Transcript Folie 1 - DECOWE

International comparison of qualifications:
ISCED and EQF
as converging classification frameworks?
Arthur Schneeberger (Vienna)
Contribution to the DECOWE Conference:
Ljubljana, Slovenia,
24-25 September 2009
Contents
• Starting point  Diversity of VET landscapes
• Definition problems of “Higher education”
• Semantic problems of comparison
• Lack of standards in ISCED
• Input- and outcomes-Descriptors
• ISCED (International Standard Classification of Education)
and EQF (European Qualifications Framework)
– Common features
– Differences
– Correspondence
• Some reflections about future developments
2
Diversity of national qualification systems
TABLE 1.
Focus on I-VET:
Educational attainment of the 25-to-64-year-old population, 2006, in %
Country
(selection)
Germany
Austria
Switzerland
France
Slovenia
UK
Spain
Italy
Poland
Finland
Ireland
Sweden
Lower
Upper secondary education
secondary
education
ISCED 1 ISCED 3C ISCED 3B + ISCED
or 2
(short
3C (long pro3A
programme) gramme)*
17
49
3
18
2
47
6
13
2
46
6
33
30
11
18
28
32
14
17
23
16
50
8
13
48
1
7
30
14
33
31
20
44
34
25
16
47
PostTertiaryTertiarysecondary,
type B
type A
non-tertiary education education
ISCED 4 ISCED 5B
ISCED
5A or 6
7
10
3
1
4
11
6
9
7
10
11
10
9
9
1
16
11
9
14
10
20
15
11
21
19
12
18
18
19
22
*Core of I-VET in the German speaking countries
Source: OECD 2008, p. 42
3
Another example of classification problems:
Higher education or Tertiary-type A programme
(ISCED 5A)
The definition:
“Tertiary-type A programmes are largely theory-based and
designed to provide qualifications for entry into advanced research
programmes and highly skilled professions.”
(OECD: Education at a Glance, 2008, p. 57; underlined letters not in the original text)
4
Another example of classification problems:
Tertiary-type A programmes (ISCED 5A): data
TABELLE 2:
Net entry rates to “Tertiary-type A programmes”, 2006 by gender, in %
(ISCED 5A  EQF at least level 6)
Countries (selection)
Poland
Finland
Sweden
Slovak Republic
Hungary
Denmark
Netherlands
UK
Italy
Czech Republic
Greece
Spain
Austria
Switzerland
Belgium
Germany
EU 19 average
Source: OECD 2008
Males
72
65
65
56
60
47
54
50
47
45
38
36
36
38
32
36
48
Females
84
88
87
80
72
71
62
65
63
55
61
51
44
38
38
35
63
Total
78
76
76
68
66
59
58
57
55
50
49
43
40
38
35
35
55
5
Comparison of “Higher education” with
severe semantic problems
„Comparing academic institutions in different countries can be a
complicated matter.
One obstacle is the difficulty of identifying institutions carrying out
comparable work.
Even the usage of terms such as universities, colleges, academies,
institutes and schools can vary across borders, making it hard to
perceive precisely what each of them does.
Another difficulty is to devise comparison standards that everyone can
adhere to.“
(Education and Culture GD: How good are Euope’s universities and how con you
tell?, Magazine, Nr. 20, 2008, p. 46; underlined letters not in the original text.)
6
Lack of substantial standards in ISCED
The core of ISCED is the differentiation of levels of educational programmes by the complexity
of their contents:
“The notion of ‘levels’ of education … is essentially a construct based on the assumption that
educational programmes can be grouped, both nationally and cross-nationally, into an ordered
series of categories broadly corresponding to the overall knowledge, skills and capabilities
required of participants if they are to have a reasonable expectation of successfully completing
the programmes in these categories. These categories represent broad steps of
educational progression from very elementary to more complex experiences with the
more complex the programme, the higher the level of education.”
(UNESCO 1997, § 29; underlined letters not in the original text).
The classification of levels would require an evaluation of programmes by international
standards. Quite tersely it is stated there about:
„International curricula standards that are needed to support such judgements do not
as yet exist.“ (UNESCO 1997, § 31; underlined letters not in the original text)
Therefore auxiliary criteria are used (years of schooling, type of institution and so on) to
substitute standards.
7
Descriptors: from input to outcomes
To improve international comparisons of qualifications the European Qualifications
Framework (EQF) has been recommended.
In a press release of the Commission the following question was raised:
„Why not build on existing reference levels and frameworks (for example ISCED)? (…)
Because the EQR introduces, for the first time, a set of reference levels based on
learning outcomes (defined in terms of knowledge, skills and competences). The EQR
shifts the focus from input (lengths of a learning experience, type of institution) to what
a person holding a particular qualification actually knows and is able to do.”
(EU-Commission: MEMO/06/318, 5. September 2006, S. 6; ; underlined letters not in the
original text)
8
The EQF relies on complexity of knowledge etc
“Distinguishing between the different levels of qualifications was
another big challenge. Finally, it was agreed to take the following factors
into account:
• the complexity and depth of knowledge and understanding;
• the degree of necessary support or instruction;
• the degree of integration, independence and creativity required;
• the range and complexity of application/practice;
• the degree of transparency and dynamics of situations.”
Source:
EQF 2008 – the trigger year for a framework for European qualifications.
In. Education and culture DG: the Magazine No. 29, p. 14; bold letters not
in the original text)
9
Common features of ISCED and EQF
The two classification systems have several characteristics in common.
1. All classification systems concerning educational attainment or
qualification produce vertical structures which are based on criteria like
the complexity of knowledge or problems etc.
The higher the complexity of problems the higher is the classifying by
levels of qualification (or education).
2. Valid curricular standards are not available for both classifications
systems.
3. Both frameworks or classification systems which rely on input and
outcomes descriptors (e.g. occupations versus professions in ISCED;
years of higher education in both frameworks)
4. The formal level-structure of both classification systems is very similar.
10
Structural correspondence between ISCED and EQF
TABLE 3.
ISCED and EQF – structural correspondence
ISCED
EQF
6
8
5A
7
5A
6
5B
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
Most blurred zone of
qualifications
Source: Schneeberger 2009
11
Where are the differences between ISCED and
EQF?
 One difference refers to the spitting of the ISCED category 5A which is not
really new because the OECD tries to make internal differences since years.
 ISCED and EQF differ in their strategies to reach acceptance primarily.
Whereas ISCED is based on the classifying work of statistical experts and statistical
criteria, the EQF requires a broader discussion about learning outcomes with strong
inclusion of political stakeholders:
„A qualifications framework constitutes active networking and a focal point
for the stakeholders engaged in the complex task of a sustainably reforming
major aspects of an education system.“
(CEDEFOP: The shift to learning outcomes, 2009, p. 11; underlined letters not in
the original text)
12
Some reflections about future developments
1.
„Particular attention must also be paid to the impact of a learning outcomes approach as
used in the EQF on classifications of knowledge, skills and competences. Future
developments of existing statistical classifications and nomenclatures allowing for the
measurement of education and training attainment such as the ISCED 97 should therefore
take this into consideration.“
(Proposal for a Recommendation ..., 2006, p. 11f. ; underlined letters not in the original text ).
2.
It is not clear how the EQF would be able to improve ISCED. But in the long run it will be
important that the two classification systems shall be compatible to a high degree
3.
ISCED will have ongoing relevance:
•
It is the globally used classification system
•
The EU defines benchmarks based on ISCED (e.g. tertiary rate of at least 40 % in 2020)
•
Educational policy is based internationally and nationally on ISCED
4.
We have to work on clearly defined sector related projects about qualifications in Europe using
ECVET, EQF and other devices to reach more realistic evidence in the future for general levels –
otherwise we shall get lost in stagnancy
5.
In the very long run national systems might get less diverse
13
Sources
CEDEFOP: The shift to learning outcomes. Policies and practices in Europe. (=CEDEFOP Reference series;
72), Luxembourg: Office of the Official Publications of the European Communities, 2009.
Commission Européenne, Salle de presse: Communiques de Presse: Frequently asked questions: why does
the EU need a European Qualifications Framework? MEMO/06/318, Brussels, 5 September 2006.
Commission of the European Communities: Proposal for a Recommendation of the European Parliament and
of the Council on the establishment of the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning, Brussels,
5.9.2006, COM(2006)479 final.
Education and culture DG: EQF 2008 – the trigger year for a framework for European qualifications. In: The
Magazine No. 29, 2008, p. 13 - 15. Internet: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/publ/pdf/mag/29/en.pdf
(24.08.2009)
Education and Culture GD: How good are Euope’s universities and how con you tell?, The Magazine, No. 30,
2008, p. 46-47. Internet: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/publ/pdf/mag/30/en.pdf (24.08.2009)
European Union: Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of
the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning, Brussels, 29 January 2008, PE-CONS 3662/07.
Online: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:111:0001:0007:EN:PDF
(27.05.2009)
OECD: Classifying Educational Programmes. Manual for ISCED-97 Implementation in OECD Countries, 1999
Edition, Paris, 1999.
OECD: Education at a Glance 2008 - OECD Indicators, Paris, 2008.
UNESCO: International Standard Classification of Education – ISCED 1997, November 1997.
14