Aligning National against European Qualification Frameworks Lessons learned from the Bologna Process Věra Šťastná, Charles University Prague

Two-cycle structure models most commonly implemented, Eurydice 2008/09 240 + 120 ECTS 240 + 60 ECTS 180 + 120 ECTS Various combinations No Master programmes Not available Source: Eurydice

Two European Qualification Frameworks(3) Level EQF Cycle QF-EHEA 1 - 2 3 4 5 First cycle „short cycle of HE “ 120 ECTS 6 First cycle „Bachelor's degree“ 180-240 ECTS 7 Second cycle „Master's degree“ 60-120 ECTS (90-120/60 at Master's level) 8 Third cycle „doctoral“ 3-4 standard years

London Communiqué, 2007 We are satisfied that national qualifications frameworks compatible with the overarching Framework for Qualifications of the EHEA will also be compatible with the proposal from the European Commission on a European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning. We see the overarching Framework for Qualifications of the EHEA, which we agreed in Bergen, as a central element of the promotion of European higher education in a global context.

National Qualification Framework Any advantages of the QF-EHEA can become reality only if there are national frameworks for qualifications established and the relation between the national levels and European levels have been clearly defined, described and validated in a trustful, internationally recognised way.

National Framework for Qualifications - expectations (1) for „national“ impact know better own system more transparency – „cleaning“ among the study programmes HE-evaluation of restructuralisation of degree programmes based on learning outcomes methodology - innovation improvement/enhancement of quality chance to involve all stakeholders and improve/develop in systemic way the dialogue with employers improved employability more educational paths will be opened including those for non traditional learners mobility between sectors

National Framework for Qualifications – expectations (2) for „international“ impact facilitating recognition smoother mobility of students and academics more transparency in EHEA, EU Breaking ices between sectors (VET and HE) quality enhancement Recognition of prior learning – incl. Non-formal education and informal learning

National Framework for Qualifications – important Designed having in mind the lifelong learning concept All existing higher education qualifications within a given system be included (dialogue between higher and vocational education) Admission and progression requirements/possibilities included Accommodation of the existing transparency tools (ECTS, ECVET, DS) Links to quality assurance system – (better if national quality assurance system verified internationally) Dynamic tool – space for development together with the higher education/VET system

Why do we need self-certification/referencing? Verifying compatibility of NQF and European QFs Showing the others that „my own“ NQF is compatible with QF-EHEA/EQF, consequently with others NQFs Transparency – mutual understanding- means for translation International participation - credibility – promotion of trust Improvement of quality Consequently facilitation of recognition, promotion of mobility of students and academics Improved „European“ employability Entrance ticket to EHEA

Experiences so far Self-certified against existing set of criteria and procedures (Bologna: WG on QF report, 2005) Criteria and procedures for referencing national qualifications levels to the EQF Criteria and procedures for self-certification/referncing be taken into account since the beginning when developing NQF Useful to co-operate – similar legal traditions, regional cooperation, … but with due regard to overall European understanding of issues Learn from the others - avoid the same mistakes. But transfer only what is transferable!!! (always check what works in what circumstances) Open and fair description of what does not fit fully the European references

Content of the self-certification reports used in Bologna Contextual information Description of the higher education systems Admission requirements to all levels Progression in the system – which paths are open and which are blind All qualifications and degree awards, academic degrees (titles) How the quality assurance is maintained- bodies responsible, how they operate, is quality assurance in line with the European Standards and Guidelines? If there are systems of credits others than ECTS- how do they operate? Etc. Verification of the self-certification criteria Verification of the self-certification procedures Comparison of the Dublin descriptors with the award-type descriptors in the NQF Conclusion Annex - Glossary

Challenges – NQFs (1) Do we not expect too much from QFs? Do we not overestimate their possibilities? How many layers of descriptors should the NQF involve? National – relatively very general descriptors Learning outcomes of degree programmes (modules) Or sectoral level in between? If yes, how to accommodate all European initiatives? Tuning, professional organisations (music, chemistry, veterinary sciences, ….? What is their place in EQF? non-degree certificates and consequent qualifications? Pre-Bologna degrees? Distinction between academic and professional necessary?

Challenges – NQFs (2) If we highlight our differences shall the NQFs still serve transparency? And could they really facilitate recognition? Typical HE problem – different Master's degree programmes Do we know how to work with learning outcomes? Do we understand them in the same way? And do we know how to relate ECTS credits to learning outcomes?

Challenges – referencing/ self-certification Openness - How can the most difficult issues be brought out? Transparency X protecting one’s own system How do we deal with disagreements between national self-certification and international experts opinion? between international experts? Who is the „God“ to decide? How to deal with self-certification reports which are not credible? Differences in national settings – in legal basis, understanding of LOs, stress on formal procedures X content, structures for implementation,…? Diversity in national approaches?

Challenges – international credibility We will have at least 48 NQFs/28 NQFs – ultimately national responsibility: no „European harmonisation“! What is needed for creation one European system of them? How to ensure common approach and common methodology used by international experts? How to ensure enough international experts? How do we deal with the fact that countries of EU can chose between two compatible but slightly different frameworks? Compatible but slightly different criteria and procedures for self-certification/ referencing Two sets of structures – emerging under EU and under Bologna Double bureaucracy, work and costs or mutual recognition and use?

European “QF learning paths” – or “learning curve”? Need coordination QF-EHEA and EQF-LLL Need of coordination of NQF developments at European level Transparency tools - ECVET, ECTS, Europass, Diploma Supplement

Concluding remarks In spite of all pessimism and difficult issues the QFs are important instrument NQFs have to be developed for the use of stakeholders, in particular the students and employers. i.e. with full responsibility and honestly Balance between political decision and expert advise should be sought carefully We need transparency on difficult issues, nobody has all the answers

Here we are

And this is hopefully the future

Thank you for your attention!