1. Dmitrijs Kuļšs & Baiba Ramiņa Republic of Latvia ICLLL2011: Policies and Implementation & Realising LLL for All Qualifications Framework in Latvia: from inputs to outcomes

2. Content ICLLL2011: Policies and Implementation & Realising LLL for All Lifelong learning and qualifications frameworks European Qualifications framework: process or result? Latvian qualifications framework: challenges of implementation

3. Lifelong learning and qualifications frameworks ICLLL2011: Policies and Implementation & Realising LLL for All Search for different approach to education (change of paradigm: move from input-based approach to outcomes- based approach) Emphasis on human capital theory Globalization and mobility Seeking for accountability of learning Blurring barriers between academic and vocational systems Need for clear learning pathways Valuing non-formal and informal learning

4. European Qualifications framework: process or result? ICLLL2011: Policies and Implementation & Realising LLL for All Voluntary process Promoted by Brussels since 2006 Comprehensive and transparent 8-levels framework Comparability rather than uniformity Platform for dialogue rather than technical tool Platform for understanding very different qualifications between the networked nations

5. European Qualifications framework: process or result? (2) ICLLL2011: Policies and Implementation & Realising LLL for All Open for non-formal learning and sectoral qualifications Agreement on common definition of learning outcomes and introducing them as units of qualifications Recognition of prior learning Connecting university and non-tertiary worlds 27 states joined; 4 reported by Sept 2011

6. European Qualifications framework: process or result? (3) ICLLL2011: Policies and Implementation & Realising LLL for All Little evidence on efficiency and effectiveness New rules are built on the run Implementation ranges from ’formal’ to ’comprehensive’ (sometimes reforming) and from ’simple’ to ’very complicated’

7. 124 th by land size 141 st by population Latvian qualifications framework: challenges of implementation

8. Latvian qualifications framework: challenges of implementation (2) ICLLL2011: Policies and Implementation & Realising LLL for All Implementation has started in 2008 Some vocational qualifications were already defined since 1999 Learning outcomes principle formally existed in legislation since 1998

9. Latvian qualifications framework: challenges of implementation (3) ICLLL2011: Policies and Implementation & Realising LLL for All Two stage implementation: First stage 2009-2011 definition of NQF levels definition of learning outcomes for NQF levels stakeholder agreement for legitimising descriptors linking NQF to EQF

10. Latvian qualifications framework: challenges of implementation (4) ICLLL2011: Policies and Implementation & Realising LLL for All Two stage implementation: Second stage 2013-2015 Developing and adopting actions for reforms initiated by the first implementation stage, inter alia, reform in vocational education system and reform in higher education system

11. Latvian qualifications framework: challenges of implementation (5) ICLLL2011: Policies and Implementation & Realising LLL for All Challenges: Rejection of international terminology Questioning principles behind descriptors of learning outcomes Referencing results are different to what has been expected Unclear proposal for lower two qualification levels Different descriptor grouping in higher and other education levels Diversity of approaches or soft approach Exclusion of non-formal learning at this stage

12. Rejection of international terminology ICLLL2011: Policies and Implementation & Realising LLL for All What is competence, competences, competences, and competencies? Qualification in Latvia is referred for many years exclusively in vocational domain How to translate ’framework’ so it would keep its original meaning?

13. Questioning principles behind descriptors of learning outcomes ICLLL2011: Policies and Implementation & Realising LLL for All Education system vs. Qualifications framework why to use qualification framework should non-formal qualifications be included why 8 levels will this process influence any change for better

14. Referencing results are different to what has been expected ICLLL2011: Policies and Implementation & Realising LLL for All Fitting into existing levels has been a challenge Domination of opinions vs. arguments (politics vs. policy) Tendency to raise every possible level (inflation), even more when see results of some other countries Same levels in different countries appeared to be ’similar’, ’like’ or even ’almost like’, but not ’the same’ that brings question of comparability No decision to have unique number of levels reached Descriptors are similar to EQF descriptors (do we still own our educational systems?)

15. Unclear proposal for lower two qualification levels ICLLL2011: Policies and Implementation & Realising LLL for All Lower levels 1 and 2 were hard to find equivalent qualification in the national system No good examples from other countries were available Special needs education was the only to fit by the outcome levels Criticised by other countries for reserving 1-2 levels for disadvantaged

16. Different descriptor grouping in higher and other education levels ICLLL2011: Policies and Implementation & Realising LLL for All

17. Diversity of approaches or a soft approach ICLLL2011: Policies and Implementation & Realising LLL for All Diversity reveals complexity and burdens understanding Fragile mirror

18. Exclusion of non-formal learning at this stage ICLLL2011: Policies and Implementation & Realising LLL for All Non-formal learning qualifications are not quality assured Sectoral qualifications has lack of interest or lack of agreement

19. Some conclusions ICLLL2011: Policies and Implementation & Realising LLL for All Introducing of qualifications framework is neither clear, nor simple and fast process Cautious approach needs to be taken not to break ‘the mirror’ Value of referencing is in the process rather than in the result itself that contradicts the philosophy of the subject to be introduced – learning outcomes principle (outcome-based approach in learning)