1 National qualifications frameworks in Europe – developments and challenges Jens Bjornavold, Strasbourg 26 October 2010

Cedefop mapping and analysis of NQF- developments 27 EU member states 2 EEA countries (Iceland and Norway) 2 candidate countries (Croatia and Turkey) Covers a total of 34 frameworks (2 in Belgium, 3 in the UK) Second update (September 2010) can be downloaded:

Towards comprehensive frameworks The analysis confirms the importance and priority attributed to NQFs across Europe; all countries developing NQFs NQFs are seen as key instruments to achieve the link to EQF; A clear trend towards comprehensive NQFs covering all levels and types of qualifications EQF and QF EHEA grows together at national level;

From conceptualisation to implementation An increasing number of countries are moving towards implementation (for example Germany); NQFs descriptors covering all levels and types of qualifications are now developed in more than 20 countries; An increasing number of countries (Belgium Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, Malta and Portugal) have finalised or are preparing formal/legal adoption of frameworks; The ‘first generation’ NQFs (UK, Ireland, France) are being reviewed and further developed.

Ownership and involvement NQF implies more than agreeing on technical features it is first and foremost about creating a platform for dialogue involving a broad(er) group of stakeholders; NQFs, if taken seriously, promote change and facilitate reform The level of involvement and ownership the strongest indicator of success! Readiness to face conflicts an indication of involvement and potential ownership.

NQFs triggering national reforms NQFs are increasingly becoming instruments for national reform. Examples are: –reforms in upper secondary education in Italy and Iceland linking programmes to learning outcome based levels and designing new pathways; –revising methodological framework for qualifications development in line with EQF principles in Romania or Estonia; –developing implementing outcome-based standards and curricula in Croatia and Lithuania ; –facilitating the introduction of arrangements for recognition of non- formal learning in a number of countries; Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany etc.; –shaping arrangements to improve access from VET to HE in Germany.

NQFs - the place of higher education NQFs promote stronger integration between sub-systems, in particular between vocational and academic education and training. Different solutions emerge: Coherent level descriptors covering all levels and types of qualifications; vocational qualifications can be placed at all levels ; Universities have no monopoly of higher qualifications; A clear distinction between levels 1-5 and levels 6-8 (the latter restricted to the three cycles of Bologna); Parallel qualifications strands are introduced at levels 6-8 (the ‘Ypsilon’ model), one covering academic qualifications and the other opening for vocationally oriented qualifications awarded outside the traditional HE institutions.

Need to carefully balance the need for integration/permeability with the need of subsystems (general, vocational, academic) to address specific needs; To further strengthen learning outcomes based approaches – implementation is uneven and sometimes slow; How to further develop quality assurance relevant to learning outcomes based frameworks? The visibility of the NQFs to end-users, individuals and employers, need to be given priority and is crucial for ownership and trust! Challenges ahead (1)

The link between NQFs and validation of non-formal learning and credit transfer arrangements will influence their relevance to individuals and their learning careers; NQFs must become embedded in the broader national skills and competence development strategies –they should not be taken forward in isolation The relevance of NQFs depend on their ability to include sector and branch qualifications, national as well as international; Be aware of the danger for ‘pro-forma’NQFs… Challenges ahead (2)

National qualifications frameworks are becoming key-instruments for reforming national education and training; National qualifications frameworks are becoming key instruments for coherent cooperation processes at European level; A need to systematically see how EQF and EHEA can link together – but also clarify where separate work is appropriate Conclusions