LEVEL DESCRIPTORS USED IN THE ETF PARTNER COUNTRIES

Level descriptors exist for most partner countries

There is a strong EQF influence beyond the EQF countries

This is clear from both the number of levels  & content of descriptors

Descriptors  generally go beyond EQF providing more detail

The number of levels vary but most countries have 8 levels

Where more than 8 levels exist there are historic reasons for these (except for Ukraine).

Five levels are used for vocational QFs and Seven to avoid empty levels

Customs Union Countries opt as well for sectoral QFS

For 23 of the 30 partner countries (>75%) we have level descriptors. This is therefore not any longer the main focus of our work on NQFs.

All partner countries apart from Algeria, Syria and Turkmenistan are planning, developing or have started implementing a NQF.

In all the countries except for Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Israel and Libya level descriptors have been developed.

These level descriptors are either part of concept papers that have been validated by national stakeholders or they have been legislated.

Legislation takes considerable time in some countries, and therefore countries that are using and implementing their NQF and the level descriptors such as Turkey or Serbia still do not have a final confirmation in the form of a law, although they already have new qualifications that have been referenced to these levels. In other countries like Albania and Ukraine, formal level descriptors exist but there are no qualifications referenced yet to them.

Legislated descriptors exist in Albania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan (sectoral framework), Kosovo, Lebanon, Moldova, Montenegro, Tunisia, Russian Federation and Ukraine

Validated concepts exist for Azerbaijan, Serbia, Belarus, Egypt, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Morocco, and Turkey.

Most of the  level descriptors in these concepts are not expected to change before they are put into law.

EQF has been very influential on the developments of NQFs in partner countries.

Most partner countries are developing an eight level qualifications framework for lifelong learning.

The few partner countries that not have demonstrated any interest in NQFs are the more internationally isolated countries.

Four countries that have expressed interest in NQF but have not developed level descriptors

NQFs were introduced in many countries with the Qualifications Framework of the European Higher Education Area (announced in Bergen in 2005).  But all partner countries part of Bologna Process, but not (initially) involved in EQF are not opting for NQFs for LLL rather than NQFs for HE, although in the case of Georgia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and Serbia the frameworks are still in the process of integrating into a larger NQF for lifelong learning

Some partner countries have become part of the EQF process (Turkey, Montenegro, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Serbia).

The “Bologna” partner countries are all countries in Eastern Europe and Western Balkans that are members of the Council of Europe: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, the Republic of Moldova, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine.

Kyrgyzstan, Kosovo and Belarus are not included in the Bologna Process but nevertheless follow Bologna and EQF developments. The same is true for many countries in the South Eastern Mediterranean.

The EQF is an attractive model that can help to explain how NQFs work. EQF can be a good starting point to transfer concepts, but needs to be contextualised and adapted to country contexts. ETF has often started working with countries on levels based on the outcomes of the main qualifications, but the EQF often offered a shortcut to national stakeholders from the difficult process of defining their own unique descriptors.

Levels vary between 5 and 14 levels, if we count the sublevels, but most countries have 8 levels.

The exceptions are:

Tunisia (7), Jordan (5/7), Kyrgyzstan (5/8), Ukraine (10), Russian Federation (9) Serbia (and Montenegro (8+3 sub-levels), Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (8+6 sub-levels)

Tunisia adopted its levels before the EQF to accommodate national qualifications.

Jordan has five levels in use that are inspired by ISCO.

Russia and Ukraine have adopted both a level above the 8th level of the EQF to accommodate their Doctor of Sciences degree (which is a precondition for full professorship).

Ukraine moreover has been looking critically at the new 8 ISCED levels of ISCED 2011 that has been influenced by the EQF, but is now a hybrid between a classification system of educational programmes based on input criteria and qualifications based on learning outcomes. Ukraine adopted the level 0 of ISCO for preschool education, in spite of very critical comments from international experts, including the ETF.

Georgia has 8 levels divided over vocational (5 levels) and higher education (3 levels) that are kept as separate subsystems

The former Yugoslav countries Croatia, Slovenia, Montenegro, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia   and Serbia (Except Bosnia and Herzegovina and  Kosovo) created sub-levels to accommodate legacy qualifications that are partially not any more delivered but still have an important role in the labour market (including for remuneration and pensions). The different qualifications at the sublevels are having different sizes and purposes. There are different numbers of sublevels between the countries. Sublevels are seen as a transitory arrangement. In the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia e.g. 6 sublevels were incorporated in the HE framework, but the NQF for Lifelong Learning adopted last year doesn’t include these anymore. Croatia has also pledged to eliminate its sublevels at a later stage.

Kyrgyzstan has developed a draft framework for Vocational Education and Training, while it has a functioning sectoral framework for Tourism.

In Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan and Armenia sectoral qualifications frameworks are established or under development that focus on specific economic sectors.

+  There  genuine interest for recognising lifelong learning, beyond well-established HE degrees; EQF instrumental in introducing a common language for the objectives of education and training

+/- EQF is strong model: Most countries adopt 8 level framework and descriptor domains of knowledge, skills and competences. The EQF is often providing an easy way out for a “common understanding”

!  EQF starts to be mentioned in arrangements for External Cooperation with third countries, not involved in EQF process

In the Soviet Union the tariff-based qualifications system, included a list of occupations, and classifiers of specialities for initial vocational education preparing for skilled worker professions, secondary specialised education preparing technicians, and higher education preparing specialists and engineers. While for academic degrees different degree levels (stepeny) were in use, for skilled worker occupations there were different ranks (razryady).

In many countries we can still find remnants of these systems and one of the key issues is whether the NQF can replace them, or will just be an additional classification system.