The Development of NQF in Hungary

1. The Development of NQF in Hungary Iván Falus Péter Radó PLA on the development of national Qualifications Frameworks 8-10 October 2007, Budapest

2. The Development of NQF in Hungary • The Hungarian context: obstacles to lifelong learning and the transformation of output regulations • The development of NQF: general goals • The major functions of NQF (specific goals) • The instrument: levels and descriptors • The operation of the NQF

3. The Hungarian context: obstacles to lifelong learning • Poorly developed learning skills and basic competencies (PISA survey) • The declining relevance of formal learning, existing qualifications do not inform the employers properly, lacking recognition of informal, non-formal learning • The fragmented character of the system of education services, education at any stages of the career hardly respond to the diverseindividual learning needs • Huge selection within the education system → large performancedifferences among secondary tracks • Lack of appropriate counseling and guidance services, lack ofinformation feed-back on the quality of edu. services • Poor horizontal and vertical policy co-ordination within the education sector (e.g. divergent sub-sectoral regulations) • Poor individual return of investment in learning

4. The Hungarian context: outcomes based regulation systems General Education: • Curriculum reform (new NCC) and the reform of the Maturata (secondary school leaving) exam (2002, 2004) • Summative performance survey among all 8th grade students on the basis of measurement standards (plan) VET: • New Professional Examination Requirements (2006) • The development of new performance measurement system for VET (ongoing) Higher Education: • In the course of the „Bologna process” new Training and Output Requirements for eachBA and MA studies (ongoing) Adult learning: • No central output regulation, and accreditation system is being developed.

5. Development of the NQF: general goals • Integrating the output regulation tools of the different sub-systems within one framework, supporting the harmonization of regulatory instruments • Making horizontal and vertical mobility of learners easier, smoother learning pathways • Strengthening the quality assurance systems of education and training • Recognition of the competencies aquired through informal and non-formal learning • Strengthening policy co-ordination within the education sector and the co-operation with social partners • Better orientation of the planning and development of education programs • Supporting the effective operation of career councelling and guidance services

6. Specific goals for the NQF (Functions) • Harmonization and periodicalvalidation of output regulation instruments of the different sub-sectors of formal education • Providing a framework for monitoring and supporting sub-sectoral qualification systems • Opening procedural channels for the recognition of informal and non-formal learning • Automatic mediation between Hungarian qualifications and EQF → The proposed Hungarian NQF is a top-down regulation instrument with no direct connection to individual qualifications (not a bottom-up quality assurance instrument)

7. The operation of NQF • All relevant regulations prescribe the NQF compatibility of sub-sectoral output regulation instrument and their mandatory periodical revision • The National Qualifications Council (an expert body to be established) validates the NQF compatibility of the draft output regulations before their formal approval determines their NQF level equivalent (the validation is the condition of approval) or recommends their modification to the minister in charge. • All existing qualifications are awarded according the already existing procedures of the sub-systems, the awarded certificates/diplomas will contain the NQF/EQF registration number. • The National Qualifications Council may validate and register individual qualifications if an accredited examination center applies for the recognition of competences acquired by informal or non-formal learning.

8. The levels and descriptors of the NQF

9. The NQF makes it possible that we • Test whether the national qualifications are based on relevant learning outcomes • Test whether the national qualifications meet European requirements • Develop a transparent system of qualifications • Compare our national qualifications with qualifications issued in other Member States

10. A critique of the EQF (competence-based) approach • „It is a means of withdrawing education from the national competence and serving the interests of the multinational companies (Lisbon vs Maastricht)” • „The obscure notion of competence replaces the subject and knowledge focused logic of education” • „The assessment industry finds itself a theoretical basis” • „The logic of subject-based and scientific logic is displaced”

11. The set-up of the presentation • What have the main considerations of our analysis been? • What have the bases of our comparison been? • What conclusions have we come to? • How should we proceed?

12. Steps of the analysis • Two paralell working groups • Within Working Group One: - International comparative study - Public education - Vocational education and training - Higher education - Adult education and training

13. The difficulties of the analysis • The descriptors first proposed for the EQF have been simplified • The revision of the National Core Curriculum was under progress • The new Register for Vocational Qualifications has been developed • New government decisions, introduction of new BA courses and creation of MA courses in Higher Education

14. International comparative studies • Scotland: 12 levels, descriptors (knowledge; practise, general cognitive competences; communication; autonomy, responsibility, cooperation) • Ireland: 10 levels 3 descriptors (knowledge, skills, competences) • England, Northern Ireland, Wales: 9 levels, 3 descriptors (intellectual competences, processes, responsibility) Entry level

15. Main questions of the analysis • How do the various learning outcomes fit into the EQF? • To what extent can we find attitudes, views, key competences among the learning outcomes?

16. Based on the above, how the existing outcome requirements fit into the initially proposed descriptors for the NQF? • How much can the various descriptors be identified in the outcome requirements of educational sub-sectors, can we unambiguously link the proposed outcomes to the EQF?

17. In the case of the secondary school leaving examination, we specifically examined the outcome requirements of the standard and the advanced level exams and the difference between the requirements of various subjects.

18. What have the bases of our comparison been? • The descriptors of the eight levels of the EQF. • However, our descriptors have been extended. Beside • knowledge, • skills , • autonomy and responsibility • We proposed • attitudes and • key competences

19. Is attitude necessary? Are Key competences necessary?

20. What conclusions have we come to? • The outcome requirements of each sub-sectors may be linked • The various levels of education may be linked to the levels of the EQF • The degree to which they can be linked is differing (foreign languages, higher education) • Knowledge and skills are elaborated to various extent • The difference between standard and advaced levels in knowledge in the mother tongue, in skills in the foreign language • Autonomy and responsibility appears in VET outcome requirements, these are at a lower level in higher education.

21. Public education • Only the secondary school leaving examination may result in a real qualification • Is entry level necessary? • Can assessment be linked to NQF levels? • Is there a difference between te standard and advanced level secondary school leaving examination?

22. Vocational education and training • Qualifications requirements are defined in learning outcomes • VET qualification can be linked to 4 NQF levels • The requirements are more detailed – former EQF • Requirements/descriptors at different levels

23. Higher education • The course and outcome requirements are not always defined in learning outcomes • The post-secondary vocational training, the bachelor, the master and the phd may be linked to the 5-8 levels of the NQF respectively • Differences between the government decree, the ministerial decree, the criteria for the creation of a degree course and the criteria for the introduction of a degree course

24. How should we proceed? • Gathering and publishing principal information on learning outcomes • Training of 500-600 professionals in each educational sub-sectors • Revising, modifying the existing qualification (outcome) requirements, making them compatible with the NQF (EQF)

25. Thank you for your attention! Péter Radó - prado@oki.hu Iván Falus - falusivan@t-online.hu