Consultations

Amendments to the Architects Registration Board Prescribed Examination Procedures

Response from: Dr Gerry ADLER, Program Director, University of Kent & ARB Lead Examiner

2.6.1 Examiners

It is unclear whether examiners may or should be direct employees of the provider (i.e. lecturers in the respective school of architecture), or a mix of internal and ‘external’ examiners.

2.7.1 Independent Examiner

Providers may wish to align the timetable of examining their own students with that of the ‘external’ ARB applicants. (The guidelines would seem to allow this.) Providers could therefore have the option of allowing their own external examiners to fulfil the role of ‘independent examiner’.
The gist of my observations is that the guidelines should allow providers greater opportunities to harmonise examination of internal (degree award) students and external (professional accreditation) candidates.

Response from: Rob CAMPBELL, ARB Lead Examiner

2.1 Principles

The analytical Commentary must be legibly “mapped” to the portfolio in an accurate & easy to understand way.

2.6 The Examination

The examination could be conducted by 2 Examiners. Any disputes could be resolved by the involvement of the independent examiner.
There should be some leeway in examination time particularly for borderline candidates ( say 20% )

2.7 Independent Examiners

If a 2 examiner system were to be adopted independent examiners could have a “casting” vote in the event of a disagreement.

Response from: Andrew CLARK, Deputy Estates Director, HH NHS Trust & ARB Lead Examiner

I have commented as part of the consultation process, on the documents as presented to us for comment, and attach the form.

I am clear and satisfied with the documentation produced reflects what is required in the process and hope that any tenderers produce worthy responses.

However, I have some comments which are located in the area of 2.8.3 of the consultation response form. The comments ask questions which relate more to the whole process and are in the area of 'if it breaks down, what then?' so they do not relate specifically to 2.8.3.
These are comments although they appear as questions. I do not expect a personal response but i am sure there will be levers and mechanisms in place to cope with these possible scenarios.

One further question. Are the criteria by which the Board are going to assess the bid (s) available for scrutiny or comment? I presume the major criterion is Money and Value for Money, but are there weightings on that part of the process that are published?
[Comments under 2.8.3]

It is unclear form the procedure documents here how, if it proves necessary, that the Board will regulate the Provider if the standard to which that provider operates falls below the minimum standard that is required of an ‘Academic’ based provider organisation to maintain the standard of the prescribed examination.

How, if it is then possible after examination process is contracted out, will the Board or ARB through the Registrar retrieve the process from an organisation which has failed to meet the standard required to handle the examination process?
If say a school of architecture, which has been awarded the process, loses its prescription and ceases to offer accredited qualifications itself, will the ARB be able to remove the contract for these examination services on the grounds that such an organisation may compromise the standing of the profession and as a consequence this route to registration.

How long will the contract for services be maintained with the Provider before it is sent back to the market for retendering?

Response from: General Dental Council - Rachel Lea, Public Affairs and Stakeholder Relations Manager

Thank you for sending us your consultation document on amendments to you prescribed examination procedures. In view of our role as the regulatory body for dentists and dental care professionals, we have no comments to make on the proposals.

Response from: Professor Thom GORST, Senior Lecturer, University of the West of England & ARB Independent Examiner

I have been an examiner, a lead examiner and now an independent examiner in the Prescribed Examination process that are currently run by the ARB for some years. I have been aware of the initiative to outsource this process for some time, but only have the opportunity to discuss these proposals and reflect on them after having worked with other examiners in London, so please accept these comments after your deadline.

First may I say that over the years I have worked with the ARB, I have without exception found the officers supportive, well informed and professional at all times. It seems strange to me that a team that is clearly so effective at managing this procedure should be asked to give these responsibilities up, and become monitors of a franchise that has taken over the job they used to do so effectively.

Over the years as a provider of architectural education I have learned that the key phrase in dealing with the ARB is to 'give confidence' through the whole process of accreditation. How, then, can the ARB itself have confidence in a system where it has taken a process away from its own officers, and given it to an outside organisation? This would not persuade me that such a high level of confidence could be maintained.
One other point - as I understand it, you intend to franchise this work to a provider of architectural education: as an ex-head of school myself, I have had direct experience of ARB accreditation being withdrawn from my school. If an institution that had won your franchise was also to lose its accreditation for providing Parts 1, 2 or 3 architectural education, what would be the outcome? I imagine you would have to terminate the franchise as well. It may sound strange for someone on my side of the accreditation process to say this, but the professional distance that the ARB currently maintains from the schools is vital to the success of the system. This distance could not be maintained if a school was also a franchisee of an ARB function.

I earnestly ask the ARB to reconsider their position on this. My position is not taken out of a personal interest, but from personal experience that the system as I see it is not broke – so please don't fix it!

Response from: Quality Assurance Agency - Peter Williams, Chief Executive

QAA has received and noted ARB’s proposed changes to the Procedures for Prescribed Examinations, and we thank you for the opportunity to respond to the consultation. We have no comments or suggested amendments to the document.

Response from: Professor Peter Jacob, ARB Lead Examiner

I should state clearly at the outset that I am opposed to the outsourcing of the examination procedure. I have little specific to say about the draft procedures which largely translate the old procedures into new ones for the provider.

My comments are as follows:

The consultation paper does not, in fact, describe WHY the Board wishes to outsource the examination procedure.
It seems to me that the present system has been very carefully set in place and developed over the past two or three years and is now a very sophisticated mechanism which gives full control to the ARB.
The current examination method seems to he respected by the candidates. By implication the candidates also respect the ARB's authority in setting the examination and in making its decisions.
Any failure in funding, administration or staffing by the appointed provider would inevitably reflect on ARB's reputation both amongst the candidates and in the profession.
If the final decision is to outsource the examination system then I would only make one comment on the wording of the new paper. Under item 2.7. I feel that it might be advisable for the independent examiners to be appointed by and paid by the ARB and to report directly to the Prescription Committee.

To put it colloquially "If it ain't broke . . . don't fix it '!

I had one other thought which you might toss into the pot from me if you get the opportunity.
You could check the statistics with a sample batch but I suspect that the majority of the candidates are either London based or working in towns/cities with direct rail access into central London. Any out-of-London provider may involve the candidates in difficult travel arrangements to deliver portfolios and to travel for interview or even an overnight stay.

I really do think that ARB should do everything it can to be candidate-friendly and sympathetic. The candidates are usually stressed anyway and I would want them to see ARB as a friendly and sympathetic organization within architecture in the UK.

Response from: RIBA – David Gloster, Director of Education

Thank you for this document, and invitation to comment. Broadly speaking, and as the majority of amendments are in response to the possible external provision of the Prescribed Examination, we have no comments to make. As you note in the fourth paragraph of your letter of 16 May 2008, the substance of the Examination remains intact with only ‘consequential changes’ proposed. We concur with this view, and duly note these.

Response from: RIBA – David Gloster, Director of Education

SCHOSA has two comments:

1. We note that this consultation process is taking place in parallel with the tendering process via which the ARB will establish to which institutions it intends to franchise its prescribed Examinations. SCHOSA feels it is inappropriate for academic institutions to be investing significant time and energy in generating competitive bids to ARB to operate the Prescribed Examinations when the Examinations procedures may well be modified as a result of the outcome of this consultation exercise

2. SCHOSA is disappointed that ARB, in franchising the Prescribed Examination process to academic institutions is doing so in a way that substantially restricts the opportunities of HEIs to bring to the process their strengths in assessment procedures and student support. It was entirely understandable when ARB was operating the Examinations that there were procedural statements such as "no guidance or advice can be given by the Board' and "the examiners cannot advise as to any remedial action required”. To require any academic institutions operating the Examinations under franchise in the future to abide by such rules effectively denies the academics involved the opportunity to bring their substantial experience of assessment to bear. Some relaxation of these strictures could allow institutions taking on the running of the Examinations to significantly enhance the service provided to candidates.