Self-certification of the NQFs of the Netherlands and Flanders 27 November 2008 Mark Frederiks

| 2 Content 1.Introduction 2.Higher education in the Netherlands and Flanders 3.Self-certification process 4.Composition of committee 5.Terms of reference of committee 6.Where are we now? 7.Experiences and challenges

| 3 Introduction -BaMa structure in To be recognised each BaMa programme needs to be accredited by the Accreditation Organisation of the Netherlands and Flanders; NVAO founded by Treaty -Dublin descriptors and ECTS are part of accreditation frameworks

| 4 Higher education in the Netherlands and Flanders -Key figures The NetherlandsFlandersTotal Inhabitants>16 million6 million>22 million Universities 22 (14 + 8) 15 (7 + 8) 37 Hogescholen 104 ( ) 22 (22 + 0) 126 Students> > > Programmes>3000>1600>4600

| 5 Higher education in the Netherlands and Flanders -Degree structure in the Netherlands Bachelors programme (professional orientation) ECTS – - - (Associate degree 120 ECTS) Bachelors programme (academic orientation) ECTS - Masters programme (professional orientation) - min. 60 ECTS - Secondary education Masters programme (academic orientation) - min. 60 ECTS - PhD programme - +/-4 years -

| 6 Higher education in the Netherlands and Flanders -Degree structure in Flanders Bachelors programme (professional orientation) - min. 180 ECTS - Bachelors programme (academic orientation) ECTS - Secondary education Masters programme (academic orientation) - min. 60 ECTS - PhD programme - +/-4 years -

| 7 Self-certification process (1) -BaMa structure, HE laws, accreditation frameworks based on European qualification framework -No need for development of new NQF but what was needed was a thorough description and an external verification by independent international experts -Development of NQF document started in in NL and recently in FL -In NL stakeholders were from the start involved, in FL more recently -In FL qualification structure according to EU framework has political priority, in NL Bologna comes first

| 8 Self-certification process (2) -NL and FL wanted an external verification in Over Summer the decision by the Ministries to carry out a joint Dutch-Flemish procedure was taken; one co-ordination meeting in Brussels -1 Committee to verify the Dutch and Flemish NQF -NVAO to co-ordinate the procedure -NVAO installs committee, composition agreed with Ministries -Joint funding of NVAO procedure (60% NL, 40% FL; same funding arrangement as for NVAO)

| 9 Composition of committee -1 European expert on qualification frameworks: -Bryan Maguire (Chair) -1 European expert from ENIC/NARICs: -Carita Blomqvist -1 expert outside of Europe: -Sandra Elman -1 Dutch expert: -Cees Karssen -1 Flemish expert: -Luc Francois -1 experienced and independent secretary: -Jindra Divis

| 10 Terms of reference for committee -Main task: to verify whether Dutch and Flemish NQFs are compatible with overarching framework EHEA -Conclusions to be based on the 7 criteria -Recommendations regarding further development of NQFs possible -Review of NQF documents and meetings with Dutch and Flemish stakeholders -One report for NL and one for FL to be sent to NVAO -NVAO Board establishes whether: -Reports follow terms of reference, agreed procedure and whether reports address each of 7 criteria -If positive: Stated agreement by NVAO & reports to Ministries

| 11 Where are we now? -Committee composed in September NQF documents to Committee in October -Site visits in The Hague and Brussels on November 5-7 -Meetings with all stakeholders during site visits -Committee is now writing the reports: -Description -Conclusions on criteria -Issues raised (stakeholders) -Recommendations -Process expected to be finished in January 2009

| 12 Some experiences and challenges -Time pressure (documents, dates site visits, no prior Committee meeting) -Dutch & Flemish NQF documents & development different -Communication with other countries was limited -What is obvious in national context might not be obvious internationally and is not always stated -Stakeholders may use interviews for political statements; committee should focus on current situation and not on future possibilities -Difficult to meet with employers & unions -7 criteria are clear; status of Bologna recommendations not -All in all process went well; binational model can work!