Experiences of other countries in building up national qualifications frameworks Overview September 2009 Tallinn, 19 November 2009

Main characteristics (based on CEDEFOP’s survey) NQFs are being developed by all countries; Countries aim at comprehensive (overarching) NQFs, covering the full range of qualifications awarded; The EQF (and the Bologna process) has acted as a catalyst for NQF developments; 8-level structures are prevailing; NQFs are dynamic tools – complex interaction with education and training systems, stakeholders, learners and with socio-economic and political environment.

Main charateristics The learning outcomes approach is broadly endorsed as basis for NQF developments; The frameworks are mainly conceived as communications and transparency tools – not as regulatory tools; NQFs are increasingly seen as instruments for national reforms; NQF developments are perceived as long term initiatives in need of pragmatic, step by step approaches; Ireland is an example of reforming framework – closer to comunication, long-term, incremental, iterative and consensual approach in which NQF provide a tool for change, btu are not expected to drive it. Trust building process – starting from existing instituions and practises. They need a loose, wekly prescribed design.

Main policy objectives NQFs are seen as instruments for referring national qualifications to the EQF; to make national qualifications systems easier to understand and overview - at national as well as international level (transparency); to improve visibility of equivalences and differences between qualifications; to strengthen coherence of qualifications systems; to support LLL learning by making learning pathways visible and thus facilitate access, progression and participation; The development of NQFs and referencing to EQF is in most countries a parallel process. Most NQFs pursue more than one of these goals. E. countries pursue more modest purposes – compared to some countries that peruse more radical purpuses.

Main policy objectives NQFs are seen as instruments to facilitate the recognition of a broader range of learning (including non-formal and informal learning); reinforce the learning outcome orientation; strengthen the link with the labour market; create a platform for cooperation and dialogue; provide a reference point for quality assurance.

Number of levels Most countries have proposed/adopted 8 levels; Some countries have proposed/considered sublevels (HR, SI, HU); A 5 level-structure is currently used in France, but 8 levels are considered; 7 levels are proposed in Iceland; 9 levels adopted (entry level to 8 levels) for England and Northern Ireland, Wales; 10 levels adopted in Ireland; 12 levels adopted in Scotland; No final decision has been taken yet (EL, HU, IT, NO, PL, SK, SE).

Level descriptors EQF level descriptors as a starting point for NQFs developments in many countries, national descriptors more detailed and contextualised; Descriptors for levels 5/6- 8 an issue in many countries; in some countries Dublin descriptors dominate, in others broader descriptors; Differences in nature of level descriptors reflecting national contexts: Knowledge, skills and responsibility and autonomy (HR, SI) Knowledge, skills and attitude (LU, PT) Skills, knowledge, competence (France) Autonomy and responsibility/context (Be Flanders, HR, DK) Key competences emphasised (learning competence, languages, communication and social skills, entrepreneurship, judgment skills) (MT, SI, FI). Scotish framework uses 5 –domain descriptors: knowledge and understanding, generic cognitive skills, practice: applied knowledge and understanding, communication, ICY,nummerycy, autonomy, accountability and working with others

Development stages Conceptualisation stage: e.g EL, HU, LT, NL, NO, PO, SK, SE; Design stage: e.g CY, BE (Wa), LU, IS; Testing and (early) implementation stage: e.g. AT, DE, FI, IT, CZ, BE (Fla), DK, RO, SI, EE; Implemented (revision stage): IE, MT, UK, FR. NQfs are very dynamic instruments - introduction of an NQf is a lengthy process – with complex interaction with education and training system, stakeholders, socio-economic and political environment and learners. The purpises and feature may change over time

Involvement of stakeholders NQFs provide a platform for dialogue and coordination with a broad range of stakeholders: ministries, and regions or Länder, social partners (chambers, confederations of trade unions and employers), public institutes and agencies from education and labour, non-governmental associations (students, teachers, parents), education and training providers. ‘Bringing all stakeholders into one room’ implies sometimes to bring different perspectives, expectations and views. I added the third bullet to underline that NQF developments are not necessarilt consensual processes; they could actually thrive on bring conflicting interestst to the surface.

Who coordinates the process? In most countries ministries of education initiated and coordinate NQF developments In close cooperation with ministries for higher education and research (where these exist as separate ministries); In close cooperation (mostly) with ministries for labour; other ministries are involved (economy, health, labour, regional development etc.). In a few countries - IT, PT - ministries of labour coordinate the process in close cooperation with ministries of education and higher education. National Qualifications Authorities/VET agencies (e.g IE, EE, RO, PT, TR, SI, CZ, SE) – in charge of implementation

Experiences gained and lessons learned The implementation of learning outcomes is a condition for success but is also a major challenge faced at all levels of implementation; NQFs have to be tailored according to the national context and needs - benefits for different stakeholders articulated; NQFs are dynamic entities – development and introduction is a lengthy process – a pragmatic step-by step approach emphasised;

Experiences gained and lessons learned NQF developments have technical, social and political dimension and require broad stakeholders’ involvement and partnership - lack of involvement may undermine good technical proposals To ensure successful implementation – a need to engage and include education and training providers, in particular universities – ownership is crucial; Dissemination of information to different groups a very important task for policy makers and stakeholders involved.

Questions and challenges What is the correct balance between existing frameworks (e.g. QF for HE) in the comprehensive (overarching) NQFs now developing (bridges, integration)? VET qualifications at higher level - at the forefront of discussion and a challenge in many countries; How can NQFs open up to/include qualifications awarded outside the formal education and training system (for example by sectors and enterprises)? Need for shared understanding of basic concepts, methodologies and terminology across sectors and subsystems. In Ireland amalgamation of NQAI, FETAC and HETAC may signal the shift towards system-wide integration, in cotrast to the change of empasis in South Africa developments . The placement of qualifications depens upon pragmatic as well as technical judgments (Ireland, Schottland)

Thank you for your attention Survey The development of national qualifications framework in Europe available on: http://cedefop.europa.eu/etv/Information_resources/Bookshop/publications.asp?type=21