Nvq level 3 in plumbing

[850Rick]

Can i do an nvq3 with out doing nvq2 and whats involved in it and can i achieve this working for myself

 

[1967skyblue]

if you have done your C&G level 2 then you can do your level 3 gas studies however to get your l3 qualifacation you are recomended to do your nvq l2 thus meaning your level 3 portfolio evidance can be slightly reduced,, you cant though go straight into l3 with no lower qualifacations as theres a lot of h&S issues that also need to be adheard to

also i belive they are now changing NVQ to somthing new hope that helps

 

[gavinwilson]

It's all changed but as far as I know you can't do it working for yourself you have to be employed,but suppose you could get someone to run your business and employ you,you just need a qualified plumber to sign your paperwork

 

[petercj]

Can i do an nvq3 with out doing nvq2 and whats involved in it and can i achieve this working for myself

Fundamental to the NVQ system is learning through doing the job alongside people who have the competence that you are aiming to acquire. So if you are thinking of working self-employed as a one-man-band, then the problem will be: who are you going to learn from? You will also need someone who is qualified to assess you. There's more to it than getting someone to sign your paperwork.

If you have sufficient evidence of relevant prior learning, you might be able to do a level 3 without having a level 2.

I think the best person to ask would be the NVQ coordinator at your local FE college, or a training adviser working with a training provider.

If you google around you will find the competences for the qualification you are interested in.

 

[Deleted member 25704]

Fundamental to the NVQ system is learning through doing the job alongside people who have the competence that you are aiming to acquire. So if you are thinking of working self-employed as a one-man-band, then the problem will be: who are you going to learn from? You will also need someone who is qualified to assess you. There's more to it than getting someone to sign your paperwork.

If you have sufficient evidence of relevant prior learning, you might be able to do a level 3 without having a level 2.

I think the best person to ask would be the NVQ coordinator at your local FE college, or a training adviser working with a training provider.

If you google around you will find the competences for the qualification you are interested in.

I would like to think that this is the case but it is often not.

A while ago British Gas put hundreds of apprentices through NVQ3 who had not done the NVQ2, in less than one year.

It is a free for all out there with regard to training and assessment.

The original ethos of NVQ was that competence may be demonstrated in an occupational role irrelevant of input related training - if you can meet the performance criteria then you are competent in terms of the qualification framework. ACS works on the same premise.

In theory, you should be able to do an NVQ3 without an NVQ2 if you can meet the criteria, but this is not in the interests of those selling training. Colleges and training centres can make it up as they go along because who is going to challenge them?

 

[chris watkins]

Just a word of warning to anyone temped at trying this, even if it is possible & I know training providers (JTL) who will not allow L3 without L2 first.
The 6189 L3 is a far far far greater challenge than the L2, It should in no way be thought of as more of the same, it is said that L3 = A level standard, I would say it is greater than that now.

IMHO, I do not see how someone could be successful at this without the prior knowledge from the L2 & a good couple of years working in the industry, which allows the level 3 theory to be applied to the work place.

 

[mackkss]

ive nearly completed the nvq 2, you cannot go straight to level 3 i am unsure whether to do the level 3 or go straight to the gas although id like to do the level 3 because i bet theres a mountain of stuff to be learned

 

[Subby]

Gas is part of the level 3

 

[mackkss]

you get a gas qualification from level 3 ?, so id be able to work on gas after L3?

 

[Subby]

That is correct.

 

[Subby]

You also get your unvented ticket.

 

[gavinwilson]

Don't get ur acs through Lvl 3 do you?

 

[chris watkins]

you get a gas qualification from level 3 ?, so id be able to work on gas after L3?

Only if you are on the 6189 & can get the on-site gas experience that would be required if you taking the ACS for the first time (around 70 day's min). Your training centre will also have to offer this option route.
It is alined to the ACS so if you pass you will not then need to do your CCN1 + but you will still need to join the GSR before you can work.

 

[mackkss]

so why are there gas courses such as this?
ACS L72044

i thought the plumbing level 3 gave you knowledge about the gas then you had to do ^ that sort of course to have the ticket to work on gas

 

[REDSAW]

do a bit more reading lads!!

& why do you feel you need a nvq3?

 

[mackkss]

as i am not doing plumbing/gas work full time only weekends i can get with people and from what the course actually advertises and i knew you covered gas in l3 but i didnt know you actually got a ticket to work on it

 

[Subby]

If you complete an NVQ level 2, then you are classed as a fully qualified plumber's mate.

 

[petercj]

I would like to think that this is the case but it is often not.

A while ago British Gas put hundreds of apprentices through NVQ3 who had not done the NVQ2, in less than one year.

It is a free for all out there with regard to training and assessment.

The original ethos of NVQ was that competence may be demonstrated in an occupational role irrelevant of input related training - if you can meet the performance criteria then you are competent in terms of the qualification framework. ACS works on the same premise.

In theory, you should be able to do an NVQ3 without an NVQ2 if you can meet the criteria, but this is not in the interests of those selling training. Colleges and training centres can make it up as they go along because who is going to challenge them?

When the LSC went bottom up everything seem to be left to the colleges to sort out.

Seems to have been a bit laissez-faire ever since - the Government talk a lot about apprenticeships, but then there's a lot of people wanting apprenticeships who can't find an employer to take them on.

As in the Thatcher years, the Government attempt to off-load responsibility for training onto the private sector, but in an economic downturn, training is the last thing many employers have on their minds. Many of them being concerned with trying to keep the staff that they have.

Not surprised to hear that BG play it by their own rules - no one seems to challenge them on anything these days, including Trading Standards.

 

[Deleted member 25704]

When the LSC went bottom up everything seem to be left to the colleges to sort out.

Seems to have been a bit laissez-faire ever since - the Government talk a lot about apprenticeships, but then there's a lot of people wanting apprenticeships who can't find an employer to take them on.

As in the Thatcher years, the Government attempt to off-load responsibility for training onto the private sector, but in an economic downturn, training is the last thing many employers have on their minds. Many of them being concerned with trying to keep the staff that they have.

Not surprised to hear that BG play it by their own rules - no one seems to challenge them on anything these days, including Trading Standards.

Fair comments petercj, but there has been nothing laissez-faire about what is happenning now. Various government policies such as Leitch (2006) and the creation of a demand system of education perhaps alludes to the private sector intervention you mentioned. Here we have a deepening of the relationship between education and capital, both in the university sector and the vocational sector.

Prior to the crunch it was also known by key academics that wage inflation amongst the working classes was too high, which in turn presented the issue of economic inflation if left unchecked - it could be said that a job has been done in this sense if we consider the Greek problem of plumbers and hair dressers on 60k a year and retiring at 48 years old - we avoided this through flooding the domestic sector with labour, which in turn kept wages down.

As for apprenticeships, they contribute to the above policies in terms of demands for training and increased competition, which keeps us in our place as 10 apprentices apply for every place, yet skills shortages are still promoted and advertised.

As for British Gas, there is some truth in what Chris Watkins suggests, in that it is not really possible to do an NVQ3 before an NVQ2, but when thousands of people apply for each apprenticeship place, British Gas stated that they recruited graduates and bally dancers for their apprenticeship places, so passing easy exams in college was not a problem - to be fair to British Gas, they have social communities of workers that know their stuff, so an apprenticeship with them would be both sought after and carry some status.

 

[TBServices]

In my eyes, level 3 was the best way to get all the quals I wanted. Water regs, unvented, part p and gas (ACS and CPA1).

If you want to work on gas you still have to register with gas safe and you'll still have to pass your appliances, although these were reduced in price when taken on end of level 3 for me.

I'd say its well worth it.

 

[petercj]

Fair comments petercj, but there has been nothing laissez-faire about what is happenning now. Various government policies such as Leitch (2006) and the creation of a demand system of education perhaps alludes to the private sector intervention you mentioned. Here we have a deepening of the relationship between education and capital, both in the university sector and the vocational sector.

Prior to the crunch it was also known by key academics that wage inflation amongst the working classes was too high, which in turn presented the issue of economic inflation if left unchecked - it could be said that a job has been done in this sense if we consider the Greek problem of plumbers and hair dressers on 60k a year and retiring at 48 years old - we avoided this through flooding the domestic sector with labour, which in turn kept wages down.

As for apprenticeships, they contribute to the above policies in terms of demands for training and increased competition, which keeps us in our place as 10 apprentices apply for every place, yet skills shortages are still promoted and advertised.

As for British Gas, there is some truth in what Chris Watkins suggests, in that it is not really possible to do an NVQ3 before an NVQ2, but when thousands of people apply for each apprenticeship place, British Gas stated that they recruited graduates and bally dancers for their apprenticeship places, so passing easy exams in college was not a problem - to be fair to British Gas, they have social communities of workers that know their stuff, so an apprenticeship with them would be both sought after and carry some status.

I'm more inclined towards cock-up theory than capitalist conspiracy theory to explain the present mess.

The NVQ system was never designed to be about passing exams in colleges, and BG fitters in my area are definitely not graduates ! I wouldn't know about the social community side - does that mean they get cheap booze at Legion prices?

BTW, what is a bally dancer?

Is it anything to do with Bod's Christmas card featuring Croppie in a tutu?

I think this is dodgy ground, so I'm winding this post up now!

 

[lame plumber]

Just a word of warning to anyone temped at trying this, even if it is possible & I know training providers (JTL) who will not allow L3 without L2 first.
The 6189 L3 is a far far far greater challenge than the L2, It should in no way be thought of as more of the same, it is said that L3 = A level standard, I would say it is greater than that now.

IMHO, I do not see how someone could be successful at this without the prior knowledge from the L2 & a good couple of years working in the industry, which allows the level 3 theory to be applied to the work place.

Agree with cw re needing L2 to do L3 successfully, however saying that an L3 nvq equates to an A level seems way ott to me. Have A levels have dropped in standard chronically since I took mine or something else changed. Additionally an nvq in no way relates to A levels being that one is a exam based system and the other supposed to be a work based practical sytem of learning.

NVQs are supposed to be an alternative to normal schooling as they are vocational based training and from my experience you need to do the college work as well as the nvq to get the best of both worlds.

 

[petercj]

Agree with cw re needing L2 to do L3 successfully, however saying that an L3 nvq equates to an A level seems way ott to me. Have A levels have dropped in standard chronically since I took mine or something else changed. Additionally an nvq in no way relates to A levels being that one is a exam based system and the other supposed to be a work based practical sytem of learning.

NVQs are supposed to be an alternative to normal schooling as they are vocational based training and from my experience you need to do the college work as well as the nvq to get the best of both worlds.

An A level is an academic qualification, whereas an NVQ is a Vocational qualification which recognises various levels of knowledge and skill in a range of industries. Level 2 builds on level one, and 3 on 2.

A comparison might be made between an A level and an NVQ re complexity and difficulty, but they won't have much else in common.

Evidence of 'prior learning' involves relevant prerequisite knowledge and the skills required to implement that knowledge, i.e. cognitive skills, and psychomotor skills - an appropriate attitude can also be seen as a requirement to be competent.

A mature learner with some transferable skills might be able to skip level one, but being a graduate in some academic discipline isn't going to enable someone to skip the necessary prior learning requirement in a given vocational area. If they have good study skills and a practical aptitude, they might be able to cover the necessary prior learning on a fast track course, but that's not the same as skipping a level 2.

I don't doubt that BG have done it their own way as stated - nothing would surprise me about BG.

I would think every Unit in the BG courses states that a power flush is absolutely essential in all circumstances.

 

[Deleted member 25704]

An A level is an academic qualification, whereas an NVQ is a Vocational qualification which recognises various levels of knowledge and skill in a range of industries. Level 2 builds on level one, and 3 on 2.

A comparison might be made between an A level and an NVQ re complexity and difficulty, but they won't have much else in common.

Evidence of 'prior learning' involves relevant prerequisite knowledge and the skills required to implement that knowledge, i.e. cognitive skills, and psychomotor skills - an appropriate attitude can also be seen as a requirement to be competent.

A mature learner with some transferable skills might be able to skip level one, but being a graduate in some academic discipline isn't going to enable someone to skip the necessary prior learning requirement in a given vocational area. If they have good study skills and a practical aptitude, they might be able to cover the necessary prior learning on a fast track course, but that's not the same as skipping a level 2.

I don't doubt that BG have done it their own way as stated - nothing would surprise me about BG.

I would think every Unit in the BG courses states that a power flush is absolutely essential in all circumstances.

This is a good post petercj and you have a good grasp of the notion of competence. However a better understanding of training systems can gained through considering them in light of the historical process and the structural fields in which they exist.

The NVQ was designed by a guy called Gilbert Jessup and his seminal work outcomes (1991) set the architecture for vocational qualifications that exist today.

Following the Cassles Review (2003) it was found that purely work based assessments failed to furnish apprentices with 'knowledge' aspects of the job. The technical certificate was introduced as a way of addressing this problem. There were a number of factors that contributed to our current situation. Firstly OECD data suggested that successful economies were associated with skills growth and qualification capital of the work force - this has something do with human capital theory, which was deemed as a monocausal prescription for economic success - raise qualifications and economic growth will follow. Successful economies such as Germany had high levels of intermediate skills which are associated with NVQ3 not so much the equivalent A levels (the latter only having tangible economic benefit in the form of degree pathways). Skills are the order of the day, and because they lead to growth, we can never have enough of them, so we are always in perpetual skills shortages and skills gaps which may be marketed legitimately to sell courses - problem is, that knowledge is unfairly distributed in society, and the ones buying into this clap trap are the ones who can least afford it.

Leitch (2006) had a lot to do with this, plus public money being poured into training and education. Add to this high levels of youth unemployment, neets, shift in our economy from making to service industries, wider implications of green deal and we start to get some currency in the policies for apprenticeship and the expansion of the building services engineering sector prior to 2008, when things took a change for the worse.

What we don't know is the outcome, because we are still in this macro socio-economic theory and it has not played out yet.

Coming back to NVQs, with the introduction of tech certs, we now had an input related curriculum in the form of modules which was not intended for an outcome system of assessment-led vocational training. Therefore, the contradictions start to occur, for which we are discussing now - can we or can't we do an NVQ without prior training?

We don't know the answer, because the system is complex, with no single body accountable for problems - we have training providers like JTL who are own by the electrical contractors association, Best training provider owned by BES (formerly HVCA). We have colleges quickly becoming businesses, we have lead bodies that set the frameworks (summitskills) and we have the awarding bodies who set the exams (EAL and City & Guilds). Inbetween we have a plethora of institutions bleeding public money like the national apprenticeship service, sector skills council alliance, and so on.

All can bend the rules to suit themselves because no one sector is accountable - and no one is policing the people that lead the system (or private equity firms/venture capitalists).

I would urge you to think again about the deepening relationship between capital and education, you will start to fit things together. The reference to bally (ballet) dancer is evidence of my organic roots - I am a product poor schooling, but not a product of poor education. We can educate ourselves without schooling and hence my lack of faith or trust in schooling and education systems.

 

[petercj]

This is a good post petercj and you have a good grasp of the notion of competence. However a better understanding of training systems can gained through considering them in light of the historical process and the structural fields in which they exist.

The NVQ was designed by a guy called Gilbert Jessup and his seminal work outcomes (1991) set the architecture for vocational qualifications that exist today.

Following the Cassles Review (1993) it was found that purely work based assessments failed to furnish apprentices with 'knowledge' aspects of the job. The technical certificate was introduced as a way of addressing this problem. There were a number of factors that contributed to our current situation. Firstly OECD data suggested that successful economies were associated with skills growth and qualification capital of the work force - this has something do with human capital theory, which was deemed as a monocausal prescription for economic success - raise qualifications and economic growth will follow. Successful economies such as Germany had high levels of intermediate skills which are associated with NVQ3 not so much the equivalent A levels (the latter only having tangible economic benefit in the form of degree pathways). Skills are the order of the day, and because they lead to growth, we can never have enough of them, so we are always in perpetual skills shortages and skills gaps which may be marketed legitimately to sell courses - problem is, that knowledge is unfairly distributed in society, and the ones buying into this clap trap are the ones who can least afford it.

Leitch (2006) had a lot to do with this, plus public money being poured into training and education. Add to this high levels of youth unemployment, neets, shift in our economy from making to service industries, wider implications of green deal and we start to get some currency in the policies for apprenticeship and the expansion of the building services engineering sector prior to 2008, when things took a change for the worse.

What we don't know is the outcome, because we are still in this macro socio-economic theory and it has not played out yet.

Coming back to NVQs, with the introduction of tech certs, we now had an input related curriculum in the form of modules which was not intended for an outcome system of assessment-led vocational training. Therefore, the contradictions start to occur, for which we are discussing now - can we or can't we do an NVQ without prior training?

We don't know the answer, because the system is complex, with no single body accountable for problems - we have training providers like JTL who are own by the electrical contractors association, Best training provider owned by BES (formerly HVCA). We have colleges quickly becoming businesses, we have lead bodies that set the frameworks (summitskills) and we have the awarding bodies who set the exams (EAL and City & Guilds). Inbetween we have a plethora of institutions bleeding public money like the national apprenticeship service, sector skills council alliance, and so on.

All can bend the rules to suit themselves because no one sector is accountable - and no one is policing the people that lead the system (or private equity firms/venture capitalists).

I would urge you to think again about the deepening relationship between capital and education, you will start to fit things together. The reference to bally (ballet) dancer is evidence of my organic roots - I am a product poor schooling, but not a product of poor education. We can educate ourselves without schooling and hence my lack of faith or trust in schooling and education systems.

As someone who played a part in rolling out the Employment Training scheme (ET) in 1989, I have first-hand experience of NVQ's within a political / historical context. Some time prior to 1989 I also completed an old style apprenticeship that was certificated by one of the oldest Unions established in Britain, so I do understand the true and original meaning of training by way of apprenticeship.

ET was a scheme of training taken directly from the German model, and it was excellent in every respect. It was introduced by the Thatcher Government of that time, and looked as if it could mark a fundamental turning point in the way Britain dealt with structural changes in the labour market. Workplace training and the NVQ system was central to ET.

ET introduced a national network of training assessment agencies (known as TA's) and also a nationwide network of training managers (TMs), the latter being training providers made up of private training companies and also some public agencies. For example, the Skills Centres (as established by the Manpower Services Commission) acted as a provider of training in various trade skills.

The initial implementation of ET was by way of offering assessment and training opportunities to people who had signed on and been unemployed for longer than six months, i.e. referrals were made by the Unemployment Benefit Offices (UBOs) to the TAs.

The Government decided to start the scheme up on a voluntary basis with the intention of making it compulsory once the networks were up and running and well established. They expected to meet resistance from the unemployed, however, the opposite turned out to be the case and the scheme was flooded by unemployed people wanting to take up training.

The launch of ET was a huge success and everyone involved with rolling it out was excited by the response and what might be achieved. Had things continued in the way ET was developed in the first six months, Britain would look very different today.

The first hint of the Government's ideological intentions were shown when the working budgets of the Skills Centres were cut - this was done at a time when they had long waiting lists for the training they provided, and didn't appear to make sense. A few months later we heard that the Skills Centres were to be closed down, and so the longer term plans of the Government became clearer, i.e. Thatcher & Co planned to hand over training to the private sector based on the belief that employers would ultimately provide training and stand the cost of it, this to be done using the NVQ system as the main training framework.

This was a massive miscalculation by the Thatcher Government because the majority of employers didn't want to know. The politicians who had the power to make the decisions didn't understand what was involved with training people who had been unemployed for many years. Consequently, the effect of ET was to sift the pool of unemployed people in Britain at that time, and the most able, and the most trainable, were cherry picked by employers. ET sank into oblivion and died due to under-funding.

The original plan of addressing skills shortages turned into a recipe for creating skills shortages due to training centres, such as the Skills Centre network, being closed down. One of the skills shortages created was in gas and plumbing, which was exacerbated by the creation of the CORGI registration scheme.

The NVQ scheme was used in turning over care of the vulnerable and the elderly to the private sector, being the most prolific use of NVQ training, mainly because it was convenient and cheap. Some of the worst aspects of the downside having come to light over the past few years. Although many of the consumers of NVQ trained staff-care could tell a story going back many years, possibly not about actual abuse, more about a low standard of care.

FE colleges have played a part in addressing some of the skills shortages over the past twenty years, and those that could afford it have used private providers.

Having the Tories back in power has created a sense of deja-vu for me as I have watched them scrap the Adult Learning Grant, effectively cut the budgets of FE's, and once again make an unsuccessful attempt at handing training back to employers, many of whom are not in a position to respond, and many of whom wouldn't want to know even if they were.

What was a skills shortage in plumbing and gas has now turned into a skills surplus, and if viewed through the simplistic criteria of 'supply and demand', there is no good case for investing in training at the moment. But none of the present circumstance has come about through planning, just the opposite.

Far from being a capitalist conspiracy to reduce the earnings of plumbers and gas workers, I see it as the inevitable long-term consequences of bad management by various Governments who have lurched from one cock-up to another. Preferring to demonize the unemployed rather than provide pathways for people to escape.

Your potted attempt at some kind of analysis looks like the product of book reading to me - whereas I have been involved in the history of this subject and seen how things have panned out at the coal-face.