Compatibility of NQFs with QF-EHEA: Analysis of Verification Reports

1. Compatibility of NQFs with QF-EHEA: Analysis of Verification Reports Bryan Maguire 2nd Regional Meeting of Ministers of EducationStrasbourg, 22-23 November, 2012 bmaguire@qqi.ie

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

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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. European networked national actors (E4) QA agencies have stated roles in criterion and verification process and are supported by ENQA to carry out these roles ENIC/NARIC centres also have stated roles and their networks discuss the significance of self-certification HEIs have access to EUA/EURASHE sharing/support ESU supports student union participation

12. 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

13. 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. IE-NZ, ASEM)