BFUG (HU/AD)_24_9.6a
SHARING EXPERIENCE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
FRAMEWORKS
Report by the Chair of the Bologna Working Group on Qualifications
Frameworks,
Sjur Bergan, Council of Europe
INTRODUCTION
In the Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve Communiqué, the Ministers stated:
The development of national qualifications frameworks is an important step towards the
implementation of lifelong learning. We aim at having them implemented and prepared
for self-certification against the overarching Qualifications Framework for the European
Higher Education Area by 2012. This will require continued coordination at the level of
the EHEA and with the European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning. Within
national contexts, intermediate qualifications within the first cycle can be a means of
widening access to higher education.
As in the previous period (2007 – 2009), the effort to improve and coordinate the sharing
of experience in the development of national qualifications frameworks compatible with
the overarching framework of qualifications of the European Higher Education Area (QFEHEA) is chaired by the Council of Europe and relies on the Working Group on
Qualifications Framework as well as an informal network of national correspondents. The
Working Group has so far met in Strasbourg in November 2009, in Brussels in February
and June 2010 and again in Strasbourg in October 2010. The next meeting of the
Working Group will be held in Budapest in late May 2011. The national correspondents
have so far met in Strasbourg in November 2009, in Dublin in April 2010 and in
Strasbourg in October 2010. The latter meeting was particularly significant because it
was the first joint meeting of the national correspondents and the National Coordination
Points (NCPs) of the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning (EQF-LLL).
The correspondents will meet again in Strasbourg on March 25 and, jointly with the
NCPs, in autumn 2011.
The Council of Europe would like to take this opportunity to express its appreciation of
the strong and continuing cooperation with the European Commission and the EQF
Advisory Group.
DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL FRAMEWORKS
The first overview of the development of national qualifications frameworks was provided
for the Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve conference and reflected the state of affairs in late
2008/very early 2009. The overview was based on information provided by national
correspondents. In early 2010, an updated overview was developed on new information
provided by national correspondents and this was presented to the BFUG at its meeting
in Alden-Biesen in August 2010. In the Council of Europe’s view, that overview provided
a more realistic view of the state of affairs and was, for the most part, reassuring. A third
overview was conducted in September 2010 and presented to the national
correspondents and the Working Group in October 2010. This survey broadly confirms
the trend from the previous survey but it should be noted that the response rate is
significantly lower and that this is a reason for some concern. Whereas 40 countries
responded to the second survey, only 27 did so to the third survey.
On the basis of this overview, it seems reasonable to expect that most countries of the
EHEA will meet their pledge to complete their national qualifications frameworks and
prepare them for self certification by 2012. Nevertheless, there is some reason for
concern with regard to some countries – including those that have failed to respond to
the request for information over a period of time and also with regard to the low
response rate to the latest survey – and it may be assumed that while most countries will
meet their commitment, some will not. It is also worth noting that the information
provided by national correspondents broadly corresponds to the information gathered
regularly by CEDEFOP in the context of the Europe Qualifications Framework for lifelong
learning (EQF-LLL).
Eight countries have now self certified their national frameworks against the QF-EHEA.
In addition to the six countries/systems1 that had done so before the Leuven/Louvain-laNeuve conference, Denmark and Malta self certified in autumn 2009. It is worth noting
that Malta was the first country to self certify against the QF-EHEA and reference against
the EQF-LLL in the same operation. At least four further countries – Croatia, Estonia,
Finland and Portugal – are now proceeding to self certification.
In South East Europe, a regional network on qualifications framework has been
established and this network will hold its fourth annual meeting in June 2011.
COOPERATION WITH THE EQF-LLL
The cooperation with the EQF-LLL remains excellent and continues to develop.
The most significant development since the previous meeting of the BFUG was the first
joint meeting of national correspondents (QF-EHEA) and National Coordination Points
(EQF-LLL) held in Strasbourg in October 2010 and co-organized by the Council of Europe
and the European Commission. This meeting was important in establishing working
contacts between the two overarching frameworks but also between those responsible for
various aspects of national frameworks. This is important because, while working in the
Ireland, United Kingdom/Scotland, United Kingdom/England –Wales-Northern Ireland, Germany, Netherlands,
Belgium (Flemish Community).
1
BFUG_HU_AD_24_9.6a
2
same country or education system, national correspondents and national contact points
often come from different backgrounds, different public authorities and different parts of
the education system. It was agreed that joint meetings should in principle be held once
a year so that the next joint meeting would be held in autumn 2011.
As Chair of the Working Group on qualifications frameworks, the Council of Europe is a
member of the EQF Advisory Group, established by the European Commission, and has
participated in two important working groups, on referencing criteria and on sectoral
qualifications. One of the outcomes is that the criteria for self certificating against the
QF-EHEA and referencing against the EQF-LLL are now nearly identical, as demonstrated
by the Maltese report referred to above.
The Irish authorities organized a major European conference on qualifications
frameworks, entitled “National Qualifications Frameworks and the European Overarching
Frameworks: Supporting Lifelong Learning in European Education and Training”, in Dublin
on April 15, 2010 addressing both overarching European frameworks2. The Hungarian
authorities will organize an EU Presidency Conference on qualifications frameworks in
Budapest on 25 – 26 May 2011 and the Council of Europe will be involved in this, in its
capacity as Chair of the EHEA working group.
GLOBAL DIMENSION
As is well known, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa were the “framework
pioneers” but Europe has contributed greatly to making qualifications frameworks an
important part of the international policy conversation, to the extent that the Europe
Training Foundation has now identified some 120 countries and territories that have
developed, are developing or are considering developing qualifications frameworks.
There are also a number of overarching frameworks in different parts of the world.
These developments make it imperative to include qualifications frameworks in the
continued discussions on international openness or the “global dimension” of the EHEA,
since it is important that qualifications frameworks in different parts of the world develop
in compatible ways. In this context, it is worth mentioning a recent exercise carried out
by the competent authorities of Ireland and New Zealand referencing the two national
frameworks against each other3, largely by using the QF-EHEA and EQF-LLL criteria.
REPORT FOR THE 2012 MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE
The Working Group will discuss a first draft of this report at its meeting planned for May
2011, end-on with the Hungarian Presidency conference referred to above, and will
submit a draft to the BFUG meeting in October 2011. It will nevertheless be useful to
have the BFUG’s comments to the tentative thrust of the report.
Contacts have been established with EURYDICE, which participated in the latest meeting
of the Working Group. It is important that countries not be asked to provide the same or
– even worse – similar but slightly different information twice. The state of development
All material from the conference, including the background paper and the conference report, may be found at
http://www.nqai.ie/QualificationsFrameworksConference2010.html
3
The report is available at http://www.nqai.ie/documents/nzqaandnqaiframeworks06.09.10.pdf
2
BFUG_HU_AD_24_9.6a
3
of national qualifications frameworks will be an important element in assessing the
overall implementation of the goals and policies of the European Higher Education Area.
It is therefore natural that this be included in the overall EURYDICE report on the
development of the EHEA. At the same time, qualifications frameworks are an area in
which national developments are in many cases rapid and where one might expect
further developments after the data of the EURYDICE report will have to be collected. It
was therefore agreed that as far as possible the EURYDICE report will use the data
gathered by the Council of Europe through the surveys conducted twice a year and that
countries will be given an opportunity to update the information concerning their
frameworks by late 2011.
The overview of the development of qualifications frameworks will therefore mainly be
found in the EURYDICE report. The report by the Working group on qualifications
frameworks will only provide a brief summary of this information and in addition point to
the most important developments after the EURYDICE data will have been gathered.
Needless to say, both EURYDICE and the Working Group/Council of Europe will rely on a
reliable and understandable information being provided by member countries. It is
therefore important that all countries respond to the survey in mid- and late 2011.
Since the main overview will be presented in the EURYDICE report, the report by the
Working Group can then focus on the main challenges and on proposing priorities in this
area for the 2012 – 2015 EHEA work program. The summary referred to above will
mainly serve as background for these proposals.
Without in any way anticipating on the draft report and the further discussion in the
working group, the following would seem to be among the main challenges:

While most countries are making good progress in developing their national
frameworks, a number of important challenges will remain. Many of them are
related to one of the overall challenges of the EHEA: as the initial structural
reforms are now fairly close to completion, emphasis will need to shift to the
implementation of these new structures and this is a steeper challenge.
Implementation is more demanding than developing new structures in terms of
resources and time, success is more difficult to verify and the effort required is
much broader since implementation will involve all institutions and the vast
majority of staff and students. In a nutshell, while developing national
qualifications frameworks is difficult enough, making them work in practice is an
even steeper challenge and one that will require continuous efforts at institutional,
national and European levels.

The development and implementation of learning outcomes is a central feature of
qualifications frameworks. While learning outcomes have come to be an
integrated part of the academic culture in some countries of the EHEA, it is still
seen as something dramatically new in many others. For a focus on learning
outcomes to be a central feature of the EHEA in a few years, a very considerable
effort is required. Again, while a part of this effort needs to focus on the
development, description and testing of learning outcomes, the steepest challenge
lies in making learning outcomes a feature of the daily lives of staff and students.
BFUG_HU_AD_24_9.6a
4
This will require a very substantial effort in which development work and the
training of trainers at European level will only play a relatively minor part. For
learning outcomes to become a widespread practice, training must be provided
and development work undertaken within each country and each institution.

Qualifications frameworks have important links to two other key areas of
structural reform: quality assurance and recognition. The way qualifications
frameworks and learning outcomes are developed and implemented will need to
remain – or become - an important element in quality assurance exercises, and it
is recalled that the stated agreement of the national quality assurance agency is
required as a part of the self certification exercise. Qualifications frameworks also
have the potential of simplifying the fair recognition of qualifications between
systems that each have developed frameworks, to a large extent by providing
readily identifiable and reliable information on several of the key elements that
constitute a qualification:
o quality
o level
o workload
o profile
o learning outcomes.

In this way, qualifications frameworks should play an important role in helping
define the “substantial differences” between qualifications that, in the terms of the
Council of Europe/UNESCO Recognition Convention, may constitute reasons for
not granting recognition or for granting only partial recognition. Again, however, a
major challenge will be to disseminate the knowledge and understanding being
developed in this area at European level to policy makers and practitioners in
competent national authorities and at higher education institutions.
In sum, qualifications frameworks have the potential of becoming an important
instrument to improve the learning experience within the EHEA but realizing this
potential will require continued efforts and the focus of this effort will need to shift
somewhat from European to national and local level. Needless to say, this shift will also
increase the challenges of ensuring a coordinated implementation effort within the EHEA,
so that national frameworks and institutional implementation be coherent and
compatible.
TERMS OF REFERENCE
The terms of reference for the Working Group were adopted by the BFUG in Stockholm in
September 2009, while the network of national correspondents has so far been conceived
of as an informal structure and has not had terms of reference. In a separate document,
minor modifications to the terms of reference of the working group are proposed to
reflect the current participation of CEDEFOP and EURYDICE in the group. Separately,
proposed terms of reference are also submitted for the network of correspondents.
Adopting these will underline the important role of the correspondents and put this
network on a more equal footing with the National Coordination Points of the EQF, with
whom cooperation is now developing.
BFUG_HU_AD_24_9.6a
5
ACTION
The BFUG is invited to:




Take note of this report;
Offer comments on the main outline for the report by the Working Group to the
Ministerial conference in 2012, including the relationship between this report and
the overall EURYDUICE report on the development of the EHEA;
Consider, with a view to their adoption, the proposed amendments to the terms of
reference of the Working Group on Qualifications Frameworks;
Consider, with a view to their adoption, the proposed terms of reference for the
Network of national correspondents on qualifications frameworks.
BFUG_HU_AD_24_9.6a
6
APPENDIX
Synthesis of the state development of national qualifications frameworks as of
September/October 2010
The third report is based on the answers received in September and October 2010, as
presented in Appendix 1. Several points should be directly mentioned:
 The number of answers is significantly lower that the two first consultations;
 It was more difficult to obtain the answers; the last one, after relaunching twice, was
received in mid-October.
From the answers as well as contacts taken, some hypotheses can be formulated:
 The QF development is perceived as part of the “Bologna package” and in some
countries there seem to be a certain fatigue towards reforms.
 In this framework, even for those dealing directly with QFs, it seems that it is not so
easy to perceive all elements of this development (for instance: change of paradigms
in terms of learning outcomes, role of HEIs)
 The political situation of the country seems to play a role in the development of its
QF: a new Minister does not necessarily follow up the work done by his/her
predecessor. This can lead to discontinuity in the decision-making process.
 The acceptance of the QF by the labour market, it capacity to be a useful tool for the
market itself is questioned.
 The international dimension is an important factor which supports the process and the
link with the recognition issue is made by several countries. The idea is that if QFs are
developed, it could be easier to promote the mobility of students and recognition of
qualifications.
In terms of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats, the following elements are
mentioned for each point. Clearly, depending of the national situation, some elements
can appear in different places. Please note that if the sentence is between “ ”, it means
that it is a direct quote from one of the answers.
Strengths:
 The involvement of the different stakeholders is a crucial element for the success of
the process, including the ENIC NARIC centre.
 The fact that learning outcomes is a concept already used by HEIs facilitates the
development of QFs.
 A clear understanding of the terminology used is important as a starting point. And
for the whole process.
 Within the QF-EHEA, the use of vocabulary and concepts (such as “knowledge”,
”skills”, “competences”) similar to the EQF LLL makes the linking between the HE and
the other levels easier.
 The support of international organizations, the sharing of experiences at international
level, the contribution of international experts are important factors to strength the
development of QF.
 A clear legal basis as well a clear political commitment are facilitators of the process.
 The development, from the beginning, of a web site of high quality is an interesting
tool for the development of QF.
BFUG_HU_AD_24_9.6a
7
Weaknesses:
 Political changes create discontinuity in the decision making regarding QF
development.
 The business sector is not always involved in the process and it is not necessarily
convinced of the relevance of the process. Employers do not always recognize the
qualification framework and often seem to prefer to use the old system criteria and
descriptors.
 For small countries, the development of QF clearly depends on the dialogue with
neighbouring countries.
 Development of QF is perceived as part of the Bologna reforms without a clear
understanding of the advantages of its development. The Bologna Process is
insufficiently known and understood by the different stakeholders and therefore they
do not understand the importance of developing a national QF.
 At national level, the number of experts in this field is often insufficient: it is difficult
to identify people with the competences needed to support the development.
 The challenge of terminology still exists for some countries and the methodology for
the development of QF is not always coherent.
 The lack of financial resources and of a legal basis are weaknesses of the whole
process.
 “The balance in an overarching framework between being overarching and general
and subject/concrete is difficult”.
 “The vagueness of the generic framework and the Dublin descriptors is criticized”.
 Some countries find it difficult to integrate the approaches to deal with the 2
overarching frameworks.
 The perception of the process by HEIs is not always positive and they can have the
feeling that they loose some of their traditional strengths without seeing clearly what
they gain instead. The QF development should not be perceived only in terms of
employability but rather should be developed taking into account all missions of
higher education. This can translate as resistance by the “old” universities.
 The comparability of “old” and “new” diplomas within the QF is not easy.
 Insufficient international cooperation and support.
Opportunities
 The development of QFs could contribute to defining policies for the development of
HE strategies. Strong involvement of HEIs is a very important element in this
framework.
 The development of QFs is a tool for better transparency of the whole HE system and
is linked to reflection on quality assurance.
 The support of students for the whole process, especially in terms of consequences of
QF development for mobility, is an important factor.
 The recognition of prior learning and of lifelong learning is perceived as good
opportunities by students.
 International support and cooperation are important, including the work done by the
European institutions, as well as their support, including financial support.
 Regional cooperation is very important (for instance South East Europe network or for
“small” countries which obligatory need to have strong dialog with neighbouring
countries).
 The increased involvement of stakeholders is an added value.
BFUG_HU_AD_24_9.6a
8

The development of QFs will reinforce the employability of graduates as the
employers will have a better understanding of their generic competences.
Threats:
 Politicians do not endorse the reforms and society can be tired of constant reforms.
The support for education and research can be reduced due to the economical crisis.
 The labour market does not sufficiently recognize the QF and its importance. The
dialogue with business sector is not easy.
 Different stakeholders can have different and contradictory views on QF.
 The process is not always easy to coordinate.
 The two overarching frameworks, with their different descriptors, make the process
more difficult and less transparent.
 Some HEIs resist the change of paradigms and refuse some of the principles of the
process (as description in terms of learning outcomes, student centered approach).
This point is mentioned by 5 countries.
 The development of the process can imply a certain bureaucratization.
 The lack of financial support makes the process more difficult.
It should be also be underlined that the self certification processes for the different
countries need to be coordinated and it will be important to have enough experts to be
able to deal with the certifications processes if too many are carried out at the same
time. This may be a real issue as we approach the deadline for self certification (and
referencing towards the EQF, where very many countries have indicated an intention to
reference in the course of 2011).
BFUG_HU_AD_24_9.6a
9
Appendix 1: State of answers for the three consultations
Country
First
consultation
Winter 2008
Second
consultation
Winter 2009
beginning
2010
ALBANIA
X
X
ANDORRA
X
X
ARMENIA
AUSTRIA
Third
consultation
Autumn
2010
NOTE
X
X
X
X
AZERBAIJAN
HAS NOT ANSWERED
ANY OF THE
CONSULTATIONS
BELGIUM
(FLEMISH
COMMUNITY)
X
X
BELGIUM
(FRENCH
COMMUNITY)
X
X
BOSNIA AND
HERZEGOVINA
X
X
BULGARIA
X
CROATIA
X
CYPRUS
X
CZECH REPUBLIC
X
X
DENMARK
X
X
SELF CERTIFIED
X
X
X
X
X
SAME ANSWER FOR THE
SECOND AND THE
THIRD CONSULTATION
SELF CERTIFIED
ESTONIA
X
FINLAND
X
X
X
X
FRANCE
X
X
X
GEORGIA
X
X
X
SAME ANSWER FOR THE
SECOND AND THE
THIRD CONSULTATION
GERMANY
X
X
SAME ANSWER FOR THE
SECOND AND THE
THIRD CONSULTATION
SELF CERTIFIED
GREECE
HOLY SEE
X
X
HUNGARY
X
X
X
X
ICELAND
X
X
IRELAND
X
X
BFUG_HU_AD_24_9.6a
X
SAME ANSWER FOR THE
10
SECOND AND THE
THIRD CONSULTATION
SELF CERTIFIED
ITALY
X
X
LATVIA
X
X
X
LIECHTENSTEIN
X
X
X
LITHUANIA
X
X
X
LUXEMBOURG
MALTA
X
MOLDOVA
X
X
SELF CERTIFIED
X
MONTENEGRO
X
X
NETHERLANDS
X
X
NORWAY
X
X
X
POLAND
X
X
X
SELF CERTIFIED
PORTUGAL
HAS NOT ANSWERED
ANY OF THE
CONSULTATIONS BUT
IT IS KNOWN FROM
OTHER SOURCES THAT
PORTUGAL IS NOW
PROCEEDING TO SELF
CERTIFICATION
ROMANIA
X
X
RUSSIAN
FEDERATION
X
X
SERBIA
X
SLOVAK
REPUBLIC
X
X
X
X
X
SLOVENIA
X
SPAIN
X
SWEDEN
X
X
X
SWITZERLAND
X
X
X
“THE FORMER
YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC
OF MACEDONIA”
X
TURKEY
X
X
X
UKRAINE
X
X
UNITED KINGDOM
(EWNI)
X
X
SELF CERTIFIED
X
X
SELF CERTIFIED
36
40
UNITED
KINGDOM/
SCOTLAND
TOTAL ANSWERS
27
NB: in bold, the names of the countries which have never answered
BFUG_HU_AD_24_9.6a
11
Appendix two: situation regarding the relation between QF EHEA and EQF LLL
Country
Joint
Process or
processes
in
dialogue
Separate
processes
ALBANIA
ANDORRA
Not
indicated or
no
information
NOTE
NB self certification
refers to the QF-EHEA;
referencing to the EQF
X
NOT A PARTY TO THE EQF
NOT A PARTY TO THE EQF
X
ARMENIA
NOT A PARTY TO THE EQF
AUSTRIA
X
AZERBAIJAN
X
BELGIUM
(FLEMISH
COMMUNITY)
( X)
BELGIUM
(FRENCH
COMMUNITY)
NOT A PARTY TO THE EQF
HE QF SELF CERTIFIED IN
2009
X
BOSNIA AND
HERZEGOVINA
X
BULGARIA
X
CROATIA
X
NOT A PARTY TO THE EQF
A JOINT SELF
CERTIFICATION/REFERENCIN
G PROCESS ABOUT TO BE
LAUNCHED
CYPRUS
X
CZECH REPUBLIC
X
DENMARK
X
ESTONIA
HE QF SELF CERTIFIED IN
2009
X
FINLAND
X
REFERENCING PROCESS
UNDER WAY
FRANCE
( X)
A PRELIMINARY
REFERENCING REPORT
SUBMITTED OCT
GEORGIA
X
GERMANY
NOT A PARTY TO THE EQF
X
GREECE
HE QF SELF CERTIFIED IN
2008
X
HOLY SEE
X
NOT A PARTY TO THE EQF
HUNGARY
X
ICELAND
X
IRELAND
X
SELF CERTIFIED 2006;
REFERENCED 2008
ITALY
X
LATVIA
X
LIECHTENSTEIN
X
BFUG_HU_AD_24_9.6a
2009
12
LITHUANIA
X
LUXEMBOURG
MALTA
X
X
JOINT SELF
CERTIFICATION/REFERENCIN
G REPORT SUBMITTED
MOLDOVA
X
MONTENEGRO
NOT A PARTY TO THE EQF
NETHERLANDS
NORWAY
2009
NOT A PARTY TO THE EQF
( X)
SELF CERTIFIED 2009
X
POLAND
X
PORTUGAL
X
REFERENCING PROCESS
UNDER WAY
ROMANIA
X
RUSSIAN
FEDERATION
X
SERBIA
SLOVAK
REPUBLIC
X
NOT A PARTY TO THE EQF
X
SLOVENIA
X
SPAIN
X
SWEDEN
X
SWITZERLAND
X
“THE FORMER
YUGOSLAV
REPUBLIC OF
MACEDONIA”
TURKEY
NOT A PARTY TO THE EQF
X
NOT A PARTY TO THE EQF
X
NOT A PARTY TO THE EQF
X
UKRAINE
UNITED KINGDOM
ENGLAND, WALES,
NORTHERN IRELAND
UNITED
NOT A PARTY TO THE EQF
KINGDOM
SCOTLAND
X
HE QF SELF CERTIFIED IN
2009; REFERENCING
REPORT SUBMITTED 2009
FOR ALL PARTS OF THE UK
X
HE QF SELF CERTIFIED IN
2006;
REFERENCING REPORT
2009 FOR ALL
PARTS OF THE UK
SUBMITTED
BFUG_HU_AD_24_9.6a
13