The Possibility of Learning from the European Experience for regional approaches to Qualification Frameworks in the area of TVET and, more broadly, post-basic education

Borhene Chakroun

Structure of my presentation

• Presentation of the ETF study on Transnational Qualifications Frameworks

• Focus on the European Qualifications Frameworks

• Achievements and challenges

• Key findings: what can be learned from the European process, and others, and what is relevant to MENA?

Study research questions

• What models of regional qualification frameworks and which implementation strategies and approaches are under development?

• To what extent are regional qualification frameworks able to achieve the various desired policy objectives associated with them particularly regarding mobility of labour and recognition of qualifications?

• To what extent are regional frameworks influencing the development of NQFs?

Study scope

• The European regional qualifications framework (that spans 27 countries),

• A regional qualifications framework in the Southern African Development Community (15 countries)

• A transnational qualifications framework for the Virtual University of Small States in the Commonwealth being developed by the Commonwealth of Learning (29 countries)

• A sectoral qualifications framework being developed by the Caribbean Community for the technical and vocational education and training sector in the Caribbean (15 countries)

• An emerging regional qualifications framework for the mutual recognition of qualifications overseen by the Association of South East Asian Nations (10 countries)

Different types of transnational qualifications frameworks

• Frameworks that are developed across countries within the same geographical proximity:

• Limited to a sector: e.g. CVQ Framework

• Between NQFs: EQF, SADCQF and the ASEAN FA

• Frameworks that are developed across countries that are not within the same geographical proximity:

• Limited to a sector: e.g. VUSSC TQF

Stage of NQF development

Total no of Member States involved in NQF development

Total no of Member States

No of Member States involved in more than one of the transnational qualification frameworks included in this research

Transnational Qualifications Framework

Orientation

Conceptual Testing Impleme

ntationReview

EQF3 (11%) 15

(56%) 2 (8%) 7 (26%) 1 (4%)27(100%)

27 2(8%)

SADCQF1 (7%) 6 (40%) 3 (20%) 2 (13%) 1 (7%)

13(87%)

15 6(40%)

VUSSC TQF 10 (35%) 3 (10%) 2 (7%) 9 (31%) 2 (7%)

26(90%)

29 20(69%)

CVQF8 (53%) 0 (0%) 1 (7%) 1 (7%) 0 (0%)

10(67%)

15 12(80%)

ASEAN FA 2 (20%) 0 (0%) 1 (10%) 3 (30%) 0 (0%)

6(60%)

10 0(0%)

Sub-totals 24 (25%)

24 (25%) 9 (94%) 22

(23%) 4 (4%)82(85%)

96 40(42%)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

NQFs in the EQF NQFs in the SADCQF

NQFs in the VUSSC TQF

NQFs in the CVQ Framework

NQFs in the ASEAN

Framework Arrangement

Pere

cnta

ge o

f co

untr

ies

Review

Implementation

Testing

Conceptual

Orientation

Different types of governance structure

• dedicated regional agency (e.g. CANTA in the case of the CVQ Framework)

• dedicated staff compliment, usually in the form of a project team, but often also as a more formal structure within regional body (e.g. the unit within the European Commission responsible for the EQF)

• core group of identified experts, usually on a volunteer basis and with limited financial and logistical support on a transnational basis, that also have other responsibilities, but have set time aside to develop the framework (e.g. the VUSSC TQF Management Committee and the Technical Committee on Certification and Accreditation in SADC)

• no governance structure in the case of an emerging framework (e.g. in the case of the ASEAN FA)

Main differences and similarities of NQFs and TQF

• Purpose: the purpose of transnational frameworks often includes mapping and translation functions, while NQFs attempt to build links between different sub-systems and sectors. Intra-national frameworks focus on coherence within a particular sector.

• Scope: intra-national frameworks are mostly unified in scope and attempt to cover all aspects of the particular sector. NQFs on the other hand range in scope, where some include all sectors within the country, and others only certain sectors. Transnational frameworks, specifically regional qualification frameworks are similar to NQFs in that the extent to which sectors are included can vary. The more extreme versions of transnational frameworks are more inclined to be limited to a particular sector to be more manageable.

• Prescriptiveness: intra-national frameworks are usually more prescriptive (also referred to as tighter), NQFs range in their prescriptiveness depending on the specific country context, while transnational frameworks are very loose (see the earlier discussion on meta-frameworks).

NQFs and the EQF; different but related functionsDifferences National Qualifications levels TQFs levels (when available)

Main function:

to act as a benchmark for the level, volume and type of learning.

to act as a benchmark for the level of any learning recognised in a qualification or defined in an NQF

Recognises learning of individuals by:

assessment/evaluation, validation and certification.

does not directly recognise learning of individuals

Currency depends on:

factors within national context the level of trust between international users

Levels are defined by:

national benchmarks which are embedded in different specific learning contexts, e.g. school education, work or higher education

general progression in learning across all contexts across all countries

NQFs and the TQFs; different but related functions

Interaction NQF/RQF

• The extent to which transnational qualification frameworks rely on fully functional NQFs. There is a direct relationship between the transnational qualification frameworks and NQFs, but this relationship is not the same across the five case studies.

• In the case of the SADCQF the existence of function quality assurance systems and NQFs has been a prerequisite before the development of the regional qualifications framework could start.

• In the case of the EQF, the VUSSC TQF, and also the CVQ Framework the transnational process took place in parallel with national processes.

• In the case of the ASEAN FA early indications suggest that a similar approach to SADC will be followed in order to first build capacity within member states.

The European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning

To increase the transparency and comparability

of qualifications throughout Europe in order to:

– promote mobility for learning and work

– make lifelong learning a reality for all citizens

The European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning

European initiative in ET 2020:

• A recommendation adopted by 27 EU Member States – a voluntary exercise

• 32 countries (EU, EEA, candidate countries) are committed to developing national qualifications frameworks based on learning outcomes and linking them to the EQF

European Qualifications Framework Tool kit

8 levels of qualification

Credit system(ECTS, ECVET)

EQF functioning

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Aim: visual presentation of the NQF levels should include up to 5 examples of qualifications placed to each NQF level

Implementing the EQF

Member States to relate NQS/F to the EQF- to ensure that qualifications issued by competent authorities are related, via the NQS, to the EQF

- to designate national coordination pointsto coordinate this referencing processensuring a transparent methodologyinforming and involving stakeholders

Countries may have several competent bodies internally but should speak with one voice to other countries

Referencing process and criteria criteria

• 1. The responsibilities and/or legal competence of all relevant national bodies involved in the referencing process, including the National Coordination Point, are clearly determined and published by the competent public authorities.

• 2. There is a clear and demonstrable link between the qualifications levels in the national qualifications Framework or system and the level descriptors of the European Qualifications Framework.

• 3. The national Framework or qualifications system and its qualifications are based on [the principle and objective of learning outcomes and linked to arrangements for validation of non-formal and informal learning and, where these exist, to credit systems.

• 4. The procedures for inclusion of qualifications in the national qualifications Framework or for describing the place of qualifications in the national qualification system are transparent.

• 5. The national quality assurance system(s) for education and training refer (s) to the national qualifications Framework or system and are consistent with the relevant European principles and guidelines.

• 6. The referencing process shall include the stated agreement of the relevant quality assurance bodies.

• 7. The referencing process shall involve international experts.

• 8. The competent national body or bodies shall certify the referencing of the national Framework or system with the EQF. One comprehensive report, setting out the referencing and the evidence supporting it shall be published by the competent national bodies, including the National Coordination Point, and shall address separately each of the criteria.

• 9. The official EQF platform shall maintain a public listing of member states that have confirmed that they have completed the referencing process, including links to completed referencing reports.

Three EQF referencing reports have been finalised

Referencing to the EQF

9 Countries referencing by 2009 or 2010

- fully on schedule

9 26

17 Countries referencing by 2011

3 Countries referencing after 2011

2 Countries not yet able to estimate

Coordinating the EQF

EQF Advisory Group – developing systematic dialogue on qualifications among a broad range of key actors

-Representatives of participating countries (EU, EEA, candidates)- Representatives of European social partners and other stakeholders- Representative of the European Higher Education Area (Council of Europe)-Representatives of ETF & CEDEFOP

EQF – Misunderstandings

NOT a grid of levels and descriptors in isolation

BUTAn instrument for policy and practice that needs commitment and ownership of all stakeholders

interlinking with - and promoting synergies between - LLL policy measures – validation, credit systems, quality assurance, guidance, recognition,

and the European transparency tools ECVET, ECTS, EQAVET, ESG, Europass, ESCO

Implementing EQF - challenges

• EQF referencing report – Uneven quality

• EQF referencing report – Seen as technical and not social process

• Need to keep up the momentum– in order to increase trust towards the EQF in Europe and beyond

• Ensure that qualifications issued by competent authorities hold a clear reference, via the NQS, to the EQF by

• Increase synergies between LLL measures

FQEHEA

• Key element in the Bologna Process– Objective: to create a European Higher Education Area

• Added value for higher education - a coherent identity for European HE

• Introduces a common model of three cycles, common adoption of ECTS credit

• A reforming instrument

• Requires participating countries to have NQFs for HE

EQF

• A translation device• A structure of 8 levels, including HE

– To make qualifications more readable and understandable across countries

– To promote mobility– To facilitate lifelong learning

• An EU initiative– Participating countries to reference to EQF – Not essential for referencing to have an NQF - in

theory!

Key findings relevant for the discussion today

• The main demographic factor that influences transnational qualifications framework development is migration/mobility,

• The shift to a learning outcomes approach is considered fundamental to qualifications framework development and requires significant adaptation on the country and sectoral levels.

• The extent to which transnational qualification frameworks contribute to the increased recognition of qualifications internationally is yet to be determined.

• A common view is held amongst many developing countries is that through collaborative attempts, in this case through the development of transnational qualification frameworks such as the CVQF and VUSSC TQF, their ability to compete in internationally and gain increased recognition of qualifications will be improved.

• While evidence of increased recognition may be wanting, there are evidences of influence on existing recognition methodologies through an increased focus on demonstrable competence, transparency, currency and portability.

Key findings relevant for the discussion today

• Tension between harmonisation and national specificities.

• Instances where the majority of member states are involved in NQF development seem to benefit the broader transnational process and mitigate the risk of contestations relating to the prioritisation of NQFs and the transnational qualifications framework.

• NQF development and the transnational qualifications framework development should preferably happen simultaneously as the interplay between the processes is valuable in both directions,

• The level of development of NQFs within the transnational qualifications framework seem to have limited impact on the overall progress of the framework, although the inclusion of one or more further developed NQFs (often first generation) does have an important positive impact.

• Quality assurance is a crucial dimension of transnational qualification frameworks. Potential weaknesses in national quality assurance systems pose a significant risk to transnational qualification frameworks,

• The significant impact of a preceding sectoral framework, such as through Bologna for higher education in the EU, in facilitating the implementation of a transnational qualifications framework is emphasised both within the EU context, and externally

Key findings relevant for the discussion today

• Building mutual trust is identified as a challenge across the case studies. Referencing methodologies remain underdeveloped and skewed towards technical rather than social and trust building dimensions.

• Improvement of communication and advocacy is lacking in most cases and is noted as an important future priority in more than one of the case studies.

• Peer learning: Structured peer learning, knowledge sharing and capacity development is noted as an important dimension.

• Governance: The avoidance of unnecessary additional bureaucracy that may arise with the establishment of a regional agency is well recognised.

• Credit transfer mechanisms: Such as ECVET within the EU, are recognised as playing an important role in supporting the development of transnational qualifications framework.

• Policy framework. In this respect the important supportive role of regional agencies (such as the European Commission, the SADC, CARICOM and ASEAN Secretariats, and also COL) is also evident.