2nd regional meeting of Ministers of Education on the implementation of the European Higher Education Area Palais de l’Europe, room 10, Council of Europe, Strasbourg 22-23 November 2012 Self-certification of National Qualifications Frameworks against the QF-EHEA: main steps Stephen Adam

Challenges of QF-EHEA self-certification… ‘We welcome the progress in developing qualifications frameworks; they improve transparency and will enable higher education systems to be more open and flexible. We acknowledge that realising the full benefits of qualifications frameworks can in practice be more challenging than developing the structures. The development of qualifications frameworks must continue so that they become an everyday reality for students, staff and employers. Meanwhile, some countries face challenges in finalising national frameworks and in self-certifying compatibility with the framework of qualifications of the EHEA (QF-EHEA) by the end of 2012. These countries need to redouble their efforts and to take advantage of the support and experience of others in order to achieve this goal.’ Bucharest Communiqué 2012

Observations: Self-certification (and EQF referencing) is a more challenging exercise than the initial creation of a NQF. It is of vital importance as it should confer international credibility on the NQF. Visit enic-naric.net to view existing self-certification reports. The EQF referencing exercise is more complex as it involves more sectors of education which have different characteristics, structures and processes. The self-certification process has to demonstrate that the NQF has been implemented and had an impact – there is a time tension issue here! There is a sense in which self-certification tests the efficacy of the new NQF and the process will reveal problems and anomalies. The opportunity should be taken to resolve these (e.g. access and progression issues, short cycle problems, recognition of prior learning difficulties, relationship between old and new qualifications, etc).

First steps… Refine your new National Qualifications Framework (NQF) – make it as good as possible in the first place. Ensure full stakeholder involvement in the NQF from the earliest stage. Decide what you seek the NQF to achieve, be realistic and design it to be as effective as possible. It is best conceived as part of a suite of educationally transformative tools. Accord it high priority. Establish what else has to change in the education system to support the new NQF + how it fits with other contingent reforms. Ensure that all the detailed NQF technical issues and challenges are considered and appropriate decisions made. Test the NQF descriptors: are they fit for purpose and do they contain sufficient detail to be useful and practical? Establish the implications of the NQF for existing laws, education strategies, institutions, systems and processes. Be prepared for resistance and obfuscation!

Criteria for verifying that national frameworks are compatible with the Bologna framework are as follows: Observation An official, recognised body or bodies must be clearly designated as ‘in charge’ and accountable – is this the situation?. Any confused lines of responsibilities should be avoided to ensure the legitimacy of the NQF. 1. The national framework for higher education qualifications and the body or bodies responsible for its development are designated by the national ministry with responsibility for higher education Some sort of matching process or analysis of NQF descriptor and qualification alignment must be provided. Include all qualifications + use ‘best fit’ when necessary. Do admission and progression practices fit with the Bologna dictates? Consider legacy awards. 2. There is a clear and demonstrable link between the qualifications in the national framework and the cycle qualification descriptors of the European framework A very problematic area as most countries are finding it difficult to introduce good learning outcomes. ECTS is often poorly understood and implemented + rarely based on learning outcomes. 3. The national framework and its qualifications are demonstrably based on learning outcomes and the qualifications are linked to ECTS or ECTS compatible credits

Observation Evidence of appropriate quality assured and consistent processes needs to be documented – what form could this take?. Is there a national register and is a ‘best fit’ approach used? 4. The procedures for inclusion of qualifications in the national framework are transparent The ESG are complex and represent a very different approach to quality assurance – how can hard evidence of an effective working ‘new style system’ be provided? 5. The national quality assurance system for higher education refer to the national framework of qualifications and are consistent with the Berlin Communiqué and any subsequent communiqué agreed by ministers in the Bologna Process This is simply done in theory but many countries/higher education institutions still do not automatically issue diploma supplements. 7. The responsibilities of the domestic parties to the national framework are clearly determined and published. All regulatory frameworks, lines of responsibility, legal statues need to be clear and unambiguous. 6. The national framework, and any alignment with the European framework, is referenced in all Diploma Supplements

Procedures for verifying that national frameworks are compatible with the Bologna framework are as follows: Observation A designated and appropriate organisation needs to establish an appropriate group to undertake the task and validate its overall findings. 1. The competent national body/bodies shall certify the compatibility of the national framework with the European framework. An appropriate independent quality assurance body or bodies must exist and be consistent with the European Standards and Guidelines (ESG). 2. The self-certification process shall include the stated agreement of the quality assurance bodies in the country in question recognised through the Bologna Process The selection of suitable experts is essential to the authenticity and subsequent international recognition of the self -certification process. 3. The self-certification process shall involve international experts

Observation Full information on the process and the subsequent report must be readily accessible. 4. The self-certification and the evidence supporting it shall be published and shall address separately each of the criteria set out Easily done. 5. The ENIC and NARIC networks shall maintain a public listing of States that have confirmed that they have completed the self-certification process [www.enic-naric.net] If Diploma Supplements are not issued this is redundant. The inclusion of a diagram showing the NQF-QF-EHEA relationships is often complex and difficult. 6. The completion of the self-certification process shall be noted on Diploma Supplements issued subsequently by showing the link between the national framework and the European framework.

Final thoughts: Self-certification is not straightforward process. Consider it whilst developing and perfecting your NQF; record paper trails and generate evidence. Good self-certification reports need to include more information and analysis than the minimum required by the ‘criteria and procedures’. For an NQF to be effective it must integrate and support other higher education reforms. Thus self-certification is intimately linked to a package of educational developments involving quality assurance and enhancement, recognition, mobility, academic autonomy, staff development, curriculum development, student-centered learning lifelong learning, etc.