Detailed roadmap for the eqf referencing of the nqf in fyrom
Opinion on the EQF Referencing Report presented by the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (version of 08/01/2016)
Yüklə 10,31 Mb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- The interactions between NQF implementation and EQF referencing
- Key features of the organisation of the referencing process
- Qualifications in the NQF
- EQF referencing report
- Eduarda Castel-Branco 08/01/2015 Prof. Dr. Mile Dzelalija
- Opinion on the MQF Referencing Report to the EQF and Self-certification to the QF-EHEA
Opinion on the EQF Referencing Report presented by the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (version of 08/01/2016) Introduction Education and training, relevant qualifications, and innovation are recognised in the various national strategies as drivers for growth, better employment outcomes and social inclusion. High unemployment (notably youth unemployment) and mismatches (between available qualifications and demand in the labour market) are among the important challenges that the country needs to continue addressing. Synergy between relevant institutions and policies will remain a fundamental factor of success. The National Qualifications Framework (NQF) is one such catalyst for better-articulated dialogue across the qualifications system. The interactions between NQF implementation and EQF referencing Different user groups view the NQF as a platform and motivator supporting a renewed approach to reforms of the qualifications system. The NQF brings: i) governance based on systematic cooperation between education and employment stakeholders; ii) harmonised approach across sub-sectors of education and training to develop, describe and manage qualifications; iii) recognised space for diverse forms of learning – including non-formal and informal - in the system and in peoples’ lives; iv) recognised centrality of the learning outcomes approach. The NQF for LLL is young but is, gradually but with certainty, pacing forward. The NQF development process was long and intermediate achievements were at times in a state of lethargy - until end 2012. The reactivation of stakeholders’ consultation and dialogue in 2013 and the subsequent adoption of the legal basis for the NQF for LLL (in autumn 2013) were the turn of a new page. But many of most noticeable steps in making the NQF a reality can be associated with the start and acceleration of the EQF referencing process - in the period 2014-2015. EQF referencing means:
The discussions and consultations, in wider and smaller groups, organized for the EQF referencing process contributed much to better understanding of the content and requirements of the NQF legal basis, the role and meaning of the level descriptors, the new interpretation given to “qualification”, the complementarities for LLL between qualifications of formal and of non-formal contexts. Comments on critical aspects of the current definition of level descriptors were expressed, and the leading Ministry is aware of these issues. One of such issues concerns the definition of sub-levels: the official position is that sub-levels are indispensable for the time being, as means to ascertain stakeholders’ acceptance of the NQF structure. Sub-levels could be interpreted as a solution for a period of transition. This also means that reflection on the post-transition NQF structure and revised level descriptors needs to be foreseen in the roadmap for further implementation of the NQF. The numerous discussions on the results of the Inventory of qualifications and on the analysis of a sample of qualifications shed light into the “mysteries” of level descriptors, by making comparisons with learning outcomes of real qualifications and discussing the novelties of the concept of leveling. This systematization and analysis of qualifications (Inventory) shows the picture - with details, gaps and problems – and this practical information was used in addressing criteria 3 and 4 of EQF Referencing. Later on, in 2016-2017, the Inventory is likely to inspire policy makers and practitioners, to exploit deeper some of the materials and conclusions on critical features of qualifications – when the three large projects directed to education and training reforms (2 EU and 1 World Bank) will effectively start their operations. While the first complete version of the EQF referencing report is the output of an intensive 20-months process, involving efforts and commitment from several institutions, it is also a beginning and from many points of view, a valuable practice.
The European Training Foundation (ETF) provided advice, analysis, capacity building and support to networking and workshops throughout the process. The ETF team reviewed the various drafts of the report, by providing comments and suggestions. The EQF referencing roadmap was defined and agreed with the stakeholders in a starting workshop (May 2014). In the meantime the multi-stakeholder working group was announced by the Ministry of Education and Science, so that a good degree of synchronization was rapidly in place between national leadership and participation from one side, and the expertise contribution from ETF – from the other. The Ministry of Education and Science led the entire process and established a core group of four experienced staff members to draft the report. The core group eagerly interacted with the ETF team throughout the almost 2 years process, and actively participated in the many technical and capacity building meetings directly related to the report, as well as in other debates and workshops related with the Inventory of qualifications and the application of learning outcomes – also related with referencing. From the start of the process, the Inventory of qualifications was part of the approach proposed by ETF. The output of the Inventory is gathered in a simple database, containing synthetic information from a large documentary base, on all currently existing programmes / qualifications in the formal education system, as well as verified adult education programmes. Although initially received with some skepticism by public bodies, it proved to be very valued by all stakeholders later on. Early discomfort was eventually overcome, via discussions in technical workshops, joint review of the findings and in particular, by finding a viable solution to the identified issues – the small pilot initiative to describe VET-4 qualifications in learning outcomes. The report combines EQF referencing and self-certification (chapter 5 and 6). This unified approach had, from the start, full support by all stakeholders. Meetings supporting interactions between stakeholders from higher education with those from secondary education (general and VET) turned out very useful, in particular in sharing knowledge and experience on the application of learning outcomes. Unlike other countries, the higher education domain has larger experience as regards the design of programmes / qualifications using learning outcomes, and legislation is enforced in this respect. Secondary VET has enacted in 2013 some new programmes and qualifications based on learning outcomes, but for now these represent only a minority of the awarded qualifications in VET. One of the concerns discussed from the start regarded the need to improve the frequency of the country’s participation in meetings of the AG EQF. This aim was reached at the end of 2014. The international workshop in Skopje (October 2014), with participation of AG EQF members from Austria, Hungary, Montenegro), has contributed to this positive change. The EQF referencing process faced problems, in particular: i) organizational and capacity; ii) effective involvement of some important stakeholders. The members of the core group did not enjoy specific time allocation to deal with the new tasks and themes: the group coordinated the partial drafts for chapters from the relevant agencies and national experts, organized meetings for reviews and in the last few weeks 2015 focused entirely on the finalization and fine-tuning of the report. In parallel, the effective involvement of some of the members of the officially nominated working group was very weak – in particular the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, which hardly participated in the many workshops and technical meetings.
The text of the NQF is inclusive – provides for insertion of qualifications from primary to higher education, academic and professional, and from non-formal and informal pathways. The text of the NQF establishes two types of qualifications: i) education level type; ii) vocational type (could also be translated as “occupational” type, to avoid misunderstanding with secondary vocational qualifications). The discussions held during the referencing process with the core group with the aim to better understand the place of each type, and to identify real examples of “vocational type” qualifications showed that more discussion is necessary with stakeholders from the various sub-systems of education and training, notably with the adult education and non-formal learning sector. At the time of writing the inclusion of qualifications in the NQF followed somewhat different paths / logic of allocation to levels. Summarising:
The inclusion of the new sub-sector (verified non-formal programmes for vocational qualifications – in levels 2 to 4) may require more time for decision. The verification procedure requires that programmes are based on occupational standards, follow a common structure, and are described in learning outcomes. By their features these programmes can fit the type “vocational” (or “occupational”), above-mentioned. This sub-sector knows a visible development since 2012: many new programmes have been developed by chambers and private providers – in response to market demand. The Employment Service Agency is one of the main users (customers) of these programmes – for training and retraining of unemployed / job seekers, funded by the Operational Programme for active labour market policies. Table 39 is an attempt to summarise and link-up the response to three criteria – 3, 4 and 5. The structure of the table - by level and sub-level – attempts to show how this joined-up response influences decisions on the inclusion of qualifications in the NQF. This approach shows a number of open questions for further analysis and action (in the last column “Inclusion in the MQF”, notably at Level 4). Key issues:
EQF referencing report For a pedagogical purpose, the initial outline of the report contained references to Cedefop’s analysis of challenges and issues in referencing, presented by EQF referencing criterion. This attention drawn to Cedefop’s analysis from the start was reinforced through examples and discussions in the many workshops organized throughout the process. In this respect particular emphasis was given to observed weaknesses in meeting criteria 2, 3, 4 and 5. The core group used the findings and examples of several EQF Notes in the referencing process. The key strengths of this referencing report can be summarized as follows:
The description of the education and training system (Chapter 2), structured by sub-sectors, is valuable for the specific purposes of EQF Referencing, as well as for other aims, including as a baseline picture for the planned work on a new Lifelong Learning strategy. The information is organized in a format consistently used throughout each of the sub-sectors, making the chapter an easy-to-use reference. Reading the chapter is essential to understand the EQF referencing and self-certification chapters (5 and 6). To the essential question whether the referencing report conveys a real and tangible state-of-play or rather a roadmap for future actions and intentions – often discussed in EQF referencing sessions – our opinion can be summarized as follows:
The report contains only very sporadic references to links with labour market information and employment policies, which underestimates the importance of these domains as regards the qualifications system and framework. This weakness confirms the above-mentioned limited involvement in EQF referencing of the institutions in charge of employment and labour market policies. Next steps of NQF implementation need to take account of labour market information, anticipatory studies on demand for skills and results from tracer studies of graduates. Such information is being organized through the new Skills Observatory, under the umbrella of Ministry of Education and Science, but not mentioned in the referencing report. Eduarda Castel-Branco 08/01/2015 Prof. Dr. Mile Dzelalija - has been leading or participating as an expert in many international research and educational projects related to quality assurance in education, development and implementation of national qualifications frameworks, validation of non-formal and informal learning, recognition of foreign qualifications, joint study programmes, etc. Professor Dželalija has been responsible for the capacity buildings of national experts in various countries, development of methodological tools, theoretical base for NQFs implementation for various purposes, referencing and self-certifications to over-arching, and research analysis on impacts to the economy and society, and other relevant topics. He is a member or leader of different national and international bodies, EQF Advisory Group, ESCO Cross-sectoral Reference Group, management and advisory boards in Croatia and other countries. Opinion on the MQF Referencing Report to the EQF and Self-certification to the QF-EHEA Prof. Mile Dželalija, PhD The aim of the MQF referencing and self-certification report to the EQF and to the QF-EHEA is to verify the compatibility of the MQF with the EQF, and with the QF-EHEA. The report in many details presents the existing education and training system in the country and description of stakeholders’ involvement during the development of the MQF. Moreover, the report gives background of the fulfilment and response to the EQF referencing criteria (and to the QF-EHEA criteria and procedures) demonstrating that the MQF is compatible with the EQF, and to the QF-EHEA, with some needs for further development. It presents also challenges and next steps for further improvement of quality and relevance of qualifications system in the country, and deeper involvement of employers and other stakeholders more related to the labour market. The report is a comprehensive document with many details on the existing educational system, its quality assurance mechanisms, roles and responsibilities of main actors. Various examples and additional relevant documents in annexes in the report or on the websites give additional value and better view on the qualifications system and arrangements of the quality assurance mechanisms. The report clearly presents three development phases of the MQF:
Relevant stakeholders have been involved in a different ways in the referencing and self-certification processes, including higher education institutions, quality assurance bodies, employers, students, ministries, chambers, education and training centres, etc. Some of them have been deeper involved and some less. Employers and other stakeholders more linked to labour market should be deeper involved in next phases of the development and implementation of the MQF. Tables, illustrations and examples bring better understanding and, thus, the value of the report. Glossary of main concepts, bring more transparency and understanding of the qualifications system in the country. Methodology and procedures for qualifications levels have been well described. The eight levels and additional three sub-levels of the MQF cover the range of qualifications system in the country, from primary education to higher education. Each level is defined by level descriptors of learning outcomes, which are classified in three domains: knowledge and understanding, skills, and competence. Sub-levels, within the same level, have the same level descriptors for all domains, but have different requirements on credit value, representing the volume of qualifications. Thus, sublevels are related to the size of qualifications (number of credits). Sublevels are not related to the complexity of learning outcomes, which are usually in NQFs are presented by level descriptors. Referencing process of the MQF to the EQF has been guided by the Core Group under the Ministry of Education and Science, with the aim to ensure fulfilment of referencing and self-certification criteria and procedures. For the current time, the MQF is a reforming and communicative framework, giving a platform for better understanding interests of different stakeholders and facilitating implementation of learning outcomes, modernisation of quality assurance, validation of non-formal and informal learning, and other related concepts. The report presents the aim of the MQF, which includes step-by-step process of creating a coherent and comprehensive system of classification of all qualifications, independently on the way of achievements (formal, non-formal and informal). The Ministry of Education and Science is responsible for developing and implementing the MQF and for referencing and self-certificating it to the EQF and QF-EHEA. The report includes seven main chapters (Description of the National qualifications system; Referencing and self-certification processes; National Qualifications Framework; Response to the EQF referencing criteria and to QF-EHEA self-certification criteria and procedures; Brief description of validation of non-formal and informal learning; and Challenges and next steps. In addition there are chapters on Glossary; Acronyms; References and Annexes). The qualifications system has been described in details. The chapter is very well organised and structured. It includes description of:
All parts of the qualifications system are explained using the same structure of the text, giving information on:
As it is described in the report, formal education comprises of pre-school education (age between 0 and 6), primary education (3 times 3 years duration), secondary education (various programmes, gymnasium, vocational, art education, and education for students with special educational needs), post-secondary (specialized education and master exam), and higher education (with two profiles, and short and three cycles). The report shows many details and characteristics of the education system – general and specific elements of subsystems, including descriptions of quality assurance, learning outcomes implementation and issues, teacher qualifications, etc. Higher education is described as a system solely provided by autonomous institutions under public law, comprising of two profiles: academic and professional studies. Doctoral studies (qualifications at the eight level) are organised only as an academic strand at universities. The quality assurance of higher education is conducted through the Higher Education Accreditation and Evaluation Board. The quality assurance body for quality assurance in higher education is an associate member of the ENQA, and the roadmap has been prepared for a full membership in ENQA and EQAR. To become a member of the EQAR, which is crucial for the implementation of the Bologna Process, there is a need for further preparation of the Higher Education Accreditation and Evaluation Board according to the ESG, including its full independent work. Further, the report presents detailed phases during the design and implementation of the MQF. The consultation that has been undertaken in the process has been extensive, involving all key stakeholders and building ownership of the framework to ensure later better implementation. The work has been very extensive and detailed, from the decision, defining objectives and outcomes, organisation of the work, consultation with stakeholders up to the referencing and self-certification, and implementation. More intensive involvement of employers should happened within the next phases. Last couple of years, the work on development and implementation of the MQF has been extensively presented in the country and internationally, making the process transparent to all stakeholders and partners. Fulfilment of all EQF and QF-EHEA criteria and procedures has been presented in details:
Fulfilment of the QF-EHEA criteria and procedures has been also presented in a separate chapter. There are several challenges presented, such as: further harmonisation of existing legislations with the NQF Law, further capacity building, introduction of ECVET system, strengthening the quality assurance system, development of the Register of qualifications and validation of non-formal and informal learning. All those are well presented and planned for next steps of the development and implementation of the MQF As a concluding, the Referencing and self-certification report of the MQF is a comprehensive report. The report presents the existing education system in the country, including arrangements of quality assurance and learning outcomes implementation. Moreover, the report gives detailed and clear background of the fulfilment and response to the EQF and QF-EHEA criteria and procedures, demonstrating that the MQF is compatible with the EQF and QF-EHEA. As in some of other countries in the EU, further improvement of quality assurance system, according to common principles is planned, have been prepared and presented transparently in the report. Prof. Dr. Mile Dželalija (December 31, 2015) Yüklə 10,31 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|