Transcript Aligning National against European Qualification Frameworks

Aligning National against European
Qualification Frameworks
Lessons learned from the Bologna
Process
Věra Šťastná, Charles University Prague
Two-cycle structure models most
commonly implemented, Eurydice
2008/09
240 + 120 ECTS
240 + 60 ECTS
180 + 120 ECTS
Various
combinations
No Master
programmes
Not available
Source: Eurydice
2
Two European Qualification
Frameworks(3)
Level EQF
1
2
3
4
5
Cycle QF-EHEA
First cycle „short cycle of HE “
120 ECTS
6
First cycle „Bachelor's degree“
180-240 ECTS
7
Second cycle „Master's degree“
60-120 ECTS (90-120/60 at Master's level)
8
Third cycle „doctoral“
3-4 standard years
3
London Communiqué,
2007


We are satisfied that national qualifications
frameworks compatible with the overarching
Framework for Qualifications of the EHEA will also
be compatible with the proposal from the European
Commission on a European Qualifications
Framework for Lifelong Learning.
We see the overarching Framework for
Qualifications of the EHEA, which we agreed in
Bergen, as a central element of the promotion of
European higher education in a global context.
4
National Qualification
Framework

Any advantages of the QF-EHEA can
become reality only if there are
national frameworks for qualifications
established and the relation between
the national levels and European levels
have been clearly defined, described
and validated in a trustful,
internationally recognised way.
5
National Framework for
Qualifications - expectations (1)

for „national“ impact








know better own system
more transparency – „cleaning“ among the study programmes
HE-evaluation of restructuralisation of degree programmes
based on learning outcomes methodology - innovation
improvement/enhancement of quality
chance to involve all stakeholders and improve/develop in
systemic way the dialogue with employers
improved employability
more educational paths will be opened including those for non
traditional learners
mobility between sectors
6
National Framework for
Qualifications – expectations (2)

for „international“ impact
facilitating recognition
 smoother mobility of students and
academics
 more transparency in EHEA, EU
 Breaking ices between sectors (VET and
HE)
 quality enhancement
 Recognition of prior learning – incl. Nonformal education and informal learning

7
National Framework for
Qualifications – important






Designed having in mind the lifelong learning concept
All existing higher education qualifications within a given
system be included (dialogue between higher and vocational
education)
Admission and progression requirements/possibilities included
Accommodation of the existing transparency tools (ECTS,
ECVET, DS)
Links to quality assurance system – (better if national quality
assurance system verified internationally)
Dynamic tool – space for development together with the
higher education/VET system
8
Why do we need selfcertification/referencing?








Verifying compatibility of NQF and European QFs
Showing the others that „my own“ NQF is compatible
with QF-EHEA/EQF, consequently with others NQFs
Transparency – mutual understanding- means for
translation
International participation - credibility – promotion of
trust
Improvement of quality
Consequently facilitation of recognition, promotion of
mobility of students and academics
Improved „European“ employability
9
Entrance ticket to EHEA
Experiences so far







Self-certified against existing set of criteria and procedures
(Bologna: WG on QF report, 2005)
Criteria and procedures for referencing national qualifications
levels to the EQF
Criteria and procedures for self-certification/referncing be taken
into account since the beginning when developing NQF
Useful to co-operate – similar legal traditions, regional
cooperation, … but with due regard to overall European
understanding of issues
Learn from the others - avoid the same mistakes.
But transfer only what is transferable!!! (always check what
works in what circumstances)
Open and fair description of what does not fit fully the
European references
10
Content of the self-certification
reports used in Bologna







Contextual information
Description of the higher education systems
– Admission requirements to all levels
– Progression in the system – which paths are open and which are
blind
– All qualifications and degree awards, academic degrees (titles)
– How the quality assurance is maintained- bodies responsible, how
they operate, is quality assurance in line with the European
Standards and Guidelines?
– If there are systems of credits others than ECTS- how do they
operate?
– Etc.
Verification of the self-certification criteria
Verification of the self-certification procedures
Comparison of the Dublin descriptors with the award-type descriptors in
the NQF
Conclusion
11
Annex - Glossary
Challenges – NQFs (1)


Do we not expect too much from QFs? Do we not
overestimate their possibilities?
How many layers of descriptors should the NQF
involve?
– National – relatively very general descriptors
– Learning outcomes of degree programmes (modules)
Or sectoral level in between? If yes, how to accommodate all
European initiatives? Tuning, professional organisations
(music, chemistry, veterinary sciences, ….?

What is their place in EQF?
– non-degree certificates and consequent qualifications?
– Pre-Bologna degrees?

Distinction between academic and professional
necessary?
12
Challenges – NQFs (2)


If we highlight our differences shall the
NQFs still serve transparency?
And could they really facilitate recognition?
– Typical HE problem – different Master's degree
programmes

Do we know how to work with learning
outcomes? Do we understand them in the
same way? And do we know how to relate
ECTS credits to learning outcomes?
13
Challenges – referencing/
self-certification

Openness - How can the most difficult issues be
brought out?
– Transparency X protecting one’s own system

How do we deal with disagreements
– between national self-certification and international
experts opinion?
– between international experts?



Who is the „God“ to decide?
How to deal with self-certification reports which are
not credible?
Differences in national settings – in legal basis,
understanding of LOs, stress on formal procedures
X content, structures for implementation,…?
Diversity in national approaches?
14
Challenges –
international credibility



We will have at least 48 NQFs/28 NQFs – ultimately
national responsibility: no „European harmonisation“!
What is needed for creation one European system of
them?
How to ensure common approach and common
methodology used by international experts? How to
ensure enough international experts?
How do we deal with the fact that countries of EU
can chose between two compatible but slightly
different frameworks?
– Compatible but slightly different criteria and procedures for
self-certification/ referencing
– Two sets of structures – emerging under EU and under
Bologna
– Double bureaucracy, work and costs or mutual recognition15
and use?
European “QF learning paths” –
or “learning curve”?



Need coordination QF-EHEA and EQFLLL
Need of coordination of NQF
developments at European level
Transparency tools - ECVET, ECTS,
Europass, Diploma Supplement
16
Concluding remarks




In spite of all pessimism and difficult issues
the QFs are important instrument
NQFs have to be developed for the use of
stakeholders, in particular the students and
employers. i.e. with full responsibility and
honestly
Balance between political decision and
expert advise should be sought carefully
We need transparency on difficult
issues, nobody has all the answers
17
Here we are
18
And this is hopefully the future
19
Thank you for your attention!
20