1. Aligning National against European Qualification Frameworks
Lessons learned from the Bologna Process
Věra Šťastná, Charles University Prague

2. Two-cycle structure models most commonly implemented, Eurydice 2008/09
ECTS
ECTS
ECTS
Various combinations
No Master programmes
Not available
Source: Eurydice

3. Two European Qualification Frameworks(3)
Level EQF
Cycle QF-EHEA 1 - 2 3 4 5
First cycle „short cycle of HE “
120 ECTS 6
First cycle „Bachelor's degree“
ECTS 7
Second cycle „Master's degree“
ECTS (90-120/60 at Master's level) 8
Third cycle „doctoral“
3-4 standard years

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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

7. 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. Non-formal education and informal learning

8. 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

9. Why do we need self-certification/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
Entrance ticket to EHEA

10. 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

11. 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
Annex - Glossary

12. 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?

13. 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?

14. 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?

15. 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 recognition and use?

16. European “QF learning paths” – or “learning curve”?
Need coordination QF-EHEA and EQF-LLL
Need of coordination of NQF developments at European level
Transparency tools - ECVET, ECTS, Europass, Diploma Supplement

17. 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

18. Here we are

19. And this is hopefully the future

20. Thank you for your attention!