1. A Critical Reflection on Qualifications Frameworks and Possible Future Directions 2008 Biennale on Education in Africa Association for the Development of Education in Africa (ADEA) Maputo, Mozambique, 5-9 May 2008

2. Key message 1 “Hanging focuses the mind”

3. Key message 2 Qualification frameworks are growing globally!

4. UNITED STATES of AMERICA CANADA ALASKA (USA) MEXICO COLOMBIA VENEZUELA BRAZIL PERU BOLIVIA HONDURAS NICARAGUA ECUADOR GUYANA SURINAME FRENCH GUIANA COSTA RICA PANAMA GUATEMALA CUBA PARAGUAY ARGENTINA URUGUAY CHILE GREENLAND ICELAND UNITED KINGDOM REPULIC OF IRELAND NORWAY SWEDEN FINLAND DENMARK ESTONIA LATVIA LITHUANIA POLAND BELARUS GERMANY CZECH REPUBLIC NETHERLANDS BELGIUM FRANCE SPAIN PORTUGAL SWITZ. AUSTRIA SLOVAKIA HUNGARY ROMANIA BULGARIA ITALY UKRAINE TURKEY GREECE SYRIA IRAQ SAUDI ARABIA YEMEN OMAN UAE EGYPT LIBYA ALGERIA MOROCCO TUNISIA WESTERN SAHARA MAURITANIA MALI NIGER CHAD SUDAN ETHIOPIA SOMALIA UGANDA SENEGAL GUINEA LIBERIA COTE D’IVOIRE BURKINA GHANA NIGERIA CAMEROON CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC GABON CONGO DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO KENYA TANZANIA ANGOLA ZAMBIA MOZAMBIQUE NAMIBIA BOTSWANA ZIMBABWE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA MADAGASCAR RUSSIA KAZAKHSTAN GEORGIA IRAN UZBEKISTAN TURKMENISTAN AFGHANISTAN KYRGYZSTAN TAHKISTAN PAKISTAN INDIA CHINA NEPAL MYANMAR THAILAND SRI LANKA MONGOLIA NORTH KOREA SOUTH KOREA JAPAN TAIWAN CAMBODIA LAOS VIETNAM PHILIPPINES MALAYSIA INDONESIA PAPUA NEW GUINEA AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND

5. Key message 3 There are different types of qualifications frameworks!

6. What is a qualifications framework? Higher Education A qualifications framework is a national/regional resource, representing a national/ regional effort at integrating education and training into a unified structure TVET Schooling ABET A Qualifications Framework sets boundaries A qualifications framework is a set of principles and guidelines which provide a vision, a philosophical base and an organisational structure for construction of a qualifications system Etc. National Qualifications Framework 2008 Biennale on Education in Africa Association for the Development of Education in Africa (ADEA) Maputo, Mozambique, 5-9 May 2008

7. Sub-NationalRegionalTrans- national Scope Specific levels/ sectors/ types of qualifications Tracked/ Linked/ Unified Meta- frameworks Specific levels/ sectors/ types of qualifications Prescrip- tiveness Usually tighterVarying from loose to tight Usually looser Loose Examples Higher Education, TVET South Africa Namibia Scotland Proposed SADCQF EQF VUSSC TQF Different qualifications frameworks 2008 Biennale on Education in Africa Association for the Development of Education in Africa (ADEA) Maputo, Mozambique, 5-9 May 2008

8. Incrementalism Rate and manner of implementation Architecture Configuration of structural arrangements that make up the framework Policy breadth Direct and explicit links with other measures Philosophy Underlying thinking that influences the framework Purpose Explicit reasons for development as reflected in the objectives Scope Measure of integration of levels, sectors and types Prescriptiveness Stringency of criteria for inclusion Governance Activities that guide, steer and control Towards a common understanding of qualifications frameworks 2008 Biennale on Education in Africa Association for the Development of Education in Africa (ADEA) Maputo, Mozambique, 5-9 May 2008

9. Purpose (objectives) of qualifications frameworks Back Addressing social justice Improving access International benchmarking Communication Regulation Articulation

10. Underlying philosophy Influencing qualifications frameworks Back Global emphasis on the importance of lifelong learning Globalization, the need to facilitate labour movement and the commodification of education and training Neo-liberalism Manageralism Performativism

11. Key message 4 The idea underlying Qualifications frameworks is that of integration (– however defined)

12. What is an Integrated Framework? Definition: includes different types of learning but also changes the relationships between them. ◦ How should it change the relationships?  Uniformity = Fits all learning and all qualifications into single mould. E.g. stringent common design rules for the structure of qualifications, for the way in their content is specified for assessment, and certification, etc.  Diversity = that recognises and celebrates a wide range of purposes, epistemologies, modes and contexts of learning, but which also recognises the need to build these into a coherent and coordinated system. In order to do this it should impose some aspects of uniformity.  The trick is to decide which is tight and which is loose.

13. What do we want to integrate? What forms of learning or knowledge do we want to integrate? ◦ In SA linking of education and training (discipline-based and work-based)  One view sees education and training as distinct knowledge structures, modes of learning, and distinct social relations.  Opposing view point: education and training are points on a continuum of learning – they are different but the differences are of a degree and they can shade into another.  Third view sees education and training as primarily social constructs which reflects institutional, political or status divisions with the system

14. Pressure for Integration Economic: Response to economic challenges of globalisation Democratic: Response to history of apartheid and redress Systemic: Response to increase scale and complexity of education and training systems, to the wider range of economic and social purposes they are expected to serve and systemic problems like credentialism and academic drift.

15. Purposes of Integration Curricular: ◦ to encourage learners to combine different types of learning ◦ to develop integrated forms of learning and knowledge ◦ to promote transferable and generic skills ◦ to promote parity of esteem Longitudinal: ◦ To make pathways more flexible ◦ To facilitate portability and transfer ◦ To promote seamless opportunities for access and progression in life- long learning ◦ To promote recognition of informal and non-formal learning Organisational: ◦ To promote more coherent and better coordinated arrangements for delivery, staffing, quality assurance, governance and funding of learning.

16. Key messages 5 There will be resistance to implementing QFs Resistance may include epistemological, political, institutional, conceptual and philosophical

17. Barriers to Integration Epistemological: ◦ Are real and important ◦ Different fields of knowledge, academic vs occupational. ◦ Behavioural theories of outcomes versus social constructivist theories of outcomes Political: ◦ Revolutionary change versus evolutionary change ◦ Nature of qualifications e.g. academic qualifications as positional good while raising the status of vocational qualifications. Institutional: ◦ Arise due to the unintended consequences of the way institutions work ◦ Operation of the social structures such as the labour market.

18. Overcoming Barriers 1.Clarify the meaning of an integrated framework. 2.Clarify the objectives of integration. 3.Make sure that the objectives are achievable. 4.Clarify the barriers to integration. 5.Make the framework as loose as possible with its objectives, but manage this tightly. 6.Progress in stages (incrementally). 7.Coordinate with other policies.

19. Key messages 6 Learn from others, you don’t have repeat the same mistakes that others have made for example: ◦ comprehensive frameworks ◦ rapid incrementalism ◦ size counts ◦ expensive models ◦ appropriate use of experts and stakeholders

20. Quote “At the heart of current debates on national qualifications frameworks lies a paradox. On the one hand, many countries, including South Africa, introduce such frameworks in order to transform aspects of their education and training system, their society, or their economy. On the other hand, the literature on qualifications frameworks suggests that they are most successful when they are modest in ambition and incremental in approach: when they build upon existing structures and practices and on the trust, the mutual understandings and the power relationships that are embedded within them. In other words, it would seem, the frameworks that are judged to be most successful are those which succeed in transforming very little.” (David Raffe, University of Edinburgh, June 2005)

21. Changes to SA NQF Move from tight to loose. Unified to tracked model. Move from Integration as a ‘social construct’ to ‘continuum of learning’.

22. Scope of the South African NQF Back Unified: all systems are integrated Linked: separate systems but with common structures for transferability Tracked: separate systems with limited transferability UnifiedLinked Tracked

23. Levels and Frameworks Level 1 Level Descriptors Level 10 Higher Education Qualifications Framework General & Further Education & Training Framework Occupational Qualifications Framework

24. Key message 7 QFs are popular because they can be used as instruments of communication, build flexible pathways, benchmarking, accountability, etc

25. Key message 8 Current Wisdom suggests that: ◦ know why you want to use it, ◦ design it in a loose manner, manage it tightly, ◦ start where you are, move slowly using experts and stakeholders appropriately, ◦ build trust and mutual understanding and take existing power relations into account that are embedded, ◦ ensure that you provide accountability and authority, and proper resourcing.

26. Key messages 9 NQF = No Quick Fix Jay Naidoo (COSATU, 1996)

27. A Critical Reflection on Qualifications Frameworks and Possible Future Directions 2008 Biennale on Education in Africa Association for the Development of Education in Africa (ADEA) Maputo, Mozambique, 5-9 May 2008