Self-Certification of Compatibility of NQFs with QF-EHEA

1. Self-Certification of Compatibility of NQFs with QF-EHEA • Bryan Maguire • Quality and Qualifications Ireland • Conference on National Qualifications Framework • Astana, June 8-9, 2015

2. Qualifications meta-frameworks • Overarching framework for EHEA introduced in 2005 • European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning (EQF) introduced in 2008 • Regional (reference) frameworks around the world (e.g. ASEAN RQF) as well as 140+ national frameworks

3. Stages of NQF development • Decision to start • Setting the agenda: The purpose of our NQF • Organising the process • Design • Consultation • Approval • Administrative set-up • Implementation at institutional/programme level • Inclusion of qualifications in the NQF • Self-certification of compatibility with the EHEA framework

4. Scorecard indicator n°3: Implementation of national qualifications frameworks, 2013/14*

5. 1. Decision to start has been taken by the national body responsible for higher education – 2 countries 2. – no countries 3. The process of developing the NQF has been set up, with stakeholders identified and committee(s) established – 2 countries 4. – no countries 5. Consultation / national discussion has taken place and the design of the NQF has been agreed by stakeholders – 4 countries 6. The NQF has been adopted in legislation or in other high level policy for a – 4 countries 7. Implementation of the NQF has started with agreement on the roles and responsibilities of higher education institutions, quality assurance agency(ies) and other bodies – 5 countries 8. Study programmes have been re-designed on the basis of the learning outcomes included in the NQF – 8 countries 9. Qualifications have been included in the NQF – 11 countries 10. The Framework has self-certified its compatibility with the European Framework for Higher Education – 6 countries 11. The final NQF and the self-certification report can be consulted on a public website l – 13 countries Data not available – 1 country Source: BFUG questionnaire.

6. Criteria for compatibility • The national framework for HE qualifications and the body or bodies responsible for its development are designated by the national ministry with responsibility for HE • There is a clear and demonstrable link between the qualifications in the national framework and the cycle qualification descriptors of the European framework • The national framework and its qualifications are demonstrably based on learning outcomes and the qualifications are linked to ECTS or ECTS compatible credits • The procedures for inclusion of qualifications in the national framework are transparent • The national quality assurance system for HE refers to the NQF and is consistent with the Berlin Communiqué and any subsequent communiqué agreed by ministers in the Bologna Process • The national framework, and any alignment with the European framework, is referenced in all Diploma Supplements • The responsibilities of the domestic parties to the national framework are clearly determined and published

7. Procedures for self-certification • The competent national body/bodies shall certify the compatibility of the national framework with the European framework. • The self-certification process shall include the stated agreement of the quality assurance bodies in the country in question recognised through the Bologna Process • The self-certification process shall involve international experts • The self-certification and the evidence supporting it shall be published and shall address separately each of the criteria set out • The ENIC and NARIC networks shall maintain a public listing of States that have confirmed that they have completed the self-certification process • The completion of the self-certification process shall be noted on Diploma Supplements issued subsequently by showing the link between the national framework and the European framework

8. Countries with joint EQF/QF-EHEA referencing reports • Malta • Estonia • Latvia • Lithuania • Luxembourg • Austria

9. Other national situations Portugal – report published but not listed on ENIC-NARIC website France – EQF referencing completed without higher education qualifications

10. Latvia 8 levels referenced/certified in one process led by NARIC College qualifications at level 5 Binary: professional and academic bachelors and masters National credit system 2:3 ECTS Pre-Bologna (USSR) qualifications also referenced to NFQ

11. Lithuania Legal/conceptual problem around definition of “qualification” identified in self-certification led to change in law National descriptors, not just EQF/Dublin Binary in first cycle only: professional bachelors “Empty shelf” at EQF level 5 Very little implementation of ECTS

12. Estonia Joint referencing/certification report, led by ministry of education, with no separate chapter for QF-EHEA Occupational qualifications as well as HE qualifications at EQF levels 5-8 Analysis of distinctive features in Estonian HE descriptors – teamwork, language, interdisciplinarity, teaching Misread procedure on NARIC website

13. Self-certification Processes • No two self-certification processes are identical • Diverse initiators, governance, methods, participants, report formats, follow-up • Low level of oversight at European level • Phenomenon is not adequately studied

14. Expectations of partner countries are rising – frameworks should be implemented, QA should be operating, learning outcomes should be used Verification of QF-EHEA and referencing of EQF-LLL can proceed as a single process but this can be quite complex, technically and politically Expectations rising

15. Process challenges International experts critical to credibility but do not seem to limit national diversity (see Baltic criteria) Process leadership requires technical and political competence/authority Engaging in (high stakes) development/ reform of education/qualifications simultaneously with verification challenges neutrality/objectivity of self-certification

16. Stakeholders Stakeholder involvement varies Relatively low in early countries with “settled” NQFs- high in simultaneous development/verification International dimension can throw new light on domestic issues such as level and profile Traditional perceived status differences may be challenged where not justified by learning outcomes

17. Never-ending Story Self-certification is a station on the way, it is not a terminus Malta's revised report is an example “empty” short cycles (EQF L5) in LT, EE & CZ. BE(fl) new short cycle since verification Quality assurance becomes more critical after initial technical design of NQF HEIs have a generational task ahead to move to student-centred pedagogy and assessment, based on learning outcomes

18. Is self-certification worth it? Domestic information/reformation is (properly) the primary purpose of NQF Self-certification is incentive to do this well International reputation is enhanced Joining the green space on EHEA map European inter-national goals Transparency (reports used by ENIC/NARIC) Pathfinder group on automatic recognition Global attractiveness (e.g. EQF technical alignment project with AUS, NZ,HK)