The value of comparing qualifications frameworks for inclusion: A Ukrainian case study
While a universal system regarding qualifications, education and training does not exist within the European Union, member and non-member states can use the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) to compare qualifications, promote lifelong learning, foster transparency, and facilitate freedom of movement among nations. Indeed, citizens of EU Member States can live and work anywhere within the EU because their skills and qualifications are officially recognised by all Member States.
The EQF has been instrumental in bringing about this mutual recognition. The European Commission’s EQF Advisory Group oversees the referencing and comparison work of National Qualifications Frameworks (NQFs). When the EQF Recommendation was updated in 2017, the Council of the European Union asked the Commission and the Member States in the EQF Advisory Group (AG) to explore the [RC1] possibility of comparing third countries' national and regional qualifications frameworks with the EQF.
Work is currently underway to see how EQF-referenced countries can connect their qualification systems to countries outside the EQF AG. This EQF comparison exercise is in its pilot phase, currently looking at Ukraine and Cape Verde. A Regional Qualifications Framework (RQF) will also take part in the exercise: the Southern African Development Community. Hence, the methods used have broader applications.
It must be noted, however, that the purpose behind comparing qualifications frameworks is not to persuade NQFs to comply with the EQF, but, rather, to thoughtfully evaluate whether various aspects of both frameworks are comparable and whether they can be adequately developed and implemented for the exercise to be meaningful. Eleven core topics for comparison and dialogue have been identified[1].
Since Ukraine is a full member of the Bologna Process and has ratified the Lisbon Recognition Convention, its qualifications framework is modelled on the EQF in many ways. Nevertheless, Arjen Deij, Senior Human Capital Development expert at the ETF is keen to highlight the distinction between comparing and referencing qualifications.
“Comparing NQFs is not the same as referencing an NQF to the EQF. Referencing is about linking NQFs to the EQF, which also implies that the countries mention EQF levels on certificates and link their database of qualifications with those of the other countries in the EQF. Comparison is about establishing whether they are sufficiently comparable to ensure trust and transparency in the quality and the levels of the qualifications,” says Deij.
The (soon to be published) Comparative Analysis of the European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning and the Ukrainian National Qualifications Framework has been prepared with the help of the ETF. This report is the first of its kind following the 2017 EQF Recommendation.
“As well as redefining the role of the EQF AG, this exercise has illustrated the benefits of the NQF as an instrument for inclusion that can be deployed for Europe’s neighbouring regions and beyond,” affirms Deij.
[1] The full list of areas referenced or compared by the EQF AG is as follows: 1) Objectives of qualifications frameworks, 2) Scope of the frameworks, 3) Levels and level descriptors, 4) Learning outcome approach(es), 5) Validation of Non-Formal and Informal Learning (VNFIL)/Recognition of Prior Learning, 6) Quality assurance, 7) Recognition, 8) Governance arrangements, 9) Communication, visibility, transparency, access to information, 10) Referencing/ alignment processes, and 11) Transparency and quality assurance of the comparison process.
[RC1]The development of procedures is redundant as it is implied.