1. TOWARDS A QUALIFICATIONS FRAMEWORK FOR LIFELONG LEARNING VET TT in the Lifelong learning context Expert Workshop, Vienna, October FEEDBACK FROM WORKING GROUP 2 “The implications of EQF and NQF for VET in SEE”
Moderator – Arjen Vos - ETF
Rapporteur - Alqi Mustafai - ALBANIA

2. In regards to NQF process, countries are in different stages, mostly in early stages, such as increasing awareness, promoting consultations and public debate. Other countries are in more advanced stages, going into legislation and institutional development (establishing new bodies or adapting the existing ones). Even in different stages and contexts, the problematic related with NQF is very similar.

3. Better balance should be between “traditional” interventions (NQF institutional building, legislation) and other important “cultural” aspects such as consultation and public debate (the Romanian case to be mentioned here: the NQF process, supported by institutional mechanisms, is facing problems because public discussion and involvement of other actors is still weak).

4. What are the actors and who should take the lead
What are the actors and who should take the lead? It is considered that social partnership in SEE countries still in early stages of development and it is difficult that bottom – up initiatives became significant. Logically, the governmental part should take the initiative and have a strong and motivated “leader” in this process. NQF initiative should be considered as an important issue to increase the interest and promote the active participation of not only employers and empoyees, but other stakeholders also (NGOs, civil society).

5. Not only the “developers” but the “users” of NQF also, are very important and should be better considered. The structural change NQF is representing will be followed by significant functional changes in the VET providing level, in teaching-learning process in particular. Expected implications on teaching and learning, curricula, teacher training, school environment, school governance and management, financing, etc., should be analysed and considered in planning the NQF interventions.

6. In regards to the relations of NQF with EQF, it is underlined that EQF is not providing the example to follow. The priority is to develop NQF and to use EQF as a reference instrument.

7. Higher Education and VET should go together not only in the initial discussions on NQF, but in the development practice also, in order to avoid fragmentation, overlapping or gaps in its structure and content. Sinergy with other sectors (primary, general secondary) is very important for a Lifelong Learning approach in NQF.

8. Regional cooperation and networks are considered a powerful mechanism for enhancing NQF process and increasing efficiency. Facing similar problems, countries could learn from positive and negative experiences of each-other.

9. The NQF process asks for significant donor support, in terms of co-ordination, expertise and finance.

10. In regards to NQF process, countries are in different stages, mostly in early stages, such as increasing awareness, promoting consultations and public debate. Other countries are in more advanced stages, going into legislation and institutional development (establishing new bodies or adapting the existing ones). Even in different stages and contexts, the problematic related with NQF is very similar.