CHARONA The Changing Role of NARICs Katherine Latta, UK NARIC

1. CHARONA The Changing Role of NARICs Katherine Latta, UK NARIC on behalf of the CHARONA Project Team ENIC-NARIC Joint Meeting Toledo 18th June 2012

2. Project partners and plan

3. Project Aims • contribute to policy development of recognition by reviewing the role of NARICs in the context of European initiatives and instruments relating to recognition and mobility; • enhance the quality and effectiveness of the NARIC network by providing an opportunity to review the current practices in relation to the joint ENIC/NARIC Charter; • develop and disseminate information on education systems and increase awareness of recognition procedures at national level; • promote cooperation of all network members and contribute towards greater interactivity with other networks.

4. Project Activities and Outputs ACTIVITIES: • Stock-taking activities to identify policies, tools and initiatives which have impacted on the role and operation of NARICs • Consultation and investigation into the implications of the identified developments for NARICs at a national and network level • Consideration of the role and positioning of NARICs in view of future developments relating to Europe 2020 OUTPUTS: • Position paper on the changing role of NARICs and the network as a whole for the European Commission, the Council of Europe and UNESCO enabling the revision or total re-drafting of the Joint ENIC / NARIC Charter • Project website disseminating project activities and outcomes to a wider audience

5. Diversity and Evolution The CHARONA project team circulated a survey to the heads of centres to collect information on how they operate, the activities they undertake and their roles nationally and within the network • The ENIC/NARIC network is a diverse group, with a wide variety in the range of operational capacities, services offered, legal status of advice and statements, and modes of operation • The roles of the centres continue to evolve, with centres now hosting additional agencies and services related to recognition and qualifications, as well as having been impacted by changing circumstances in mobility and recognition

6. Initial findings of the survey • Three broad categories: • Insight into capacity and resources • Is the centre an ENIC, NARIC or both? What is the centre’s size and scope of resources? Has there been growth in the number of enquiries? • Scale and scope of work • What range or services are provided? What sectors are covered? What other services are additionally provided by centre? • Nature of the services • Status of advice? Guidelines and quality assurance?

7. Number of Staff?

8. Language Requirements? Section III.1 of the ENIC/NARIC Charter states that personnel involved in recognition should have “knowledge of foreign language” 33% of respondents reported that knowledge of foreign languages is not essential to employment (though it may be desirable in practice). It was noted that translation tools continue to improve, and also that it might be difficult to decide which languages would be most desirable

9. Sectors covered? 93.3% of respondents cover tertiary education, but additionally 63.3% cover secondary, and 60% cover vocational education

10. Target audience?

11. Status of the statement/advice? Almost even split between centres with legally-binding statements and those with statements which are advisory, although cases exist when centres serve a dual purpose depending on the nature of the advice sought

12. Fees?

13. Quality Assurance and Evaluation Criteria? • 50/50 split for those having internal and/or external quality assurance mechanisms and those that do not • 77.8% reported adhering to specific credential evaluation criteria (e.g. the LRC, internal codes of practice, EAR Manual)

14. Does your centre contribute to higher education policy development and legislation at regional, national and European level? Members contribute and advise through a variety of avenues, including national and international working groups and policy development advisory activities for relevant stakeholders such as other governmental departments and bodies

15. Number of enquiries? The majority of centres have seen the number of enquiries increase over the last 5 years

16. Services? • 62.5% of respondents house the National Contact Point for professional qualifications, 33.3% house the EQF Referencing Coordination. • Other functions house by respondents included: • ECVET contact point • ReferNet centre • Euryidice • Euroguidance • Eurodesk • LLL/Erasmus Mundus • NQF contact point • Professional competent authorities (e.g. teaching, architecture)

17. Are there other relevant recognition services at a national level that sit outside of your organisation? Yes: 73.3% No: 26.7% In a number of cases HEIs were highlighted as having independent recognition responsibilities, as were professional regulatory authorities (per Directive 2005/36/EC); other government ministries are also involved in recognition in many countries

18. Has the Centre been affected by any particular recognition reforms or policies over the last 15 years? Centres highlighted a number of policies and instruments which have had an impact on their centre’s work over the course of the last 15 years. These included: • Bologna Process • Diploma Supplement • Directive 2005/36/EC • Lisbon Recognition Convention • National legislative changes • Qualifications framework developments

19. Future? • Is the role of ENICs/NARICs changing, and if so, how? • What policies will shape the future work of the centres? • How does the diversity of the roles/remits/operations of the centres reflect the changing roles of NARICs? • Going forward as a network(s)…. For more information please visit the project website at: http://charonaproject.wordpress.com