120 likes | 276 Views
Self-certification of the NQFs of the Netherlands and Flanders. 27 November 2008 Mark Frederiks. Content. Introduction Higher education in the Netherlands and Flanders Self-certification process Composition of committee Terms of reference of committee Where are we now?
E N D
Self-certification of the NQFs of the Netherlands and Flanders 27 November 2008 Mark Frederiks
Content • Introduction • Higher education in the Netherlands and Flanders • Self-certification process • Composition of committee • Terms of reference of committee • Where are we now? • Experiences and challenges | 2
Introduction • BaMa structure in 2002-2003 • To be recognised each BaMa programme needs to be accredited by the Accreditation Organisation of the Netherlands and Flanders; NVAO founded by Treaty • Dublin descriptors and ECTS are part of accreditation frameworks | 3
Higher education in the Netherlands and Flanders • Key figures | 4
Higher education in the Netherlands and Flanders • Degree structure in the Netherlands PhD programme - +/-4 years - Master’s programme (academic orientation) - min. 60 ECTS - Master’s programme (professional orientation) - min. 60 ECTS - • Bachelor’s programme (professional orientation) • 240 ECTS – • (Associate degree • 120 ECTS) Bachelor’s programme (academic orientation) - 180 ECTS - Secondary education | 5
Higher education in the Netherlands and Flanders • Degree structure in Flanders PhD programme - +/-4 years - Master’s programme (academic orientation) - min. 60 ECTS - Bachelor’s programme (professional orientation) - min. 180 ECTS - Bachelor’s programme (academic orientation) - 180 ECTS - Secondary education | 6
Self-certification process (1) • BaMa structure, HE laws, accreditation frameworks based on European qualification framework • No need for development of new NQF but what was needed was a thorough description and an external verification by independent international experts • Development of NQF document started in 2005-2006 in NL and recently in FL • In NL stakeholders were from the start involved, in FL more recently • In FL qualification structure according to EU framework has political priority, in NL Bologna comes first | 7
Self-certification process (2) • NL and FL wanted an external verification in 2008 • Over Summer the decision by the Ministries to carry out a joint Dutch-Flemish procedure was taken; one co-ordination meeting in Brussels • 1 Committee to verify the Dutch and Flemish NQF • NVAO to co-ordinate the procedure • NVAO installs committee, composition agreed with Ministries • Joint funding of NVAO procedure (60% NL, 40% FL; same funding arrangement as for NVAO) | 8
Composition of committee • 1 European expert on qualification frameworks: • Bryan Maguire (Chair) • 1 European expert from ENIC/NARICs: • Carita Blomqvist • 1 expert outside of Europe: • Sandra Elman • 1 Dutch expert: • Cees Karssen • 1 Flemish expert: • Luc Francois • 1 experienced and independent secretary: • Jindra Divis | 9
Terms of reference for committee • Main task: to verify whether Dutch and Flemish NQFs are compatible with overarching framework EHEA • Conclusions to be based on the 7 criteria • Recommendations regarding further development of NQFs possible • Review of NQF documents and meetings with Dutch and Flemish stakeholders • One report for NL and one for FL to be sent to NVAO • NVAO Board establishes whether: • Reports follow terms of reference, agreed procedure and whether reports address each of 7 criteria • If positive: Stated agreement by NVAO & reports to Ministries | 10
Where are we now? • Committee composed in September 2008 • NQF documents to Committee in October • Site visits in The Hague and Brussels on November 5-7 • Meetings with all stakeholders during site visits • Committee is now writing the reports: • Description • Conclusions on criteria • Issues raised (stakeholders) • Recommendations • Process expected to be finished in January 2009 | 11
Some experiences and challenges • Time pressure (documents, dates site visits, no prior Committee meeting) • Dutch & Flemish NQF documents & development different • Communication with other countries was limited • What is obvious in national context might not be obvious internationally and is not always stated • Stakeholders may use interviews for political statements; committee should focus on current situation and not on future possibilities • Difficult to meet with employers & unions • 7 criteria are clear; status of Bologna recommendations not • All in all process went well; binational model can work! | 12