1. Recognition Tools and Practices – Criteria and Procedure
Gunnar Vaht
Baku, 2017

2. Revised Recommendation on Criteria and Procedures for the Assessment of Foreign Qualifications (adopted in 2010)

3. Outline I. General considerations II. Definitions
III. General principles
IV. Assessment procedures
V. Assessment criteria
VI. The outcome of the assessment

4. General principles
Holders of foreign qualifications shall have adequate access, upon request, to an assessment of their qualifications
Procedures and criteria should be transparent, coherent and reliable, periodically reviewed
In case where the recognition decision is different from th recognition requested by the applicant, the competent recognition authority should inform the applicant of the reason for the decision
Where learning outcomes are clearly documented, assessment should take these into consideration

5. The principles of recognition
Recognition decisions are to be made on the basis of appropriate information on the qualifications for which recognition is sought
The body making the assessment is responsible for demonstrating that an application does not fulfill the relevant requirements
A substantial difference must be demonstrated in the case of refusal

6. Assessment procedures
Information to applicant
Standardised information on the procedures and criteria, automatically should be given to all applicants
Information on the qualification for which recognition is sought
The responsibility for providing information on the qualification is shared by applicants, HEIs and competent authorities
Fees
Translation
Verification of the authenticity of documents
Time limit
Right to appeal

7. Criteria and procedure – good and not so good or unacceptable practice
GOOD PRACTICE
Acknowledge differences between educational systems and programmes
Moving away from seeking full comparability of the foreign qualification – towards comparing only these aspects relevant to the rights and functions
NOT SO GOOD OR UNACCEPTABLE PRACTICE
Seek for full comparability of programme contents
Using programme duration and content details as main criteria for recognition

8. Criteria and procedure – good and not so good or unacceptable practice
GOOD PRACTICE
Wherever possible, recognition is based on comparison of learning outcomes and the function of qualification
NOT SO GOOD OR UNACCEPTABLE PRACTICE
Assessment involves detailed comparison of curricula and material studied

9. Assessment criteria – a good practice

10. Information needed for recognition
About an awarding body
Type of the institution
Status (recognition) of the institution
Accreditation and quality assurance
About a qualification
Access requirements
Formal duration and workload (credits)
Structure and content of the programme
Function of the programme
Formal rights (academic/professional)
LEARNING OUTCOMES

11. Fair recognition
Judge only value of qualification, not external factors
Less attention to formal structures
No detailed comparison of curricula
More emphasis on learning outcomes: what a person knows and is able to do (knowledge, skills and competence)

12. Information to applicant
Acknowledgement of the receipt of their application
Standardised information on the procedure and criteria for the assessment of qualification (required documents, translations, principles and criteria, fee, time, status of the evaluation statement)
Advice applicants about the possibilities and procedures for submitting applications
Information on educational systems and legal acts; information on principles of recognition

13. Fees
The competent recognition authorities should consider whether it is possible to provide for assessment as a public service free of charge.
Where this is not feasible, fees should be kept as low as possible.

14. Translations
Acceptance of as much languages as possible without translations
Many countries or institutions issues the documents (diplomas, transcripts, Diploma Supplements) in two languages
As a rule, titles of foreign qualifications should be provided in the original language, without translation
For example the degrees “Bakalaureus”, “Master” and “Doctorandus” from different higher education systems are comparable qualifications. The result of translations may give a wrong value and inadequate recognition decision of the qualification.

15. Verification of the authenticity
Verification of authenticity is important
Verification is a part of the assessment procedure
Overly complicated and costly authentification procedures, such as full legalisation of all documents is still in practice. States are encourage to review any national laws requiring the complicated procedures. Modern communication tools make it easy to verify the authenticity.

16. Assessment criteria Status of the institution
Assessment of individual qualification

17. Assessment criteria Status of institution
Whether the HEI belongs to the higher education system
Type of institution – HEI or vocational school; university or professional HEI
Quality assessment and assurance/accreditation
Status and recognition of institution in home country

18. Assessment criteria Assessment of qualification
Quality / accreditation
Access requirements (previous education)
Profile; field of study – specialisation
Content (subjects), practice, research, graduation requirements
Workload (credits) and/or nominal duration
Level in National Qualifications Framework, reference to overaching frameworks (EQF)
Function of qualification (formal rights in the home country – access to further studies; rights in labor market)
Professional status
Learning outcomes

19. Assessment of learning outcomes
Learning outcomes – focus attention on what is to be learnt and what is actually learnt rather than the process of learning
It is important to know what an holder of qualification can do with the qualification
Generic learning outcomes (NQF)
Specific learning outcomes (profile description)

20. Substantial difference
Recognition unless substantial differences can be shown.
Qualifications from different education sytems are always different. There are no equivalent or identical qualifications.
Be sure what is „substantial“.

21. NOT a substantial difference
Nominal duration of a programme is one year shorter
Less requirements for final thesis
Differences in programme content (access qualifications)
On-line /part time /extramural study
Private institution
The programme is not provided in host country
The awarding institution is recognised but unknown to us, and missing in the international databases
Teaching staff ahs not the same qualifications requirement as required in host country
Ranking

22. Substantial difference (in Estonian recognition practice)
Quality is not assured
Qualification is not recognised by the authorities in the country of origin (not an official degree)
Qualification doesn´t give acces to next cycle of higher education in the country of origin
Diploma mill
Substantial part of courses of the programme is taken at a lower level of education
Substantial part of courses transfered from an unrecognised institution
recognised institution providing a study programme abroad without legal permission or quality assured
Degree is awarded with failed marks

23. Thank you!