The Architects Registration Board (ARB) has published the results of its public consultation on proposed changes to international routes to Registration.
ARB writes:
In October 2024 ARB launched a public consultation on proposed changes to international routes to registration. The changes aimed to:
- align our international routes with our new approach to UK initial education and training
- improve access to the UK Register for those with qualifications from outside the UK who can demonstrate competence, by simplifying the examination process and removing unintended complexity and barriers.
The proposals included an overhaul of the Prescribed Exam, and changes to the UK Adaptation Assessment, which is undertaken by architects joining the UK Register through one of ARB’s international agreements.
The consultation ran from 3 October 2024 to 6 January 2025 and received 59 unique responses.?The majority of respondents were from registered architects (25, 42%), and a third of responses (19, 32%) were from ‘other’ types of respondents, including internationally-qualified architects not yet on the UK Register. We also ran an online event in which we presented and discussed the proposals, which was attended by over 100 stakeholders.
Our proposals to move to a competence-based assessment (88%) and for a single point of entry to the UK Register (80%) received the highest levels of support in our consultation. Of all our proposals, support was lowest for our proposal to move to an accreditation approach (58%) rather than run the exams in-house. Respondents expressed concern that the cost of the assessment, exam or route must be affordable for candidates. Potential providers of the exam were also mindful of costs, and the question of whether there would be enough candidates and throughput for the model to be viable.
Decision:
We will continue our plans to introduce a competence-based assessment in a modernised format, simpler eligibility requirements, and a single point of entry to the Register. However, following consultation feedback and further market research, we intend to apply a contract model to outsource the assessments, rather than an accreditation model. This means that rather than providers developing assessments that we then approve, we will instead contract specific providers to run the assessment based on a service they’ll propose to meet our brief.
Our research has shown that other regulatory bodies generally use a contract model for examinations or assessments, although some regulators do accredit qualifications required by overseas professionals. We are conscious that accreditation can be a significant undertaking and as yet we are unsure about the numbers of likely applicants. One of the benefits of using a contract model would be additional control over performance, including the ability to review or terminate a contract if the fees are problematic for candidates.
We will initially seek to appoint a single provider, and consider widening out to multiple providers based on the success of the contract model.
Alongside these changes, we will review and remodel the Competency Standards Group to provide an alternative route to registration for those with partial qualifications (specifically, ARB-accredited Part 2 and Part 3 qualifications but no Part 1).
