Transcript I&E of RA 9266 - Professional Regulatory Board of Architecture

s1
PRBoA
www.architectureboard.ph
The 2008 Canberra
Accord
and the
Future of Architectural Education in the PH
TRIPARTITE MEETING (PRBoA, IAPOA-UAP & CODHASP)
Wednesday, April 27, 2011 10:40 am. at the UAP Auditorium, Qiuezon City, Metro Manila
Republic of the Philippines
Department of Labor & Employment (DoLE)
Professional Regulation Commission (PRC)
The Professional Regulatory Board of Architecture (PRBoA)
Ar Armando N. ALLÍ , apec ar
Acting Chairman, PRBoA
(Resource Person)
PRBoA
s2
www.architectureboard.ph
1. The 2008 Canberra Accord
The “Canberra Accord on Architectural Education:
Recognition of Substantial Equivalence between Accreditation/
Validation Systems in Architectural Education” was signed on
April 9, 2008 in Canberra, Australia. It is a document by seven
(7) accreditation/ validation agencies in architectural education.
The Canberra Accord is intended to facilitate the portability
of educational credentials between the countries whose
accreditation/validation agencies signed the Accord.
It does not address matters related to professional registration
or licensure.
The 2008 Canberra Accord and the Future of Architecture Education in the PH, Wednesday 27 April 2011 by the PRBoA
PRBoA
s3
www.architectureboard.ph
1.1 Brief History of the Canberra Accord
a.
b.
c.
In May 2006, the National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB), the National Council
of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) and The American Institute of Architects
(AIA) convened the First International Invitational Accreditation/ Validation Roundtable
in Washington, DC. Leadership from the architectural accrediting agencies of the U.S.,
Australia, Canada, China, Mexico, Korea, the United Kingdom, and the
Commonwealth Association of Architects, as well as leaders from the International
Union of Architects (UIA) attended. The purpose of the roundtable was to determine
whether these agencies had sufficient interest and equivalency between their systems
of accreditation/validation to enter into an accord on accreditation/validation in
architectural education similar to that already in place for engineering (Washington
Accord).
Canada hosted the next Roundtable, held 7-9 May, 2007 in Ottawa, Ontario Province. It
was agreed that a steering group would be formed, with each group or country
designating one representative to that committee within one month. Mexico agreed to
chair the steering committee.
A third Roundtable followed before the April 2008 signing of the Accord.
The 2008 Canberra Accord and the Future of Architecture Education in the PH, Wednesday 27 April 2011 by the PRBoA
PRBoA
s3
www.architectureboard.ph
1.2 The Canberra Accord Signatories
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
The Royal Australian Institute of Architects (RAIA)*^
The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA)*
Architectural Certification Board (CACB)
The National Board of Architectural Education (NBAE) of China
Commonwealth Association of Architects (CAA)*
Korean Architectural Accrediting Board (KAAB)
Comite Mexicano para la Practica Internacional de la Arquitectura
(COMPIAR)*^
h. Consejo Mexicano de Acreditacion de Enseñanza de la Arquitectura
(COMAEA)
i. US National Architecture Accreditation Board (NAAB)
*Professional Association
^with representation at the APEC Architect Register
The 2008 Canberra Accord and the Future of Architecture Education in the PH, Wednesday 27 April 2011 by the PRBoA
PRBoA
s3
www.architectureboard.ph
1.3 What the 2008 Canberra Accord Signifies
The Accord will facilitate international mobility of graduates
in architecture and contribute to improving the quality of
architectural education through benchmarking.
The Accord is a transparent (peer review) system for
determining substantial equivalence of architecture degree
program/s. It is considered to be reflective of the core
principles of the UNESCO-UIA Charter for Architectural
Education (Revised 2005 Version) and the relevant sections
of the UIA Accord on Recommended International Standards
on Professionalism in Architectural Practice (Revised 2005
Version).
The 2008 Canberra Accord and the Future of Architecture Education in the PH, Wednesday 27 April 2011 by the PRBoA
PRBoA
s3
www.architectureboard.ph
1.4 How the Accord Defines Equivalency
The term “substantial equivalency” identifies a
program as comparable in educational outcomes in
all significant aspects, and indicates that it provides
an educational experience meeting acceptable
standards, even through such a program may differ in
format or method of delivery.
Substantial equivalency is not accreditation or
validation.
The 2008 Canberra Accord and the Future of Architecture Education in the PH, Wednesday 27 April 2011 by the PRBoA
PRBoA
s3
www.architectureboard.ph
2.0 The Future of Architecture Education in the PH
a. May possibly be reduced to four (4)-years of baccalaureate
specialization courses with the expected institutionalization of ywo
(2) additional years of high school under the K+12 system i.e.
which should readily accommodate general education (GE)
courses that should not have become part of college degree
programs in the first place;
b. Must fully integrate and focus on key knowledge and skillsets that
shall equip students to fully practice architecture and not become
mere architectural office support fixtures e.g. professional regulatory laws
(PRLs), Standards of Professional Practice (SPP), Code of Ethical Conduct, the National
Building Code of the PH (NBCP) and its Referral Codes, Project and Construction
Management, Design-Build services and Constructing, Construction Standards, research
methods, space planning/ architectural programming, contract documentation, public
speaking, business writing/ marketing, proposals and contracts/ contract administration,
office accounting and taxation, public procurement, a sprinkling of civil/ criminal law, the
national and local governments and their processes involving architects, etc.;
The 2008 Canberra Accord and the Future of Architecture Education in the PH, Wednesday 27 April 2011 by the PRBoA
PRBoA
s3
www.architectureboard.ph
2.0 The Future of Architecture Education in the PH
c. Must give weight to practical solution formulation rather than the
theoretical and must teach and inculcate the sequential formulation
of an architectural solution i.e. i) understanding the space problem
(research, program and space plan); ii) plan translation of item i) ; and iii) design
translation of items i) and ii); and hopefully not in the reverse or truncated
sequence;
d. Must give focus to projects or activities that the young architects
will probably be involved with in the first 5-8 years of their
professional lives e.g. residential, commercial, institutional projects, site and
subdivision planning, architectural interiors (AI), construction supervision, alternative
dispute resolution (ADR) practices at the office or worksite, specification writing and
estimation, contract and project documentation, project packaging and presentation,
project communications and meetings, etc.;
e.
Must prepare young architects for the advent of borderless
practices by 2020 under GATS, APEC Architect Register, ASEAN MRAr/
MRA, etc.
The 2008 Canberra Accord and the Future of Architecture Education in the PH, Wednesday 27 April 2011 by the PRBoA
PRBoA
s3
www.architectureboard.ph
2.0 The Future of Architecture Education in the PH
f. Architectural schools may need to also address the continuing
professional development/ education (CPD/E) needs of registered
and licensed architects (RLAs) i.e. under the CHED Expanded Tertiary
Education Equivalency Accreditation Program (ETEEAP) where the schools
could use earned CPD/E credits to grant a graduate degree in architecture;
g. Architectural schools must address the problem of repeaters in the
Licensure Examination for Architects (LEAs) as their numbers now
make up more than 50% of the 3,800 LEA takers annually; the PRC
has re-announced its policy of stopping repeaters from taking a 4th
LEA after 3 sequential failures;
h. Architectural schools must actively work with the IAPOA-UAP in
curbing the practice of undergraduates and LEA flunkers who
enable unregistered persons to engage in the illegal practice of
architecture – these are criminal acts by both the enabler and the enabled.
The 2008 Canberra Accord and the Future of Architecture Education in the PH, Wednesday 27 April 2011 by the PRBoA
PRBoA
s3
www.architectureboard.ph
2.1 The Future Architecture Education in the PH and
the Canberra Accord
a. PH Architectural schools must first work on their architectural
education equivalencies by establishing an entity similar to the UA
National Architecture Accreditation Board (NAAB) i.e. to cover CHED
and non-CHED and possibly comparing PH programs with international degree
programs of students/ graduates wishing to relocate or practice in the PH
b. ASEAN level equivalencies on architectural education may then be
established i.e. multilateral agreement; and
c. The PH, through the IAPOA-UAP may then consider joining the
Canberra Accord.
The 2008 Canberra Accord and the Future of Architecture Education in the PH, Wednesday 27 April 2011 by the PRBoA
s00
PRBoA
www.architectureboard.ph
Thank You
and a
Pleasant Morning to All
The 2008 Canberra Accord and the Future of Architecture Education in the PH, Wednesday 27 April 2011 by the PRBoA