The 2008 Canberra Accord and the Future of Architectural Education in the PH TRIPARTITE MEETING (PRBoA, IAPOA-UAP & CODHASP) TRIPARTITE MEETING (PRBoA, IAPOA-UAP & CODHASP) Wednesday, April 27, :40 am. at the UAP Auditorium, Qiuezon City, Metro Manila Wednesday, April 27, :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 Ar Armando N. ALLÍ, apec ar Acting Chairman, PRBoA (Resource Person) PRBoA s 1

PRBoA 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. 1. The 2008 Canberra Accord s 2 The 2008 Canberra Accord and the Future of Architecture Education in the PH, Wednesday 27 April 2011 by the PRBoA

1.1 Brief History of the Canberra Accord a.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 ). a.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 ). b.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. c.A third Roundtable followed before the April 2008 signing of the Accord. PRBoA s 3 The 2008 Canberra Accord and the Future of Architecture Education in the PH, Wednesday 27 April 2011 by the PRBoA

1.2 The Canberra Accord Signatories a. The Royal Australian Institute of Architects (RAIA)*^ b. The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA)* c. Architectural Certification Board (CACB) d. The National Board of Architectural Education (NBAE) of China e. Commonwealth Association of Architects (CAA)* f. Korean Architectural Accrediting Board (KAAB) g. Comite Mexicano para la Practica Internacional de la Arquitectura (COMPIAR)*^ h. Consejo Mexicano de Acreditacion de Enseñanza de la Arquitectura (COMAEA) (COMAEA) i. US National Architecture Accreditation Board (NAAB) * Professional Association ^ with representation at the APEC Architect Register PRBoA s 3 The 2008 Canberra Accord and the Future of Architecture Education in the PH, Wednesday 27 April 2011 by the PRBoA

1.3 What the 2008 Canberra Accord Signifies PRBoA s 3 The 2008 Canberra Accord and the Future of Architecture Education in the PH, Wednesday 27 April 2011 by the PRBoA 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).

1.4 How the Accord Defines Equivalency PRBoA s 3 The 2008 Canberra Accord and the Future of Architecture Education in the PH, Wednesday 27 April 2011 by the PRBoA 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.

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.; PRBoA s 3 The 2008 Canberra Accord and the Future of Architecture Education in the PH, Wednesday 27 April 2011 by the PRBoA

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. PRBoA s 3 The 2008 Canberra Accord and the Future of Architecture Education in the PH, Wednesday 27 April 2011 by the PRBoA

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 4 th 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. PRBoA s 3 The 2008 Canberra Accord and the Future of Architecture Education in the PH, Wednesday 27 April 2011 by the PRBoA

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. PRBoA s 3 The 2008 Canberra Accord and the Future of Architecture Education in the PH, Wednesday 27 April 2011 by the PRBoA

Thank You and a Pleasant Morning to All PRBoA s 00 The 2008 Canberra Accord and the Future of Architecture Education in the PH, Wednesday 27 April 2011 by the PRBoA