from my comment above and now have a different take on this. What I hadn't remembered (entirely my fault, I blame work!)is that the validation criteria are changing in order to move from the (useful but, to be honest not as effective as it should be) old system of levels of responsibility and time served at that level to a system of properly assessing technical competence, based on the National occupation Standards (NOS) and so therefore also compatible with the NVQ assessment procedures and criteria.
As I said, I blame brain fugue.....
Quoting the invisible man
"Are we working towards a two tier approach in archaeology, with the career digger as a technician?"
I think it's important to remember two things. One is that we do not have a chartered insitute for archaeology and also that PIFA, AIFA and MIFA are all corporate grades within IFA. There is no restriction as to who can do what and where individuals can serve.
I think the NVQs will allow individuals to demonstrate their competencies (which is especially important if on a short term contract) and easily identify where they might like to develop. I have often said 'it's difficult to know what training to ask for if you don't even know what you can do now and what you might be able to learn to do'.