1. ECA working group 1: Mutual recognition PARIS, 6 December 2006 Europe in Transition: ACCEPTING & RESPECTING Marianne Cox NARIC/ENIC THE NETHERLANDS

2. Academic Recognition evaluation in view of further study and/or award national titles Professional Recognition Evaluation of credentials for work purposes Terminology

3. Council of Europe / UNESCO: CONVENTIONS ON THE RECOGNITION OF QUALIFICATIONS European Convention on the Equivalence: of Diplomas leading to Admission to Universities, 1953 of Periods of University Study, 1956 on the Academic Recognition of University Qualifications, 1959 BILATERAL AGREEMENTS focus: EQUALITY/EQUIVALENCE Academic Recognition

4. After 1980: More mobility of students Expansion & diversification of higher education Recognition Programmes should be comparable: Level, function, status & content > specific purpose Approach & Methodology

5. Lisbon Recognition Convention (1997) Defines criteria and procedures Basic principles: -Mutual trust in educational systems Reversed burden of proof Respecting the differences Focus: Acceptance Academic Recognition

6. EUROPEAN DIRECTIVES Sectoral Directives: geared to harmonization - automatic recognition of diplomas General Directives geared to protection -case-by-case evaluation Professional Recognition

7. SECTORAL DIRECTIVE (Doctors, nurses, architects etc.) DIRECTIVES of the GENERAL SYSTEM: 1st Directive: 89/48/EEG ( higher education diplomas > 3 years) 2nd Directive: 92/51/EEG ( post-secondary vocational education) 3rd Directive ( trades and services) SLIM Directive: 2001/19/EG (reform General System and sectoral directives) NEW DIRECTIVE 2005/36/EC PROFESSIONAL RECOGNITION EUROPEAN DIRECTIVES

8. General Directives Focus: ACCEPTANCE Compensation mechanisms : Relevant professional experience Adaptation period or aptitude test (set by host country) Professional Recognition

9. Academic recognition LISBON CONVENTION (1997) => instruments: Diploma Supplement ECTS ENIC-NARIC Networks Recommendations on International Qualifications Code of Good Practice of Transnational Education Implementation, practice & training Regional agreements:Baltic States & Nordic Countries (based on principles of LC)

10. Lisbon Convention Lisbon convention reflects consensus on an agreed framework : international principles & procedures LEGAL GROUNDING FLEXIBILITY a. Can be applied in different educational systems b. Equally to be applied in specialized sectors c. Adaptation to changing environment d. Applicable to input & output

11. FEATURES To maintain standards and quality: Accountability International accepted standards code of good practice: benchmarking Transparency of procedures and decisions

12. Basic principles: Mutual trust in educational systems Reversed burden of proof Finished product meets the minimum requirements Respecting differences only: Substantial differences Professional & Academic Recognition

13. Evolution 1. Equivalence : course by course matching 2. Recognition: recognise fit for purpose comparable level- function,status and content > specific purpose 3. Acceptance : accept results (qualifications) with respect for differences AGREEMENT = FRAMEWORK: FLEXIBLE

14. Trends Shift from education> learning Learning outcomes/competencies: need for qualification structures & competency systems Assessment of competencies: regardless of learning paths => OUTCOMES => new forms of assessment

15. FUTURE Develop a new language in assessment Tuning Educational Structures in Europe

16. NETHERLANDS-FLANDERS QUALIFICATION AREA NL-VL: a national convention Within legal framework: accreditation affects the outcome=> accept each others degrees Accrediation: shift from specific recognition > generic recognition based on acceptance of quality and level Look at outcome rather than learning paths.

17. SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCES Educational outlook: broad orientation vs specialization (liberal arts or early focus on main academic disciplines) qualification frameworks, learning outcomes, learning paths Elements of qualifications: workload, level, quality and profile national regulations concerning recognition (centralized – non-centralized)

18. Conclusion? ROAD MAP TOWARDS ACCEPTANCE 1. UNDERSTANDING EACH OTHERS SYSTEMS INFORMATION & CONTACT & MUTUAL TRUST 2. UNDERSTANDING EACH OTHERS PROCEDURES INFORMATION & EXPERTISE & FIND COMMON GROUND 3. FOCUS ON OUTCOMES DEVELOP OUTCOME-BASED METHODOLOGY What kind of agreement will sustain an open qualification area?

19. Tuning project: Background Higher education institutions should adopt: Easily readable and comparable degrees System of 2 main cycles (undergraduate / graduate) System of European credit transfer (ECTS) Promotion of mobility, quality assurance, European dimension Project was initiated in 2000 by a group of European universities as response to Bologna Tuning Educational Structures in Europe

20. Current evaluation criteria: Formal duration/study load of the programme Overall level of achievement scan of subjects and their learning goals Structure and profile of the programme Focus at professional vs. scientific experience Admission requirements (based on duration and learning goals of previous education) Formal rights associated with the obtained degree Quality of the programme / institution Credential evaluation: now… Input-based evaluation methodology

21. Credential evaluation: … and in the future? towards an outcomes-based evaluation methodology? Main evaluation question could be: What level of competence has actually been acquired during the educational process? Potential evaluation criteria: Degree profile Learning outcomes that have been acquired, defined in a certain level of competences Irrespective of how long and which subject modules have been studied Or even irrespective of when, where, and how has been learned (recognition of prior learning)

22. CoRe Project: Planned activities Evaluation according to 2 methodologies Traditional methodology input-based Using Lisbon Criteria Experimental methodology outcomes-based Using Tuning profiles Required information sources: Diploma Transcript Required information sources: Degree profile Competence descriptions Analysis and comparison of the evaluation results