New English Language Standard a significant concern

Published: 19 October 2011

The new English Language Skills Registration Standard commenced in September 2011, and once again it utilises unfair and unreasonable criteria to assess applicants for registration.

As members may recall, prior to the commencement of the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme on 1 July 2010, the QNU raised significant concerns over the proposed English Language Skills Registration Standard.

These concerns were borne out. The QNU represented dozens of students adversely affected by the Standard.

In late 2010, the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia (NMBA) agreed that the Standard required review.

The QNU and the ANF participated in consultations on the new Standard.

The NMBA has now released its new Standard, and the QNU is disappointed to see that it is not much better than the first.

The main improvement in the new Standard is the NMBA’s willingness to recognise English language education undertaken beyond secondary level.

New English-language education requirements

Now, an applicant for registration who presents evidence of completing five years of full-time equivalent education taught and assessed in English will meet the new Standard.

For registered nurse and registered midwife applicants, at least two years of this education must be in a nursing/midwifery pre-registration approved course.

For enrolled nurse applicants, at least one of the five years must be in a pre-registration approved course.

Limited number of acceptable countries

The new Standard reduces the number of countries in which applicants may undertake English language education.

The list of countries now comprises:

  • Australia
  • Canada
  • New Zealand
  • Republic of Ireland
  • South Africa
  • United Kingdom
  • United States of America.

The QNU is very concerned that this list is unfair and discriminatory.

Under the previous Standard, many successful applicants for registration undertook their English language education in countries such as India and Nepal.

These nurses and midwives – who are now practising – would not have satisfied the new Standard, and hence could not have been registered.

This aspect of the new Standard seems ridiculous and perverse.

Limited number of acceptable tests

The new Standard still specifies the IELTS and OET as the only acceptable English language proficiency examinations.

The QNU has significant concerns that neither of these examinations is a vocational assessment of English language proficiency, and the NMBA’s blind reliance upon such tests is unfair.

Limited ability to exercise discretion

Under the previous Standard, there was no ability for the NMBA to exercise discretion to decide individual applications for registration.

The deficiency in this position was highlighted by the notable number of applicants whose only language was English, and who had undertaken their education in English language-speaking countries, but who were unable to pass the NMBA’s language tests.

Initially, the new Standard appears to remedy this problem.

Exemption 2 of the new Standard provides that the NMBA "reserves the right to consider and/or grant an exemption to the Standard as a matter of policy where there is compelling evidence demonstrating English language proficiency equivalent to the Standard".

Unfortunately, the Fact Sheet issued with the new Standard indicates that this discretion will only be exercised for specified "cohorts" of applicants.

There appears to be no good reason for this restriction.

The QNU will continue to lobby the NMBA to take a fair and reasonable approach to English language proficiency.

Contact:

Phone: