1. Self-Certification of Compatibility of NQFs with QF-EHEA
Bryan Maguire
Quality and Qualifications Ireland
Conference on National Qualifications Framework
Astana, June 8-9, 2015
Самосертифікація сумісності НРК з РК-ЄПВО (Self-Certification of Compatibility of NQFs with QF-EHEA_B.Maguire)_2015

2. Qualifications meta-frameworks
Overarching framework for EHEA introduced in 2005
European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning (EQF) introduced in 2008
Regional (reference) frameworks around the world (e.g. ASEAN RQF) as well as 140+ national frameworks

3. Stages of NQF development
Decision to start
Setting the agenda: The purpose of our NQF
Organising the process
Design
Consultation
Approval
Administrative set-up
Implementation at institutional/programme level
Inclusion of qualifications in the NQF
Self-certification of compatibility with the EHEA framework

4. Scorecard indicator n°3: Implementation of national qualifications frameworks, 2013/14*

5. 1. Decision to start has been taken by the national
body responsible for higher education
– 2 countries
2. – no countries
3. The process of developing the NQF has been
set up, with stakeholders identified and
committee(s) established – 2 countries
4. – no countries
5. Consultation / national discussion has taken
place and the design of the NQF has been
agreed by stakeholders – 4 countries
6. The NQF has been adopted in legislation or in
other high level policy for a – 4 countries
7. Implementation of the NQF has started with
agreement on the roles and responsibilities of
higher education institutions, quality assurance
agency(ies) and other bodies – 5 countries
8. Study programmes have been re-designed on
the basis of the learning outcomes included in
the NQF – 8 countries
9. Qualifications have been included in the NQF
– 11 countries
10. The Framework has self-certified its compatibility
with the European Framework for Higher
Education – 6 countries
11. The final NQF and the self-certification report
can be consulted on a public website
l – 13 countries
Data not available – 1 country
Source: BFUG questionnaire.

6. Criteria for compatibility
The national framework for HE qualifications and the body or bodies responsible for its development are designated by the national ministry with responsibility for HE
There is a clear and demonstrable link between the qualifications in the national framework and the cycle qualification descriptors of the European framework
The national framework and its qualifications are demonstrably based on learning outcomes and the qualifications are linked to ECTS or ECTS compatible credits
The procedures for inclusion of qualifications in the national framework are transparent
The national quality assurance system for HE refers to the NQF and is consistent with the Berlin Communiqué and any subsequent communiqué agreed by ministers in the Bologna Process
The national framework, and any alignment with the European framework, is referenced in all Diploma Supplements
The responsibilities of the domestic parties to the national framework are clearly determined and published

7. Procedures for self-certification
The competent national body/bodies shall certify the compatibility of the national framework with the European framework.
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 self-certification process shall involve international experts
The self-certification and the evidence supporting it shall be published and shall address separately each of the criteria set out
The ENIC and NARIC networks shall maintain a public listing of States that have confirmed that they have completed the self-certification process
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

8. Countries with joint EQF/ QF-EHEA referencing reports
Malta
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Austria

9. Other national situations
Portugal – report published but not listed on ENIC-NARIC website France – EQF referencing completed without higher education qualifications

10. Latvia
8 levels referenced/certified in one process led by NARIC College qualifications at level 5 Binary: professional and academic bachelors and masters National credit system 2:3 ECTS Pre-Bologna (USSR) qualifications also referenced to NFQ

11. Lithuania
Legal/conceptual problem around definition of “qualification” identified in self-certification led to change in law National descriptors, not just EQF/Dublin Binary in first cycle only: professional bachelors “Empty shelf” at EQF level 5 Very little implementation of ECTS

12. Estonia
Joint referencing/certification report, led by ministry of education, with no separate chapter for QF-EHEA Occupational qualifications as well as HE qualifications at EQF levels 5-8 Analysis of distinctive features in Estonian HE descriptors – teamwork, language, interdisciplinarity, teaching Misread procedure on NARIC website

13. Self-certification Processes
No two self-certification processes are identical
Diverse initiators, governance, methods, participants, report formats, follow-up
Low level of oversight at European level
Phenomenon is not adequately studied

14. Expectations rising
Expectations of partner countries are rising – frameworks should be implemented, QA should be operating, learning outcomes should be used
Verification of QF-EHEA and referencing of EQF-LLL can proceed as a single process but this can be quite complex, technically and politically

15. Process challenges
International experts critical to credibility but do not seem to limit national diversity (see Baltic criteria) Process leadership requires technical and political competence/authority Engaging in (high stakes) development/ reform of education/qualifications simultaneously with verification challenges neutrality/objectivity of self-certification

16. Stakeholders Stakeholder involvement varies
Relatively low in early countries with “settled” NQFs- high in simultaneous development/verification
International dimension can throw new light on domestic issues such as level and profile
Traditional perceived status differences may be challenged where not justified by learning outcomes

17. Never-ending Story
Self-certification is a station on the way, it is not a terminus
Malta's revised report is an example
“empty” short cycles (EQF L5) in LT, EE & CZ. BE(fl) new short cycle since verification
Quality assurance becomes more critical after initial technical design of NQF
HEIs have a generational task ahead
to move to student-centred pedagogy and assessment, based on learning outcomes

18. Is self-certification worth it?
Domestic information/reformation is (properly) the primary purpose of NQF
Self-certification is incentive to do this well
International reputation is enhanced
Joining the green space on EHEA map
European inter-national goals
Transparency (reports used by ENIC/NARIC)
Pathfinder group on automatic recognition
Global attractiveness (e.g. EQF technical alignment project with AUS, NZ,HK)