ࡱ> rtklmnopqM Pbjbj== &WWWc/l^ ^ ^ 6 @v v v  8 4 (H$$$(LHF fv $$v v $$4*v $v $> v v $ @nq  z.,^H6(6 v v v v  Irish Presidency Conference 8 March 2004 Towards 2010 - Common Themes and Approaches across Higher Education and Vocational Education and Training in Europe Background Research Paper Cynthia Deane and Elizabeth Watters February 2004 Contents Page Executive summary 3 Setting the context: The emergence of common themes in education and training policy and practice in Europe 8 2. Transparency 27 3. European credit transfer 48 4. Quality 64 5. Qualifications Frameworks 83 6. Conclusions 106 Annex Issues for discussion based on sections 1-6 109 References 116 Executive summary The European Union will be the worlds most competitive knowledge-based economy by 2010 In the Lisbon Declaration of March 2000, the Heads of State and Governments set out the strategic goal that the European Union (EU) should become the worlds most competitive knowledge-based economy by 2010. Education and training are considered to be key factors in achieving this goal. In order to develop, sustain and benefit from this evolving economic and social order, EU citizens need to acquire and update, on an ongoing basis, the requisite knowledge, competences and skills to become a world-class workforce. As part of its strategy the EU aims to make its education and training systems a world quality reference by 2010 and it has undertaken a commitment to provide access to new and enhanced learning opportunities throughout life for all of its citizens. A new political impetus has been given to actions being taken to achieve key education and training goals with the proposals made by the Commission in its Communication of November 2003. The Communication points to the need for greater integration of vocational education and training with higher education, and recommends that a European qualifications framework be established. This constitutes a starting point for the debate that is taking place during the Irish Presidency in the first half of 2004. Education and training in the EU The education and training landscape in the European Union has changed dramatically over the past four decades. The distinctions between traditionally segregated systems of general education (at primary and secondary levels), higher education and vocational training have begun to blur in response to changing social, economic and political realities. This means that education and training systems at all levels are now based on new learning philosophies, approaches and contexts, and must cater for new learner profiles and needs. The challenge for the Member States is to ensure coherence and articulation between different forms of provision at national level whilst maintaining their diversity and capacity to respond to diverse needs. Action at EU level aims to mirror this approach. The challenge increases in magnitude as the EU enlarges. Since 1992 EU education and vocational education training (VET) policies have been respectively based on the Treaty on European Union (Maastricht). This marked the entry of education for the first time into the Treaty, whereas vocational training was included in the social provisions of the Treaty of Rome (1957). EU policies respect the responsibility of Member States for the organisation of education and training systems and curricula and aim to complement and add value to national policies. Action at EU level in VET aims to improve the quality of VET at initial and continuing levels to facilitate integration and reintegration into the labour market, assist adaptation to industrial change and stimulate co-operation between providers and enterprises. Action at EU level in education aims to improve quality by encouraging co-operation between Member States and, if necessary, supporting and supplementing collective action. EU-level actions also support the exchange of information and examples of practice and transnational mobility opportunities for learners and their facilitators in relation to both education and training. Action at EU level to tackle common concerns Action at EU level to improve the coherence and compatibility of the Member States education and training policies, systems and provision concentrates on areas of common concern. The Member States together with the European Commission identify priority issues suitable for collaborative action and they co-operate on the development and application of approaches to address these issues. Collaboration and common approaches help to increase compatibility between EU systems. In preparation for the enlargement of the EU, acceding and candidate countries are participating in many of the current EU education and training initiatives. A number of other countries and stakeholders are also involved in co-operation and two processes, the Copenhagen process and the Bologna process (which are examined in this paper) stretch beyond the EU and its member states. Taking stock of progress As we approach the mid-point of the ten-year plan to achieve world-class standards in EU education and training systems, it is worthwhile to take stock of what has been achieved in relation to a number of the priority actions identified for development at European level. The National Qualifications Authority of Ireland is hosting a conference entitled Towards 2010: Common themes and approaches in European policy development across higher education and vocational education and training. The conference takes place in Dublin on 8 March 2004 during the Irish Presidency of the EU. The aim of the conference is to examine the European level approaches taken to address a number of common themes in higher education and VET. It will also identify good practices and commonalities of approach and arrive at conclusions related to whether joint action at European level across higher education and VET would increase efficiency and effectiveness and contribute to achieving the Lisbon goals. Research study The National Qualifications Authority of Ireland commissioned a research study to produce a background paper for the Conference. The brief for the research was to examine a number of important common themes in European policy development and higher education and vocational education and training, against the background of the changing political landscape that now supports greater integration of the two systems. In considering the common themes, it was hoped that parallel developments would inform each other of possible ways forward, using as a starting point the recommendations in the Commissions Communication of November 2003. It was also considered useful to compare and contrast the policy issues in each of the areas, and to identify the extent to which joint approaches have been taken in higher education and vocational education and training and the effectiveness of these approaches. The researchers found that the goal of promoting mobility of learners and workers throughout Europe has informed much recent policy development in education and training. Because mobility is closely linked to the way that learning and competences are recorded and valued in different countries, it was decided to focus on the area of qualifications, and in particular on policies and practices that facilitate the transfer of qualifications across national boundaries. The study focuses in particular on examining the themes of transparency, credit transfer, quality and frameworks of qualifications. It was considered valuable to bring together in a single study an analysis of developments in policy and practice that have been taking place separately within higher education and vocational education and training systems. This background paper presents the results of the study. The paper is based for the most part on analysis of documentary sources available at this point in time. It focuses exclusively on action at European level. The findings from the documentary research were validated by primary research carried out in key European institutions. The paper tracks the progress that is being made in achieving the Lisbon goals by looking through the lenses of the four selected themes: quality, transparency, credit transfer and qualifications frameworks. Firstly, EU developments in higher education and VET are examined as well as the wider European intergovernmental Bologna process in which EU Member States are involved. EU level policy is outlined, and the approaches to implementing policy are compared and contrasted. A mapping exercise of the theme-based initiatives, carried out in both the Bologna and Copenhagen processes, is presented and relationships between them discussed. Following on this initial analysis, the paper raises key questions for discussion in relation to each of the themes, with the purpose of generating debate at the conference. While this background paper places current developments in education and training in the context of forty years of policy-making and collaborative practices at EU level, it also takes account of broader Europe-wide initiatives in the area. It describes in summary some of the key outcomes and gathers together up-to-date information on emerging developments in relation to the selected themes. It attempts to identify common issues and approaches, raise awareness of tensions, pose questions about the nature of the strategies adopted and point out some of the implications of implementing emerging policies and models of practice at the national level. In looking at the common themes, it is intended firstly that the sharing of information and experiences will enable the parallel developments to inform each other of progress and of possible ways forward. Secondly, it is hoped that some commitment to integrated policy development and actions will emerge from the dynamic interaction and debate between key players, and that this will drive the implementation of new strategies in a focussed way. In this way, the Dublin conference offers an opportunity to make a real contribution to advancing progress on the Lisbon agenda, by bringing together policy makers and practitioners from higher education and vocational education and training across Europe and enabling them to engage in constructive dialogue. The themes explored in this paper will be discussed at the conference. There will also be an opportunity to consider emerging models of integrated education and training in Europe, which will be reported on separately by the European Commission. The conference report will present recommendations for follow-up action, with a special focus on joint actions on the themes of quality, credit, transparency and frameworks of qualifications. This study provides a foundation for more detailed research at national level, such as that which will be undertaken in 2004 to assess the contribution of VET systems in achieving the Lisbon goals. This research will take into account the efforts of Member States and will be presented at an EU Ministerial Conference on Strengthening European Co-operation in VET under the Dutch Presidency in December 2004. Acknowledgements The authors wish to acknowledge the co-operation of all who contributed to this research study. In particular thanks are due to colleagues in the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland, the European Commission, CEDEFOP, Government departments and social partners organisations in Ireland and to those who helped source documents and materials and provide up-to-date information related to the study. Any errors or omissions, however, are attributable to the authors. Setting the context: The emergence of common themes in education and training policy and practice in Europe 1.1 The European Union as a world quality reference for education and training The European Union has placed education and training at the heart of its social and economic policies. In parallel with its ambitious goal to become the worlds most dynamic knowledge-based economy, the EU aims to ensure the full development of all its citizens by providing them with equitable access to world-class education and training opportunities. In 2001 the EU embarked on an ambitious collaborative mission to improve the quality and effectiveness of each and every one of its education and training systems, facilitate the access of all citizens to education and training opportunities and open the systems to the wider world. In Barcelona, in March 2002, the EU Council of Ministers endorsed The detailed work programme on the follow-up of the objectives of education and training systems (later referred to as the work programme) to realise these common goals. The overarching aim of the work programme is to make EU education and training a world quality reference by 2010. Becoming a world quality reference implies that the EU Member States must set and attain common quality standards for education and training. The work programme is designed to facilitate this goal by engaging key stakeholders including policy-makers and providers, in enhanced co-operation processes and mechanisms. In adopting the work programme, EU Member States pledged their commitment to achieve its common objectives and targets, provide the resources to accelerate the proposed collaborative activities and engage in rigorous monitoring and evaluation processes. The work programme addresses the generic issues at the core of the EU mission for education and training. These include enhancing the quality and status of teaching; ensuring the relevance and responsiveness of provision in meeting individual, social and economic needs; improving access to and progression through systems; increasing investment, and making best use of resources. The work programme acts in synergy with, and complements, other current European initiatives in the area of education and training. These include actions that focus on specific themes related to the concept of lifelong learning, mobility, quality, facilitating innovation, and building up and managing a store of knowledge on education and training. Some of these initiatives support collaboration that focuses on specific aspects of education and training. For example, the Copenhagen process aims to increase the quality, relevance and effectiveness of vocational education and training across Europe. The Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci action programmes support co-operation in education and VET at the level of practice, which in turn facilitates mobility and innovation. Education and training are linked closely to EU social and employment policies, through the EU Employment Strategy, the European Social Fund (ESF), EU research and development policies and also to policies initiated by the Social Partners. In order to compare and contrast the quality of education and training within the EU with other regions in the world, co-operation on a broader international basis is required. This occurs in the context of the EU enlargement process. The EU and the member states participate in the wider European intergovernmental Bologna process for enhanced co-operation in higher education. The EU has entered into a range of bilateral arrangements, for example with Canada and the USA to facilitate co-operation in higher education and VET. EU Member States that are also members of the OECD participate in leading-edge initiatives that also allow comparative analyses to be made, for example in lifelong learning and adult education. The EU is also engaged in co-operation with non-EU countries in initiatives spearheaded by UNESCO and the Council of Europe. To set the context for current priorities for EU level collaborative action in education and training, it is important to review the goals, challenges and achievements of related action at EU level in this field over time. This will help to gauge the potential for success of the processes and mechanisms adopted and to assess the practicality of the timeframes and deadlines set to achieve targets. This section of the paper firstly considers some of the factors that contribute to the diversity of EU education and training systems. It outlines the nature and extent of EU policy making and co-operative actions to implement policies and identifies areas of convergence between education and training across the EU. It describes key stages of EU co-operation in education and training over the past forty years. Finally, it identifies the common themes that have begun to emerge in current policy and practice, with particular reference to those linked with transfer of qualifications. The later sections of the paper trace developments in European policies and practices related to the themes of transparency and recognition of qualifications, credit systems, quality assurance and the emergence of qualifications frameworks both at EU level and beyond. These themes are considered especially relevant in the context of the Joint Interim Report being presented to the European Council in Spring 2004, which will act as a point of departure for the next steps in achieving the 2010 goals for education and training. 1.2 Education and training systems in the EU: the challenge of diversity General education: primary and lower secondary levels For the most part, primary and lower secondary level state-regulated education throughout the EU shares many overt features, such as pupil and teacher profiles, levels, cycles, calendar and timetables, subject areas, examination types and qualifications. Over the last decade there has been a notable pattern of increasing the vocational orientation of upper secondary education either in a holistic way or by providing parallel programmes leading to the same final school certificate with a greater bias towards more academic or technical or vocational learning outcomes. More deeply concealed and difficult to analyse on a comparative basis are features such as how learning is valued in the respective societies; the educational philosophy and principles that underpin national systems; the culture of educational institutions; the learning approaches and methods adopted, and how quality is managed and assured. Beyond general education, as systems diverge into sub-systems, the differences that emerge between Member States become greater. The profiles and mandates of provider institutions appear to contribute significantly to this divergence. Higher education: provision and providers Higher education can be academically or vocationally orientated. Policy documents produced in the context of the Bologna process tend to differentiate between Universities and other higher education institutions. The latter may offer similar higher education provision as the universities but as institutions they may be less autonomous or may provide a narrower range of study disciplines than universities do. On the other hand, the European Commission in its Communication defines the term "universities" to mean universities and all other higher education institutions including, for example, the Fachhochschulen, the polytechnics and the Grandes Ecoles. Differences in levels of institutional autonomy and scope of provision can affect European developments in education and training as will be shown in later sections of this paper. Universities are autonomous and responsible legal, educational and social entities and they tend to share similarities throughout the EU and on a world-wide basis, in relation to the profile and status of the institution, the types of programmes and qualifications on offer and the nature of learning fostered. Universities tend to stand apart from State education systems and regulations. They tend to be largely self-regulating and measure their status on an international level. Other higher education institutions are more difficult to compare across frontiers. In some countries private and autonomous educational establishments dominate this sector, in others these institutions may be firmly regulated and subject to specific national/regional policies. The institutions and the programmes they offer can be subject to specific monitoring and evaluation by public authority and the qualifications they offer may be accredited or validated by external bodies. In general, higher education offered outside the traditional universities tends to be more vocationally orientated and provision may therefore straddle both the education and training systems. In some cases these institutions offer courses that complement or form part of the practical elements of apprenticeships. In some Member States it is becoming more common for programmes in these institutions to be delivered on a dual basis with periods of work practice in enterprises. These programmes require close co-operation between employers, the social partners and the institutions. Differences in governance, management and provision have an impact on the autonomy of these institutions and on external stakeholder involvement in their operations. These combined factors increase the possible degrees of diversity between higher education institutions and thereby increase the complexities of international co-operation. Vocational education and training Vocational education and training (VET) is generally closely linked to the economic life of the country and its purpose is to be directly responsive to the needs of employment. VET tends to be locally grounded and is expected to adapt to local economic trends. Employers and social partners are involved, to varying degrees, in the development of VET in matters such as governance, regulation, organisation, financing, standard setting, developing qualifications, competences and curriculum development as well as in the provision of learning. VET policies, stakeholders, provision and provider institutions can vary considerably from one country to another. The term VET covers the acquisition of initial vocational qualifications leading directly to employment, which is, for the most part, an integral part of a countrys education and training system. Continuing vocational training (CVT) may be considered an integral part of VET but the links with national systems tend to be much more tenuous. For the purpose of this paper CVT is considered part of VET. In some countries, VET is highly regulated with legally binding obligations on the state, industry and enterprises and social partners to share responsibility, controlled to a high degree by the state at central or regional level. In others, it is controlled in a decentralised way through public authorities. In some cases it may also be highly responsive to market forces. VET may be provided exclusively in schools or centres set up for that purpose or on a dual basis with enterprises as in apprenticeship schemes. As previously mentioned, VET is sometimes part of the mainstream provision offered in secondary and higher educational institutions or it can be offered in parallel with other forms of educational provision. Vocationally orientated skills and competences may also be acquired exclusively on-the-job in enterprises. VET programmes can differ considerably regarding curriculum, approaches, methods, expected learning outcomes and duration as well as the balance between theory and practice. Post secondary, further and adult education Many Member States make provision for programmes that prolong the duration of general education and help to prepare young people for the world of work. These programmes are also often designed to meet the needs of adults returning to education in order to gain basic qualifications or build on their existing ones. Whether this kind of provision is considered VET or higher education or forms a sub-system of its own varies from country to country and depends on the vocational orientation of programmes and qualifications on offer, the type of provider institution and funding arrangements. In addition, there is a tradition of adult education and community education in a number of countries, which sits alongside the other areas of education and training. The European Social Fund (ESF) has provided support for the post-secondary, further or adult education provision as well as other education and training initiatives outside mainstream provision. Many of the initiatives supported have a clear focus on the needs of less advantaged young people and adults. The ESF has contributed resources to establish new contexts for learning, including social economy enterprises, youth and Community workshops and practice firms (simulated training companies). By comparison with more traditional provision, these initiatives tend to be more experimental and experiential, less bound by formal curricula, delivered by non-traditional facilitators of learning and of shorter duration. They may also lead to certification starting at a foundation level. Education and training that is provided in less formal contexts tends to cover the full range of non-formal and informal learning activities and informal learning activities . These newer forms of education and training provision aim to facilitate a smooth transition and provide bridges from general education and non-formal and informal learning contexts to the world of work and to other forms of education and training provision. They tend to combine pedagogies generally associated with general education, higher education and VET. In this way, they move from approaches that are familiar to the learner to those that increase the autonomy of the learner, with an emphasis on experiential learning. Amalgamating provision along these lines blurs the distinctions between education and training and helps to progress the concept of a continuum of lifelong learning. On the other hand the nature of provider institutions and learning facilitators can be quite diverse and the links between the more formal and the less formal institutions within this part of the education and training system are not always well defined or functioning. These differences are exacerbated when attempts are made to compare like with like throughout the EU. The challenge for the EU and the Member States is to maintain consistent levels of high quality education and training provision in tandem with its policy to make learning opportunities available on a lifelong and life-wide basis. This requires an easing of the tensions that can be observed in current policy and practice, including, for example increasing access and improving quality maintaining positive diversity and ensuring coherency, flexibility and stability state regulation and institutional autonomy meeting individual needs while responding to those of society and the economy. Forty years of EU co-operation in education and training Co-operation in policy-making and practice In the Treaty of Rome 1957, which established the precursor to the EU of the present day, provision was made for a common vocational training policy. From the outset vocational training was closely linked to employment policies and therefore considered an area for co-operation, unlike education, which was considered the preserve of the Member State. Forty years of collaboration in vocational training has helped to increase the transparency of policies, systems and practices within the EU, as will be further discussed in the next section of the paper. However, given the diversity of vocational training within and across EU Member States, its responsiveness to the changing nature of job and skills needs and the fact that every decade new Member States have joined the EU, the goal of achieving transparency is still on the agenda. Two main strands of EU co-operation have developed, one at the level of policy and decision-making and the other at the implementation level. Shaping EU policy involves knowing about and accommodating differences in national realities. The European Commission and its agencies, Government departments in the EU Member States and EU social partner representative bodies have built up a store of knowledge and know-how with regard to EU Member States vocational training policies, systems and practices. Committees provide a forum for debate, exchange and decision-making. Participating government officials are at the interface of EU and national policy developments, thereby increasing the potential for consistency and coherence between them. The contribution of the social partners to the process has constantly been strengthened, especially since the formalisation of the social dialogue at EU level in the mid-1980s. At the implementation level, key actors in training and education collaborate transnationally to develop and evaluate innovative learning processes, practices, services and products with a special emphasis on promoting transnational educational mobility. At the level of implementing EU policy, the Commission supports a range of agencies and networks, which operate at European and national levels. These agencies and networks carry out research and provide technical assistance and expertise to support EU training and education initiatives and programmes. They also act as conduits between policy and practice, by assisting the processes of transferring and adapting policies and they inform the policy-making process through the identification of needs and innovation. Facilitators of learning and learners themselves have contributed to developments at EU level through their active participation in transnational partnerships and pilot and mobility projects. The main outcomes of forty years of co-operation are five-fold. Firstly, as a result of implementing the acquis communautaire, which place obligations on Member States, policies and practices throughout the EU share many common characteristics and goals. Secondly, European level decision-making is considered an important reference point for goal setting at Member State level. Thirdly, there is a solid foundation for increasingly more efficient and effective EU action due to the existence of expert agencies and a critical mass of people or communities of practice experienced in collaborating transnationally. Fourthly, there is an enhanced climate of trust and understanding amongst key actors. Finally, the practical measures supported by EU initiatives continue to introduce experimentation and help to spread innovations that are considered to enhance the relevance and quality of national systems and practices. The development in co-operation over the past forty years can be broadly seen as having happened in three stages, while the major theme that dominated collective action over this period was mobility. The emergence of a common policy for vocational training: 1960s and 1970s The framework for the common vocational training policy of the Treaty of Rome was established in a legally binding Decision in 1963. The Advisory Committee on Vocational Training, a tripartite body was set up in December 1963 to assist with policy development and implementation. The principle of subsidiarity was laid down as the first of the ten principles covered by the legal instruments. The other principles included: guaranteeing vocational training for all developing more broad-based curricula to continue the general education of the individual improving access and progression pathways enhancing the relevance of vocational training in relation to economic demands promoting geographical and occupational mobility providing career information and advice facilitating the exchange of knowledge and know-how. The scope of the policies affecting the learning process and the degree of co-operation at the Community level has intensified over time. In the 1960s and 1970s co-operation efforts concentrated on the exchange of information and experience and attempts to bring about greater convergence in terms of curricula and qualifications. A number of Council Directives were adopted on the mutual recognition of formal qualifications in a range of occupational sectors. Council Resolutions adopted in the 1970s focussed on reinforcing links between general education and vocational training and the world of work, thereby aiming to facilitate the transition for young people, particularly those who were less advantaged, to adult and working life. In 1975 a Council Regulation established CEDEFOP, which has played an important role in supporting action at EU level aimed at improving the quality of VET. Meeting the challenges of rising unemployment: 1980s The importance of EU co-operation increased in the 1980s as the structure of labour markets began to change, resulting in high levels of unemployment, which particularly affected young people. The Council Resolution of July 1983 updated the 1963 common policy framework in order to strengthen its implementation. The Resolution stressed the role of vocational training as an important social and employment policy instrument with a special emphasis on preparing young people for working life and promoting equal opportunities. The European Social Fund (ESF) bolstered the development of vocational training in the Member States as a tool to combat unemployment. The ESF supported Member States initiatives for the integration of young people into working life, many of which involved educational institutions and/or their teaching staff, thus contributing to a shift in national educational policies to cater more directly for the vocational needs of young people. Meanwhile significant shifts in economic life were beginning to emerge largely due to the availability of new technologies, which were affecting the nature of the knowledge, skills and competences required by the workforce. In 1989 the Commission established its Task Force for Human Resources, prior to which the EU had adopted a range of Action Programmes, including Petra (1987) for initial vocational training and Comett (1986) and Erasmus (1987) for higher education. The action programme for continuing vocational training, Force, was established in 1990. These Programmes provided possibilities for providers of vocational training and higher education to collaborate on projects in the context of multinational partnerships. Many also facilitated mobility opportunities for learners and their facilitators and they were designed to link education and training more closely with enterprises and the world of work. A new policy focus for VET and higher education: 1990s The 1990s set the scene for significant changes in Community practices related to education and training. In the Treaty on European Union (Maastricht, 1992), the Member States made revisions to the Rome Treaty resulting in the formal separation of education from vocational training, with each given its own legal base. This marked the entry of education for the first time into the Treaty. The Gravier case in 1985 had caused considerable concern over the extent of EU competence in the areas of education and training. In this case, the European Court of Justice decided that higher education, for the most part, came under the remit of the common vocational training policy because education, which prepares for a particular profession, trade or employment, is vocational training, and in general, university education fulfils these conditions. The interesting thing about this decision in the context of the present study is that it provided a common purpose for VET and higher education. In the 1992 Treaty the common vocational training policy was replaced by a Community vocational training policy. Within the Commission, a newly created Directorate General for Education, Training and Youth replaced the Task Force for Human Resources that had been set up in 1989. Planning for the expansion of the EU had begun, with significant investment in the modernisation of education and training in the pre-accession countries. Member States were already taking measures to reform their own education and training systems for both social and economic reasons. The 1993 White paper on Growth, competitiveness, employment- the challenges and ways forward into the 21st century indicated that throughout the EU education and training systems appeared to share certain weaknesses. These included the rigidity of institutions and practices the under-utilisation of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in learning contexts and processes the growing gap between the qualifications on offer and the needs of employers the disaffection of many young people with the learning process and a consequent growth in early school leaving a lack of experience required to support, accommodate and validate learning occurring outside the formal system an ageing teaching workforce. By the end of the 1990s vocational training was considered to be a central element of the EUs European Employment Strategy (EES). This meant that the Directorate General for Employment, Industrial Relations and Social Affairs played an increasingly significant role in the development of EU vocational training policies. The implementation of the Employment and Adapt Initiatives also provided opportunities for transnational co-operation in the field of VET. A high-level Task Force on skills and mobility was established in June 2001. It comprised European business leaders and top trades unions, labour market, public policy and education experts. The Task Force identified the main drivers and characteristics of the new European labour market and identified barriers to developments. It recommended that action be taken to improve information on and the transparency of European job opportunities, geographic and occupational mobility and skills development. The Commissions Action Plan for Skills and Mobility (COM (2002) 72) builds on the work of the Task Force. Promoting mobility It can be seen from the above brief account of EU policy development in education and training since the Treaty of Rome that a major driver of policy was the desire to promote mobility of workers. Linked to this were a number of actions and initiatives aimed not only at facilitating occupational mobility, but also educational mobility. Transnational occupational mobility For over forty years the Community has supported initiatives to promote transnational occupational mobility. In the Council Decision of April 1963 provision was made for standardised descriptions of the training required for specific occupations, on the basis of which harmonisation of the standards required for success in final examinations should be sought with a view to the mutual recognition of certificates. This resulted in numerous Council Directives on the mutual recognition of qualifications for specific professions and vocational occupations giving the holders of such qualifications the right to work in another Member State. In the 1970s the goal of harmonisation was replaced by the goal of approximation of standards. In the Council Decision of 1985 on the comparability of vocational training qualifications a five-level structure was set out as a point of reference to identify the respective levels of qualifications achieved in different Member States. The outcomes of this are described in the section on transparency below. Council directives adopted in 1988 and 1992 set out a general system for the recognition of higher education qualifications awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years duration. By the 1990s the debate moved towards improving the transparency of qualifications, which was considered more in keeping with the principle of subsidiarity. Policy goals also shifted towards supporting initiatives that facilitated greater transparency in Community systems as a means to make informed decision-on the quality of qualifications. The Community supported research, pilot projects, exchanges of professional staff and study visits that were geared towards increasing the transparency of education and training systems, programmes and qualifications. These activities served to build trust from the provider level upwards. With this change in focus, new mechanisms were developed at EU level to support the less formalised recognition of qualifications to complement the formal recognition of regulated professions sanctioned by policy Directives. These included the development of tools such as certificate and diploma supplements and support services including EURES, NARIC and the national resource centres for vocational guidance, which are dealt with in more detail in the next section of the paper. Transnational educational mobility Transnational mobility in VET and higher education has played a significant role in increasing the transparency of these two sub-systems. However, recognition of cross-frontier study and work-linked placements has always been problematic. This issue has challenged the success of EU supported initiatives since the first transnational mobility scheme in the mid-1960s, the Young Workers Exchange Programme. The EU Petra action programme (1987-1994) attempted to confront this issue by including a compulsory principle that vocational training or work experience placements in another Member State must lead to a certificate and form a recognised part of the young person's training course. However achieving this in practice appeared to be problematic because national vocational training systems and programmes were not designed to cater for geographical mobility and the small number of young people availing of mobility opportunities did not warrant the necessary adaptations. In the experience of many practitioners nevertheless, these vocationally orientated transnational placements provided new learning contexts that challenged the learner to adapt and respond to new relationships and practices, be more conscious of and active in the learning process and better able to assess and be articulate about self-progress. National reports on the relevant action programmes suggest that these transnational learning opportunities enhanced learners personal, social and communicative competences and their technical skills improved, often through experiential learning as many of these learners had little competence in the foreign language of the host country. Both types of learning outcomes seem to have proved difficult to assess and as a result, for the most part, certificates tended to be mere records of attendance rather than a record of learning outcomes. Within higher education the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) was introduced in 1989 to support student mobility in the EU Erasmus Programme. Under this programme, universities and other higher education institutions, generally on a bilateral basis, agree on a study programme, based on notional time and workload, for the foreign learners and a credit is awarded on completion of the study programme based on an assessment of learning outcomes. ECTS will be examined in more detail in the section on credit below. Overall, relatively small numbers of learners have participated in transnational study and work placement projects. However, it appears that such projects have had a greater effect than the numbers involved would suggest. Teachers and trainers have worked in partnership to prepare and implement exchange programmes thereby developing their own skills. Systems and programmes have generally become more transparent through familiarity and comparative analysis at first hand. Accommodating foreign learners has raised questions related to the nature, comparative relevance, quality, effectiveness and flexibility of education and training provision. The experience of the projects also highlighted the need to recognise and validate learning acquired in different national contexts. In addition these projects have played an important role in introducing a European dimension into the learning process by creating a need for general knowledge about the EU, as well as languages and cross-cultural learning. Lifelong learning: a new strategic vision for education and training In the mid 1990s there was a revival of the concept of a continuum of lifelong learning, first mooted in the 1970s, and the EU designated 1996 as the European Year of Lifelong Learning. Despite separate legal bases for education and vocational training in the EU Treaty, by this stage throughout the EU distinctions between parts of the education and VET systems were becoming more blurred. There was greater integration between general and vocational curricula and provision and increased bridging between education and VET pathways. In addition, there were emerging approaches to training and competences at sectoral level, for example in the information and communications technology sector. The EU definition of lifelong learning covers learning from pre-school age to post-retirement and includes formal, non-formal and informal learning. It encompasses all activities in life that improve knowledge, skills and competences, regardless of where and how they are acquired. This definition challenges the traditional mindset that equates learning with the formal acquisition of knowledge and skills within the formal education and training system. The concept of lifelong learning reflects ideals related to the fundamental rights of the individual; the pursuit of personal fulfilment; the inclusion and engagement of the individual in the ongoing development of society, and access to gainful employment. The concept of lifelong learning places the focus on the individual learner rather than learning systems and institutions. This challenges the traditional boundaries within and between different levels of education and training. It also challenges the principles underlying the development, packaging, delivery and evaluation of knowledge and know-how, the nature of institutions, the teaching and learning processes and how learning is valued. The focus on lifelong learning began to influence systemic reform processes, mainly due to its relevance to the changing profile and needs of learners. It also gave rise to the emergence of new educational sub-sectors at the interfaces between basic education and vocational education and training and between higher education and vocational education and training. This was accompanied by a growing trend to recognise learning taking place in less formalised environments. This created new challenges for how learning is assessed and validated and by whom. It also increased the need for improved learner support mechanisms, including the provision of information about learning opportunities and guidance and counselling to assist learners to make suitable choices. This issue is taken up in section on the future objectives work programme below. Information and communication technologies may make a significant contribution to the change process in the future, with the possibilities they offer for learning, which is less restricted by time and location, easier to keep up to date and more tailored to individual needs. EU Member States in the late 1990s recognised the necessity to develop and support the principles of lifelong learning and began the process of introducing the necessary reforms to help make it a reality. 2000-2010: Implementing strategies for increased and enhanced European co-operation in education and training By the beginning of the new millennium, the momentum for enhanced European co-operation in education and training increased as economic conditions inspired the setting of the Lisbon goals and the date of accession of ten new Member States approached. At the same time, as shown above, a critical mass of key actors at all levels in the fields of education and training throughout the EU and in the pre-accession countries had begun to acquire the requisite knowledge and capacities necessary to take European co-operation to a new and more intensive level. Member States committed themselves to strengthen their education and training systems from two different perspectives: through national policy and systemic reforms and through enhanced co-operation at EU level, both responding to common themes identified in relation to achieving the Lisbon (2000) and Barcelona (2002) goals. The implementation of the EUs work programme since 2001 employs the Open Method of Co-ordination, which is a decentralised approach using multiple forms of partnerships to spread effective practices and assist Member States to develop their own policies whilst achieving greater convergence towards EU goals. Over the following twelve months, eight thematic working groups were established. These groups were intended to take forward implementation of the objectives, provide a European dimension to the action taken in the participating countries and facilitate the pooling of experience and expertise. Such an approach, designed to have a direct effect on national education as well as VET systems, is a new departure for the EU. The Copenhagen Declaration (November 2002), and the Council Resolution on the promotion of enhanced European co-operation in vocational education and training (November 2002), aim to create a shared vision of how VET in Europe needs to be adapted and improved, if the EU goals are to be achieved. The Copenhagen process mirrors initiatives under way within the context of the inter-governmental Bologna process, which established on a wider European basis a new phase of enhanced co-operation in higher education that had begun with the Sorbonne Declaration in 1998. An important motivation for the Bologna and Copenhagen processes was to ensure that Europe would have a highly skilled and mobile workforce. This meant that there was an urgent need for more highly focussed action related to the transparency and recognition of qualifications, credit systems and quality assurance. Goals needed to be achieved at both national and European levels. New priorities were set for the EU Programmes, Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci, to ensure greater coherence between them and the Bologna and Copenhagen processes and the goals of lifelong learning. Meanwhile the concept of lifelong learning, which acts as a bridge between national and European approaches, was undergoing further development at EU level. The Commission launched a consultation process on lifelong learning, which led to the Communication Making a European area of lifelong learning a reality (November 2001), and the Council Resolution on lifelong learning (June 2002). Within the Social Dialogue, social partners at European level agreed on A framework of actions for the lifelong development of competences and qualifications (February 2002). With a central focus on the mobility of learners, the main policy initiatives that were agreed in the EU were the Action Plan on Mobility (December 2000), the Recommendation of the European Parliament and the Council on Mobility (July 2001) and the Council Resolution on Skills and Mobility (June 2002). In 2002 a guideline for lifelong learning was included in the guidelines for Member States employment policies. This called on Member States to implement coherent and comprehensive strategies and set targets, emphasising the need to improve the quality and efficiency of education and training systems, and to improve public and private investment in human resources. Common themes in VET and higher education It can be seen from the above examination of policy and practice over the past four decades that common themes in VET and higher education have emerged at policy, systemic, provider and programme levels, and at both national and EU levels. Common themes range from the abstract (for example quality, access, progression, equity, partnership, networking), to the practical (for example the integration of new learning approaches, methods and tools, increasing the relevance of programmes, effective guidance and information services and validating all types of learning). The development of these themes can all benefit from international co-operation, which provides stimulation for change and assists in the spreading of innovation. One overarching theme that runs through policy and practice in both VET and higher education, however, is that of mobility, related to the goal of having a skilled and mobile European workforce. Despite forty years of policy and action at Community level, a major remaining obstacle to mobility is the lack of a coherent and simple system for the transfer and recognition of qualifications across national boundaries. This study focuses on four common themes that have direct relevance for the recognition of qualifications in VET and higher education: transparency, credit transfer, quality, and frameworks of qualifications. These themes respond directly to the EU goal of establishing a European area of education and training. The recognition of qualifications is based on the transparency and quality of the underlying education, training and qualifications systems and frameworks, which are continually changing and becoming increasingly more complex. Transnational recognition also requires that effective systems for credit transfer be put in place. In addition, there is a growing body of opinion that qualifications frameworks can play an important part in facilitating recognition. Although these themes for EU co-operation have emerged from the EU political priority of increasing geographical mobility, they are also important for making lifelong learning a reality, for the reform of national education and training systems, and for economic competitiveness. Achieving the goals set for mobility requires Member States to work in close co-operation with each other at all levels. They need to address, at both national and Community levels, many fundamental issues such as Purpose and understanding of VET and higher education the profile of providers and the nature of provision associated with VET and higher education achieving coherence in qualifications systems and frameworks how to provide for the education and training needs of emerging occupations ensuring the continued relevance of education and training to individual citizens, society and the economy defining and updating occupational competences the policy tensions described earlier between for example, quality and access and flexibility and stability. To address these issues effectively, more widespread and more strategically planned EU level collaboration involving states, institutions and stakeholders is crucial. European co-operation on processes and procedures that aim to increase the transparency and recognition of qualifications must add value to, and complement existing related national/regional initiatives if they are to have an effect on systems. The remaining sections of this paper discuss the four selected common themes against the background of proposals for the future integration of VET and higher education, as put forward in the Communication from the Commission to the Council in November 2003. Among the measures envisaged in the Communication are the proposed single framework for transparency of qualifications, EUROPASS, and the proposed overarching European Qualifications Framework. The Joint Interim Report on Education and Training 2010, which is to be presented to the Education Council on 26 February 2004 provides a starting point for discussion on these themes at the Dublin conference. At the end of each section of this paper, a number of issues are suggested for discussion at the conference. Issues for discussion How can the urgency at European level to make more progress towards achieving the 2010 goals be reconciled with the needs of national/regional systems and providers to take the time they need to implement the necessary reforms? Are the current levels of mutual trust in the quality of EU systems, provision and qualifications high enough to achieve the 2010 goals? Are measures to facilitate mutual trust across pre-accession countries and between them and EU countries effective enough? How effective is it to address qualifications issues within a number of different European-level initiatives? How effectively are the Member States and the Commission ensuring synergy and complementarity between the different initiatives that have a direct impact on qualifications? How can the different co-operation processes and procedures be measured and evaluated in order to determine which practices are the most efficient and effective? How effective is the Open Method of Co-ordination in achieving progress with regard to the common goals? How is this approach being monitored and evaluated? What practices could be adopted to ensure that knowledge on VET and higher education developments is reflected in national reporting procedures related to the Lisbon goals? Should the emerging common European references and principles (related to the conference themes) that have been developed within the different initiatives be synchronised and evaluated prior to implementation by states? What challenges need to be addressed prior to the proposed introduction of a European reference framework for qualifications in vocational education and training and higher education? Is there a danger that such a framework might undermine national pragmatism and flexibility in relation to recognising qualifications? Transparency 2.1 Context As shown in the previous section, the promotion of mobility of both learners and workers between countries and regions, sectors and companies, is a central policy objective in the drive towards the Lisbon goal of making Europe the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010. The free movement of labour is a key principle enshrined in Community policy since the Treaty of Rome in 1957 and restated on many occasions since then. An open labour market is seen as a very important enabling condition of the single market. The influence of globalisation and the establishment of multinational corporations and conglomerates have led to increasing contacts between companies and countries and a consequent demand for easy movement of skilled workers. A number of important recent policy instruments focus on mobility, including the Action Plan on Mobility (December 2000), the Recommendation of the European Parliament and the Council on Mobility (July 2001) and Council Resolution on Skills and Mobility (June 2002). In the social partners Framework of Actions for the Lifelong Development of Competences and Qualifications (February 2002), transparency and transferability of qualifications are seen as essential to facilitate geographical and occupational mobility and to increase the efficiency of labour markets. From 1957 to 1999, three main strategies were adopted at Community level to remove one of the main obstacles to mobility, the problem of transferring qualifications from one country to another. This section begins by outlining these three strategies, which focussed respectively on recognition, comparability and transparency of qualifications. It then proceeds to describe recent Community action on transparency and recognition of qualifications at both VET and higher education levels. The gradual convergence of approaches and policies is noted, and in particular the proposed Europass single framework for transparency of qualifications is described, and issues about its implementation are discussed. Some of the main tensions that are observed between the approaches to transparency in VET and in higher education are highlighted, and finally questions are posed which might form the basis for discussion at the conference in Dublin on 8 March 2004. 2.2 Removing obstacles to mobility: three strategies Recognition of qualifications In attempting to promote workforce mobility, the first strategy adopted at Community level was linked to the recognition of qualifications for certain occupations, which resulted in the adoption of a series of sectoral and general directives between 1964 and 1999. The sectoral directives were used as a way to establish minimum standards for the duration and content of training in the regulated professions, for example doctors, nurses and architects. General directives applied also to professions that were regulated in some, but not all, Member States. This approach facilitated mobility for only a small proportion of the workforce, however, and it was found that the major deficit was in the area of the transnational recognition of qualifications in the non-regulated professions. It was often remarked that it was easier for surgeons to have their qualifications recognised than it was for motor mechanics or construction workers. It is important to note that a proposal is currently being discussed by the European Parliament to replace existing directives with a new directive, which will simplify and rationalise the recognition of qualifications in the regulated professions. One of the key proposals is the introduction of professional platforms where sectors can agree on a voluntary basis on common standards, ensuring the relevance and updating of qualifications. It is expected to reach agreement on the directive in the Parliament by September 2004. However, given that there is a huge diversity of qualifications and competences in the non-regulated professions, the issue of recognition cannot be completely solved by legal tools such as the directives. In addition, since the proportion of non-regulated professions is growing, it is increasingly recognised that the directives have a limited impact, and from a citizens point of view they have to be supplemented by additional instruments for recognition of qualifications. Comparability of qualifications As the directives were seen to have limited application, the next strategy was to set up a system for comparing the qualifications of skilled workers who were not covered by the general and sectoral recognition directives. This was the aim of the 1985 Council decision (85/368/EEC) on comparability of qualifications. The idea was to create a common format making it easier to compare the different occupations across national boundaries. From 1985 onwards, more than 200 occupations in 19 sectors were compared, in an extensive project directed by CEDEFOP. The work undertaken was deemed useful in improving mutual understanding of qualifications systems and it created awareness of the need to integrate the Community dimension in qualifications. However, the procedure was considered too complex because of the detailed analytical work required and because of the need for unanimity in decision-making. In the context of rapidly changing occupations, it was not considered feasible to devise a system of descriptors that would need constant updating. The European five-level occupational framework that was used as the main basis of this work was not very well known or widely used at national level, and the work ended in 1993. An important outcome of the process, however, was that it initiated debate on the development of a common approach to occupational definitions and standards in different countries. It also had an influence on the development of qualifications frameworks in some countries, and this aspect will be more fully explored in a later section of the paper. Transparency of qualifications Because recognition focused mainly on regulated professions, and comparability had proved to be an excessively detailed micro-level approach to achieving transfer of qualifications, a third strategy based on the concept of transparency was developed during the 1990s. Transparency can be defined as the degree of visibility necessary to identify and compare the value and content of qualifications at national and international level. It ensures that different national qualifications are more easily understood by all potential users, for both educational and employment/labour market purposes. Two Council resolutions marked this approach. The Council resolution of 1992 (92/C49/01) concluded that there is a need for a new direction for work on transparency of qualifications. The resolution focused on the needs of the individual and in particular on the need to take into account a broad perspective on qualifications. It also encouraged initiatives by the Member States aimed at sharing reciprocal information on national qualifications and systems. The Council resolution of 1996 (96/C224/04) called on Member States to promote increased transparency of vocational qualifications by introducing a common format for certificates. It recommended that a vocational certificate should include for example information on the purpose, duration and content of the training; qualifications obtained; the final results of the course, and the validity of the certificates for access to occupations and to further education and training. In addition, the certificate should be made available in other Community languages. Following these resolutions, initiatives were taken at member state level and at bilateral/multilateral level, aimed at achieving greater transparency of vocational qualifications. In particular, in the period 1995-1999 the Leonardo da Vinci programme supported more than two hundred projects that attempted to develop practical and experimental solutions in this area. However the recommendations in the 1992 and 1996 resolutions on transparency were not widely followed up and implemented. This was partly because few Member States were willing or able to change the structure of their official certificates, some of which were regulated by law. While the initiatives that were taken within Community programmes, such as Leonardo da Vinci and Socrates, and at national level were seen as positive, there were very few examples of actual and widespread implementation of measures to increase transparency of qualifications. There was a need to move from experimentation to implementation, from projects to policy, and it is in this context that the European Forum on Transparency of Vocational Qualifications was established in 1998. The work of the Forum is described in more detail later in this section. In the area of higher education, when Ministers of Education in thirty-one European countries initiated the Bologna process in 1999, they adopted a number of principles and agreed objectives, of which transparency of qualifications was one. This indicates that transparency is an issue that goes beyond the Community and beyond labour market concerns. It also goes beyond transparency of qualifications and involves transparency of education and training systems themselves. However, for the purposes of this paper, the focus is on making qualifications more transparent. 2.3 Actions to improve transparency of qualifications While the three strategies outlined above represent different perspectives on the problem of promoting mobility, none has succeeded in comprehensively removing all obstacles, and those that remain are linked closely to the culture, traditions and labour market structures in Member States. However, each approach has contributed to the current understanding of the complex issues involved, and has advanced the level of political and technical readiness to achieve solutions. In particular, when it was introduced in the 1990s, the transparency approach was perceived to be softer and less interventionist, shifting the focus from centralised regulations (legal or administrative) towards a more decentralised model, leaving issues of recognition of qualifications to the market, either the labour market or learning institutions. Transparency involves, at a minimum, the effective exchange of information about qualifications, enabling qualifications to be more easily understood outside the institution or country in which they are awarded. Transparency is a necessary condition of recognition, and a first step in the journey towards establishing credit transfer and quality assurance systems. In recent years, there have been some important Community level and multilateral actions aimed at achieving greater transparency of qualifications in both higher education and VET. These have involved the formation of networks of specialised agencies, the establishment of formal recognition processes and the design of new instruments to make qualifications more easily understood. Information networks supporting transparency Since transparency is essentially based on the availability of information, it is important to consider developments at the Community level where several information networks are concerned broadly with transparency and recognition of qualifications. The major networks operating in this context are ENIC and NARIC, the network of information points on the EU Directives for recognition of diplomas; the network of European Employment Services (EURES), and the Network of Resource Centres for Guidance on vocational training (Euroguidance). The European Network of Information Centres (ENIC) To implement the Lisbon Recognition Convention and, in general, to develop policy and practice for the recognition of qualifications, the Council of Europe and UNESCO have established the ENIC (European Network of National Information Centres on academic recognition and mobility). The Council of Europe and UNESCO/CEPES jointly provide the Secretariat for the ENIC Network. The ENIC Network co-operates closely with the NARIC Network of the European Union (see below). The ENIC Network is made up of the national information centres of the States that are party to the European Cultural Convention or those within the UNESCO Europe Region. An ENIC is a body set up by the national authorities. While the size and specific competence of ENIC may vary, they generally provide information on: the recognition of foreign diplomas, degrees and other qualifications education systems in both foreign countries and the ENICs own country opportunities for studying abroad, including information on loans and scholarships, as well as advice on practical questions related to mobility and equivalence. UNESCO-CEPES (the European Centre for Higher Education/Centre Europen pour l'Enseignement Suprieur) was established in September 1972 with a view to promoting co-operation in higher education among Member States of the Europe Region (the countries of Europe, North America, and Israel). The activities of UNESCO-CEPES are focused mainly on higher education in Central and Eastern Europe. Since September 2003, UNESCO-CEPES has been a consultative member of the Follow-up Group of the Bologna Process. UNESCO-CEPES undertakes projects relevant to the development and reform of higher education, specifically in view of the follow-up to both the UNESCO World Conference on Higher Education (1998), and the Bologna Process, which aims to create a European Higher Education Area. It also serves as the secretariat or co-secretariat of specialised networks, especially of those related to the implementation of the Council of Europe/UNESCO Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications Concerning Higher Education in the Europe Region (Lisbon Recognition Convention). The NARIC (National Academic Recognition Information Centre) network The NARIC (National Academic Recognition Information Centre) network is an initiative of the European Commission and was created in 1984. The network aims at improving academic recognition of diplomas and periods of study in the Member States of the EU, the EEA countries and the associated countries in Central and Eastern Europe, Malta and Cyprus. The network is supported by the Community's SOCRATES/ERASMUS programme, which stimulates the mobility of students and staff between higher education institutions in these countries. The network aims to improve the quality and transparency of education systems through the exchange of information and experience. All EU and EEA countries and all the associated countries in Central and Eastern Europe and Cyprus have designated NARICs. The purpose of the centres is to support the mobility of students, teachers and researchers by providing authoritative advice and information concerning the academic recognition of qualifications and periods of study undertaken in other States participating in the network. The ministries of education designate the NARICs in the respective countries, but the status and the scope of work of individual NARICs may differ. They may provide information on all aspects of a countrys education and training system, or they may focus on higher education only. Most NARICs do not take decisions concerning academic recognition, because the education institutions are autonomous, but offer information and advice on foreign education systems and qualifications. The main users of this service are higher education institutions, students and their advisers, parents, teachers and prospective employers. In most cases, the NARIC centres are also responsible for work related to the implementation of the Lisbon Recognition Convention of 1997. This means that they are integrated with the European Network of Information Centres (ENIC), linked to the Council of Europe and UNESCO, whose mission and objectives are quite similar. The two networks share a common web site ( HYPERLINK http://www.enic-naric.net www.enic-naric.net) with links to the national web sites of participating countries. In undertaking the task of recognition for either academic or professional purposes, a NARIC has a number of potential instruments available that can enhance transparency. In considering degrees/diplomas, it can use the diploma supplement; for short study periods linked with mobility, the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) can be used. The diploma supplement and ECTS are described later in this section. Until recently however, there were few dedicated international instruments to assist in the comparison of vocational qualifications or work experience across borders for the purposes either of access to the labour market or to further study beyond bilateral and sectoral/occupational agreements. The development of Europass-Training and the certificate supplement were seen as addressing this gap. They are described more fully later in this section. The task of providing information about vocational qualifications is generally not handled by NARIC centres, most of which are located within ministries of education, and are dedicated mainly to providing information and services in the area of higher education. Vocational education and training, on the other hand, is often within the remit of other ministries, as mentioned earlier in this paper. The establishment of national reference points (NRPs) for vocational qualifications, arising from the recommendations of the European Forum on Transparency of Vocational Qualifications in 2000 was seen as a way of resolving this problem. Each member state was encouraged to decide for itself whether the NRP would be located in the NARIC or in another appropriate agency, or whether a new body should be set up. The role and functions of the NRPs are described later in this section. Network of information points on the Directives for recognition for diplomas This network links national agencies that provide information in the framework of the three existing general directives on recognition of qualifications. The Council Directive 89/48/EEC established a general system for the recognition of higher education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years duration. The Council Directive 92/51/EEC refers to the recognition of professional education and training, which coincides with short cycle higher education. The Council Directive 1999/42/EC established a mechanism for the recognition of qualifications in respect of the professional activities covered by broader directives on liberalisation of trade and markets. It also supplemented the general systems for the recognition of qualifications, adding new occupations and new commercial sectors to the existing list. European Employment Services (EURES) The EURES network aims to facilitate the free movement of workers within the countries of the EU and the European Economic Area (EEA). Partners in the network include Public Employment Services, Trade Unions and Employer Organisations. The European Commission co-ordinates the network. The objectives of EURES are to: Inform, counsel and provide advice to potentially mobile workers on job opportunities and living and working conditions in the European Economic Area Assist employers trying to recruit workers from other countries Provide particular advice and guidance to workers and employers in cross-border regions. A network of EURES advisers provides expert advice and guidance on seeking work in another country and on the living and working conditions in different countries. EURES also provides a recruitment service for employers. An IT system allows job vacancies to be exchanged between the Public Employment Services and there is an extensive database on living and working conditions. EURES does not have an explicit role in exchanging information on qualifications, but implicitly its effectiveness in supporting mobility of workers depends on a level of transparency of qualifications. Network of Resource Centres for Guidance on vocational training (Euroguidance) In each member state of the European Union and the European Economic Area there is at least one National Resource Centre for Guidance. These centres co-operate with each other to form a link between the vocational guidance services in every member state. The function of the Resource Centres is to support mobility within the context of the Leonardo da Vinci programme. The Centres do this by exchanging career information between Member States, answering questions from vocational guidance counsellors and by carrying out pilot projects and disseminating the results of such projects across the European Union. It can be seen from the above that there are many networks currently operating in the field of transparency of qualifications. The problem is not lack of information, or lack of sources of information, but rather a problem of co-ordination. In a small number of countries some of these activities are carried out by the same organisation, but generally the picture is one of fragmentation rather than integration. The result is that citizens often do not get all the benefit that could be derived from the valuable information that is made available by the various networks and services. 2.4 Instruments to promote transparency of qualifications Transnational mobility in VET and higher education has acted as a catalyst for increasing the transparency of national systems, and has led to the development of instruments that enable learners to gain credit or recognition for periods of cross-frontier study and work-linked placements. As outlined in the previous section, the Petra Community action programme (1987-1994) introduced the principle that vocational training or work experience placements in another Member State must lead to a certificate and form a recognised part of the participant's training course. However, in practice these certificates were not generally based on learning outcomes. This principle was further developed with the introduction in 2000 of Europass-Training, which records in a common format mobility experiences where learning takes place in a working environment. In higher education, the Erasmus programme has been very successful in promoting mobility of learners, and under this programme the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) was initiated to support mobility through the recognition of learning by participating institutions. It was piloted in the first Erasmus programme and is now used by over a thousand higher education institutions within and beyond the European Union. Following the Berlin Communiqu in September 2003, the use and further development of the ECTS for the future are promoted both within the Bologna process and by the EU Commission, which has introduced an ECTS label and makes grants available to institutions introducing ECTS. (The ECTS is described in more detail in the later section on credit transfer.) Diploma supplement The diploma supplement in higher education is a direct product of the Council of Europe/UNESCO Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region adopted in Lisbon in 1997. It embodies the principles of the Lisbon convention on the assessment of qualifications, the recognition of qualifications and the provision of information. The supplement was introduced because of the rapid changes in qualifications systems related to changes in the economic, political and technological environments. It was found that the non-recognition of qualifications was becoming a global problem, with an increasing number of mobile citizens seeking fair recognition of their qualifications. Original credentials alone were not found to provide sufficient information, and other barriers to recognition included confusions in terminology and a mistrust of foreign qualifications. The diploma supplement was designed as a flexible non-prescriptive tool capable of adaptation to local needs and applicable at national and international levels to aid recognition for both academic and professional purposes. It made no value judgements, and aimed to include sufficient information without confusing detail. It was described as a simple yet sensitive tool, designed to save time, money and workload. A common model for the diploma supplement was developed by the European Commission, the Council of Europe and UNESCO/CEPES and introduced in 1998. It provides information on a qualification including a description of the nature, level, context, content and status of the qualification. It is issued by the institution that awards a diploma, and is a personal document referring to its specific holder. It is seen as a way to improve transparency and recognition in higher education, and to cope with the rapid changes in qualifications systems. In this way it supports mobility, access and lifelong learning, and it is of potential benefit to learners, employers and educational institutions. Promotion of the diploma supplement is an obligation for all parties to the Lisbon Recognition Convention, and its use is recommended in the Bologna declaration and in the 2001 recommendation on mobility. Its use is growing in higher education institutions throughout Europe and beyond, although no formal study has been carried out to determine the level of its implementation or impact. In September 2003, Education Ministers from the countries participating in the Bologna process agreed that every student graduating from 2005 should receive the diploma supplement automatically and free of charge, issued in a widely spoken European language. The EU Commission in 2003 introduced a diploma supplement label for higher education institutions that fulfil these requirements. This label recognises achievements and aims to promote increased use of the instrument. While there are already counsellors in place to support the implementation of the ECTS/diploma supplement, the Commission in addition will train national teams of Bologna promoters. These will include senior academics, rectors, deans and directors of study who will help to advise on introducing the Bologna actions and/or reforms in their own institutions and in other institutions. Transparency of VET qualifications By the 1990s, experience in Member States and at European level, especially within Community programmes, had shown that improved transparency of qualifications was of direct benefit both to individuals and to systems of education and training. It helped people seeking employment in other countries, employers needing information on the qualifications of prospective employees, and students or trainees taking part in placements or exchanges whether in work or in education and training. It was also found useful for education and training institutions or enterprises sending or receiving people on placements and exchanges, and for centres providing information and guidance to assist transnational mobility of learners and workers. At national level, transparency could benefit national systems by improving coherence and consistency of qualifications. In particular it enhanced the status of vocational qualifications by making the standards and occupational relevance more easily understood. It became clear in the late 1990s that there was a need for new initiatives to build on the outcomes of earlier work on transparency in vocational and higher education and training. The European Forum on Transparency of Vocational Qualifications was established in 1998 as a joint initiative of the European Commission and CEDEFOP. The role of the Forum was to explore ways of removing obstacles to mobility due to lack of transparency of vocational qualifications to initiate open-minded dialogue on how to utilise existing initiatives, instruments and institutions in a better way to consider the need for new technical and political initiatives on transparency. The Forum aimed to indicate possible practical solutions on the transparency issue to be considered by political authorities at Community, Member State or social partner level. In approaching its task, the Forum considered the experiences of Member States in reforming their VET systems and implementing the 1992 and 1996 resolutions, together with the insights emerging from the Leonardo da Vinci projects and the evolving role of industry sectors in promoting transparency and mobility. In 2000 the Forum put forward a proposal for action on transparency of vocational qualifications. The proposal had two main action points: the implementation of the certificate supplement and the establishment of a national reference point for vocational qualifications in each member state. Certificate supplement The certificate supplement was one of the two major actions proposed by the Forum. In 1999 the Forum considered the experience of a range of Member States, projects and initiatives in developing supplements to vocational certificates, some of which were attempting to implement the recommendations of the 1996 Council resolution on transparency of vocational certificates, as mentioned above. The supplements produced by two Leonardo da Vinci projects in particular, EuroCert and Infomodels provided a starting point for the development of a common template for the certificate supplement by the Forum. The template was further refined and tested by the Forum and its technical working group in the period from 2000-2002. The certificate supplement adds information to that which is already included in the official certificate issued or recognised by national authorities. The certificate supplement is issued by the competent certifying authority in the Member State. This may be a ministry, governmental or non-governmental agency, or education/training institution. The purpose of the certificate supplement is to make vocational certificates more easily understood by the reader, especially when the reader is an employer or institution in another country. For this reason the Forum recommended that the certificate supplement should be simple to use (for both the writer and reader); clearly understood using coherent terminology; short (no more than two pages), and should complement as well as interpret information on the original certificate. It was agreed that the certificate supplement should be made available on the Internet, and should also be issued in paper format on request, and that the common format would be used for all certificate supplements across all Member States. In the interests of simplicity, it was agreed that the supplement would be collective, i.e. it relates to an original certificate and therefore applies to all holders of that specific certificate. It would focus in particular on listing the main skills and competences acquired by a typical certificate holder. In the interests of brevity, it was agreed that key information only would be included, for example about the course or training programme followed, with a link to the national reference point for more detail if required. To assist in the task of translating supplements, guidelines and glossaries were developed by the technical group in collaboration with CEDEFOP. National Reference Points Increased transparency of vocational qualifications implies that the information needs of individuals and organisations have to be met. In 2000 the Forum proposed the establishment of a National Reference Point (NRP) in each member state, which would act as a first point of contact for information relating to national qualifications, certificates and certificate supplements have direct access to information or be in contact with the relevant national bodies which have the information be a national partner in a European network of reference points with similar responsibilities. A detailed specification of the roles and tasks to be undertaken by the national reference point was drawn up, and it was up to each Member State to decide whether to establish a new structure or to allocate the functions to an existing national centre or institution. National Reference Points were established and operational in Member States and candidate countries in the period from 2001 to 2004, and a network has been formed to support the sharing of information. 2.4 A gradual convergence of approaches and policies The emphasis placed on transparency has become particularly strong and explicit since the Lisbon European Council of March 2000. This meeting identified increased transparency of qualifications as one of the three main components in an approach aiming at achieving closer alignment between the outcomes of education and training systems and the emerging needs of the knowledge society and lifelong learning. In particular, the conclusions expressly recommended the development of a common European format for curriculum vitae (CV) and of a Europe-wide information system of learning opportunities (Ploteus), which have since been established. When the objective was set for European education and training to become a world quality reference by 2010, the future objectives work programme specifically called for further action to ensure the transparency of qualifications. This would be done through appropriate instruments including the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS), diploma and certificate supplements and the European CV. There was also a parallel emphasis on improving the recognition of non-formal and informal learning, arising from the declaration on lifelong learning and endorsed in the Copenhagen declaration. The Commission communication on lifelong learning in 2001 dealt with these issues under the heading of valuing learning, stressing how transparency tools help people to have their skills acknowledged, no matter whether they were required within or outside formal learning systems. The mobility recommendation of 2001 promotes the use of transparency documents with a view to creating a European area of qualifications. The Council Resolution on Skills and Mobility of June 2002 and the Resolution on Lifelong Learning of June 2002 called for increased co-operation towards a framework of transparency and recognition based on the existing instruments. In the last two years, a high level process aimed at increased co-operation in vocational education training has been started, based on two policy documents, the Copenhagen Declaration of November 2002 and (EU) Council Resolution of December 2002 on the Promotion of Enhanced European Co-operation in Vocational Education and Training. The Copenhagen Declaration expressly called for action to increase transparency in vocational education and training through the implementation and rationalisation of information tools and networks. It proposed the integration of existing instruments such as the European CV, certificate and diploma supplements, the common European framework of reference for languages and Europass-Training into one single transparency framework. The Copenhagen declaration also anticipates the gradual integration of the Copenhagen process into the future objectives work programme. This is an important development, which indicates a commitment to an integrated approach towards achieving education and training objectives. It is significant that a report of progress on achieving the priorities of the Copenhagen declaration is included in the joint interim report from the Council and the Commission to the spring 2004 European Council on the implementation of the future objectives programme. This report is in effect a new starting point for the development of integrated political and technical solutions, which will comprehensively address the issues of transparency and recognition of qualifications at all levels across the Community and beyond. Responding to the call in the Copenhagen declaration for the development of a single transparency framework, in December 2003 the Commission adopted a proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on a single framework for the transparency of qualifications and competence (Europass). The proposal for a decision establishes a single framework for the transparency of qualifications and competences across all of lifelong learning integrating vocational education and training, higher education and non-formal and informal learning. Rationalisation and co-ordination are the key principles applied to the transparency documents, the implementation bodies and related networks. The establishment of the Europass framework represents a significant step towards the achievement of a level of transparency of qualifications that will support mobility, credit transfer and accumulation, and quality within VET and higher education throughout Europe. As the instrument is new, it is useful to look at it in more detail and to consider issues in its implementation and further development. A single framework for transparency: Europass The brand name Europass is taken over from the existing Europass-Training, which is reformed by the proposal for a Decision and renamed as MobiliPass. The main concept of the new Europass is to link separate documents aimed at the transparency of qualifications and competences into a single framework, in the form of a structured ICT-based portfolio. The core of the Europass portfolio is the European CV, to which the other Europass documents are linked. The Europass portfolio includes some existing transparency instruments, but also allows for further documents related to the transparency of qualifications and competences to be added in future. In this context, it is especially important that the Europass is based on a dynamic system that can integrate sectoral or company-based qualifications, validation of non-formal and informal learning, and other models of recording personal and professional development that may emerge in the future. The open architecture that is proposed will facilitate this longer-term vision. The existing documents to be included in the Europass framework have been established at European level, either by Community institutions, or by international organisations including Council of Europe and UNESCO, or agreed by Member States in the context of a policy process at Community level. They cover qualifications and competences achieved throughout lifelong learning including VET and higher education, focusing on all personal competences (CV), language learning (European Language Portfolio), mobility experiences (MobiliPass) and qualifications in vocational education and training (Certificate Supplement) or in higher education (Diploma Supplement). As mentioned above, further documents may be added in future, to allow in particular for a closer focus on specific sectors or skills and the validation of non-formal and informal learning. As it currently stands, the Europass will include the following five documents. European CV: the backbone of the portfolio The European CV is a slightly improved version of the common European format for CV established through a Commission Recommendation in March 2002. Like all CVs, it is a personal document completed by the person concerned. MobiliPass: making mobility visible After five years of operation (Council Decision 1999/51/EC entered into force on 1 January 2000), the Europass-Training will be replaced by the MobiliPass, which will record all experiences of transnational mobility for learning purposes throughout Europe which satisfy specific quality criteria. The structure of this document is based on that of the current Europass-Training, with some important improvements. In particular, it allows for a more detailed description of the mobility experience, using the same competence-based approach of the European CV. Significantly, the new format will allow for education linked mobility experiences to be recorded, so it is no longer confined to work experience within VET programmes. Diploma Supplement: transparency in higher education The Diploma Supplement concerns higher education and is a personal document, which includes information related to the specific educational pathway of the individual holder. It is completed by the institution, which delivers it to its holder along with the degree/diploma that it supplements. The Diploma Supplement in its present form was developed jointly by the European Commission, the Council of Europe and UNESCO-CEPES. Ministers of the Bologna Signatory States have set the objective that every student graduating as of 2005 should receive the Diploma Supplement automatically and free of charge. It should be issued in a widely spoken European language. The Commission has introduced a Diploma Supplement Label for institutions that perform well on this score and 28 such labels were awarded in the first round (November 2003) and an increase is expected in the second such round in 2004. Certificate Supplement: transparency in vocational education and training The certificate supplement applies to the area of vocational education and training. A common format is currently used by national authorities to prepare the actual supplements for each certificate that they issue, as mentioned above. This document has a different nature from the others, as it does not refer to its specific holder: a certificate supplement clarifies the vocational qualification to which it refers, and is the same for all those who hold that qualification. European Language Portfolio: recording language skills The European Language Portfolio adapts the model agreed within the Council of Europe and based on the Common Framework for Languages. It is a document where citizens can themselves assess and record the linguistic and cultural skills they have acquired. It contains in particular a Language Passport, where holders can give details of their proficiency in languages. Countries can adapt the common model, for instance to better gear it to the needs of specific target groups. Implementing Europass It is proposed that each country should appoint a Europass National Agency to co-ordinate the implementation of Europass. This agency will be responsible for managing the transparency documents, setting up and managing information systems to support the Europass framework, promoting Europass, providing information and guidance to users, and networking at European level. Each member state will decide whether this agency should be established by expanding an existing agency, by merging several existing agencies, or by replacing them with a new agency. The Commission will provide financial support to the Europass National Agency. It is intended to establish a group of Europass correspondents from participating countries in 2004, to support and monitor implementation. The Europass framework represents a very significant step towards the achievement of transparency of qualifications and competences across the whole spectrum of lifelong learning. It has the potential to add value to the existing tools and instruments, creating a co-ordinated portfolio of documents that has a stronger communications impact than a collection of separate documents. Bringing the documents together in a single framework and streamlining the related implementation and support structures will be of considerable benefit to citizens. It will provide them with a coherent, effective, accessible, visible and user-friendly communications tool that will enable them to have their qualifications and competences widely understood and acknowledged. It will also be of benefit to national qualifications systems, because it will provide a way of linking various information services and systems, which can only improve the level of internal transparency. At Community level, the open architecture proposed for Europass will create a sound basis for the addition of new and dynamic approaches to assessing, validating and recording learning in the future. If the Europass framework is to be successfully implemented from the beginning of 2005, as is proposed, there is a need for careful consideration of a number of issues, particularly in relation to implementing transparency measures at national level. Some questions about Europass and about transparency in general that could perhaps be addressed by participants in the Dublin conference are included at the end of this section. 2.6 Observations While transparency was originally linked to mobility, it can be seen that it now has a much broader significance in the development of policy on education and training. Making qualifications more transparent makes systems more transparent and open, and thus prepares the way for the development of credit systems, quality assurance criteria and frameworks of qualifications. These themes are explored in the succeeding sections of this paper. Arguably, it is in the field of transparency that the most significant concrete progress has been made, at both political and technical levels. This is recognised by the Commission in its November 2003 Communication on Education and Training 2010 where it evaluates the success of the Lisbon strategy and suggests that further urgent reforms are needed if the strategic goals are to be achieved. While the development of transparency instruments in higher education had a fairly long development period since the Socrates and Erasmus programmes were initiated in the 1980/90s, the issue has only been addressed for VET in recent years. It is useful to examine the reasons for the relatively quick success in relation to transparency of vocational qualifications, and it may be considered that the working methodology adopted by the European Forum on transparency was critical in this regard. The main achievements of the Forum were that it mainstreamed successful practice from projects, through collective action on agreed priority themes. It linked separate initiatives at national, sectoral and project level to come up with pragmatic solutions. It built on the earlier experience of higher education in introducing the diploma supplement, adapting the approach to fit the diverse VET context and to make it more easily managed. It also integrated the technical and political aspects of the transparency issue. Most significantly perhaps, it achieved strong consensus among Member States, promoted mutual understanding and trust, and created a positive climate for progress. However, there are still a number of issues in the management and delivery of transparency instruments. A range of different agencies and networks is involved, all with different missions and sets of functions. Moving towards integration of the instruments will pose a challenge of co-ordination at national level, and can be expected in some countries to cause a level of conflict between existing agencies wishing to take on new roles. In addition, there are a number of tensions that can be observed between approaches to transparency at the levels of higher education and VET, and it is important to examine some of these before proceeding to the next phase of action and implementation. The diploma supplement adopts an individual approach while the certificate supplement is based on a collective approach to the provision of information about qualifications. It has been suggested that this represents a tension between a focus on the system and a focus on the individual learner. However the main advantage in the collective approach is that simplifies the issuing of supplements where there is a wide and diverse range of qualifications, as is the case in VET. In pilot testing carried out by the European Forum, the certificate supplement was found to be responsive to the perceived needs of employers and jobseekers, learners and institutions. The question arises as to which approach, collective or individual, system-focussed or learner-focussed, is more suited for the purposes of occupational mobility or access to further study opportunities. The old Europass-Training, which was the only instrument for recording mobility in VET, was linked to experience in the workplace, and included no specific quality criteria. The ECTS as an instrument for recognition, on the other hand, is based on learning agreements and an understanding of curricula and the content of the learning programme. Both focus more on inputs and process rather than on learning outcomes. The new Mobilipass may go some way towards merging these approaches, but pending testing and evaluation it is difficult to see how it might address the need for a more fully developed system of recognition for mobility experiences in both VET and higher education. In particular, there is an important question of whether the new proposal takes account of the evaluation of Europass-Training, where several key issues were raised about the model and its implementation. A further question concerns whether instruments developed for one purpose are suited to another purpose. The existing documents to be included in the Europass framework were developed as separate instruments for specific purposes. Whether they will work just as well when linked together through the new framework is difficult to predict. For example, will Mobilipass be relevant to higher education, as is envisaged in the proposal for a decision? The Dublin conference offers an opportunity for policy makers and practitioners to discuss some important questions about Europass and about transparency in general, especially in the context of the need to prepare for implementation of Europass by the beginning of 2005. A list of possible questions is included below. Issues for discussion Transparency issues in general Has transparency worked as a strategic approach: are the goals and objectives clear and shared by all relevant stakeholders? What are the implications for individuals of having no formal recognition processes in place for a wide range of qualifications and professions? (For example in relation to labour market access outside the home country.) What is the value added of the transparency framework for national qualifications systems? Is a framework of reference levels more effective than existing instruments in achieving transparency? For example the establishment of three cycles in higher education under the Bologna process may have assisted transparency. Would this approach apply equally to vocational education and training systems? Europass as a strategy Is the proposed new Europass framework a useful development? Is the linking and integration of documents necessarily a good thing? Should Europass include all qualifications in education and training? Is the Europass strategy supported by relevant stakeholders and is this enough to make it happen? Are stakeholders convinced of its benefits and added value? How can the strategy be communicated to users? How can Europass accommodate recognition of non-formal informal learning does this need further work? How can it be linked to other competency frameworks/competence evaluations for the workplace? How can Europass create a bridge between diverse lifelong learning contexts? Are some targeted initiatives needed to ensure that specific groups are not excluded from access to Europass? What real value will the Europass transparency framework have for the individual learner? Implementation Has transparency become a reality at national level in the first instance? Is this a bigger issue than transnational transparency? What progress has been made in implementing the existing transparency instruments at national level? What barriers to implementation have been met, and how have they been overcome? What agencies manage the various transparency instruments to make them accessible to users? What competences are required of the different agencies? What goals should be set for implementing Europass? How can progress on achieving the goals for implementing Europass be measured? Contribution to other goals for education and training How can transparency lead to the development of mutual trust, firstly at national level and then at Community level? Is the issue of trust between higher education and vocational education and training at national level fully resolved? If not, can European approaches help? Has sufficient progress been achieved in transparency to provide a foundation for the further development of credit transfer, quality assurance and a common European qualifications framework? 3. European credit transfer 3.1 The context Education and training systems in Europe will be compatible enough to allow citizens to move between them and to take advantage of their diversity and holders of qualifications, knowledge and skills acquired anywhere in the EU will be able to get them effectively validated throughout the Union for the purpose of career and further learning. This section examines the role of European credit transfer systems in achieving these 2010 goals in relation to VET and higher education. Developments within the context of the Bologna and Copenhagen processes are examined. These developments set out to facilitate transnational/educational mobility but by their very nature enable national/educational mobility. The outcomes of these initiatives are intended ultimately to improve conditions related to both national and transnational occupational mobility. Credit systems can support the transfer and accumulation of credits by learners. They can be based on notional accounting of time and workload and linked to learning outcomes. Credit systems can offer increased flexibility and variation in programme design and delivery, for example through the integration of an accredited work/study placement, in an enterprise or another higher education institution in the home country or abroad. They can facilitate the incorporation of accredited stand-alone modules and distance learning into programmes leading to a full qualification. Credit systems have the potential to enable learners to build up qualifications over time, to transfer between programmes, gain recognition for previously acquired learning (regardless of where, when and how achieved) and facilitate adding on to qualifications to meet the needs of new job profiles. Introducing credit transfer systems requires a compatible organisation of curricula and programme delivery. The unitisation and modularisation of programmes provide a context that is conducive to the development of credit transfer systems. There is a need to establish some agreed level of equivalences between units of courses in order to facilitate credit exchange. To achieve this in a transnational context requires the parties involved to reach a level of understanding and trust in the quality of each others systems and provision. They also need to have the capacities, including linguistic, to agree on equivalences and the requisite conditions to do so, such as suitable partners, time and finances. Credit transfer systems also depend on a set of reference levels for qualifications. At present the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) is the only successfully tested EU wide system that facilitates the transfer of credits across borders. ECTS was established in the context of the EU Erasmus Programme in 1989 to respond to the needs of higher education students participating in transnational study-based mobility schemes. Erasmus, now an integral part of the Socrates Programme, supports inter-institutional arrangements that facilitate exchanges for students for a term, semester or academic year. ECTS is a student-centred system, traditionally based on notional time, student workload. Work is ongoing within current projects and initiatives to link credit to learning outcomes. The theme of credit features within a number of recent EU initiatives. The Copenhagen process sets out to investigate a credit transfer system for VET as part of one of its priority actions.The priority actions are intended to establish a basis for increasing mobility and facilitating access to lifelong learning. Work in this area commenced in November 2002 and is at an early stage of development. The European Commission is also supporting a number of pilot projects related to the development of European credit systems, such as ECTS (Extension) for lifelong learning. The Commission intends to expand this project in 2004/5 to involve learners, employers, universities, VET and other learning institutions. The EU supported TRANSFINE project places a special emphasis on the development of credit systems that can cater for learning acquired informally and non-formally. The ECTS scheme for higher education and the initial outcomes of the developmental work related to the credit transfer scheme for VET are described below, with a view to establishing where there are commonalities of approach and possible opportunities for further joint action. 3.2 The development of ECTS in the context of the Bologna Process In the 1999 Bologna Declaration, participating European governments set the objective to establish a system of credits, such as in the ECTS system, as a proper means of promoting the most widespread student mobility. ECTS, with a ten-year period of testing behind it, was widely accepted as the core model of credit transfer in higher education. The system was to be supported by mutually recognised quality assurance systems and complemented through the use of the diploma supplement, as outlined in the previous section. The ECTS was initially developed for universities but it is now also applied in other higher education institutions. The relative homogeneity of universities, in the traditional sense, has contributed to the wide-scale acceptance of the system within these institutions. Universities also engage widely in international co-operative ventures. Universities and other higher education institutions for the most part, now operate or are working towards the three-cycle structure of degrees as defined within the Bologna process. Complying with ECTS generally involves institutions engaging in the comparative analyses of courses and defining and measuring the expected learning outcomes, which assists the transparency process and the development of mutual trust. Participating institutions can access an information package with a course catalogue and general information for students on the host institution. Also included is a learning agreement, which is signed by the student and the two responsible institutions. It sets out work to be undertaken including courses and assignments. The transcript of records comprises a learning achievement record that documents the performance of the student (courses, credits, grades). Credit is acquired after completion and assessment of learning outcomes. The ECTS is based on the convention that the notional workload of a full academic year is 60 credits. The European Credit Transfer System is playing a role in challenging approaches to organising learning in universities and other higher education institutions. The introduction of ECTS has shown the potential of credit-based systems to support the modernisation of higher education. The introduction of ECTS on a European-wide basis has helped to bring about reforms related to policy and organisational matters (e.g. access, progression routes, flexible delivery); curricula (e.g. modularisation and unitisation); innovative pedagogies; assessment and certification processes and procedures. These issues extend beyond the need to recognise a cross-frontier period of study to a greater debate on the need for higher education to adapt to new circumstances. These include meeting the demands of society for increased access; including learners with more diverse profiles, responding more effectively to the needs of the economy and accommodating competition presented by the involvement of new players. The 2003 Trends III report, based on a survey to gauge progress in relation to the objectives of the Bologna process, confirms that ECTS has been adopted as the most important credit transfer system. The report states that approximately 1,200 higher education institutions in the participating countries applied for grants to introduce ECTS. There is general agreement that ECTS promotes the development of transnational educational mobility. In the context of national higher education reforms to facilitate the introduction of the Bachelor and Master cycles, some countries (e.g. Austria, Germany, France and Italy) have included ECTS as a compulsory element. Both Denmark and Norway have replaced their national credit systems with ECTS. In a report produced by EURASHE in May 2003, Tertiary cycle education in Europe, reference is made to the use of ECTS by these institutions to enhance the chances of accumulating credits by students who wish to progress from short cycle to longer cycle higher education. Thus, implementing ECTS throughout the higher education system has the potential to encourage the different institutional types to co-operate towards the achievement of common goals. It also appears that ECTS can contribute to the opening up of pathways for learners across higher education. Issues in implementing ECTS The 2003 Trends III report indicated that two thirds of the respondents institutions used ECTS but the extent to which the system was applied throughout the institution was not clear. The report found that ECTS was often not integrated into institution-wide policies or guidelines and its principles and tools were often insufficiently understood. It drew attention to a range of issues leading to inconsistencies in applying the system, including: rigid institutional policies and frameworks lack of experience and expertise in measuring workload, formulating learning outcomes and assessment the misunderstanding of definitions for underlying concepts inadequate support services for tutors and students. The respondents referred to the lack of financial support for the implementation of ECTS. It also seemed that, for the most part, ECTS only applied to transnational student exchanges. Despite students favourable attitude to ECTS, almost 90 per cent of the student associations reported that their members experienced occasional recognition problems when they returned from study abroad. Almost 40 per cent of students responded that a large proportion of their academic staff was not familiar with ECTS and this was supported by the site visits of ECTS Counsellors. Growing concern was also reported that inconsistencies in the implementation of ECTS would undermine the system. As stated earlier, other higher education institutions may not have the same degree of autonomy as universities and they are sometimes subject to conditions laid down by public authorities within the context of national/regional policies and systems. These institutions may offer short cycle courses, which can place limitations on the duration of transnational study periods. Learning provision in these institutions may be more practice oriented and competence based than in universities, which can make the comparative analysis of provision more complex than for academic study based provision. In the authors experience, learners in these institutions who participate in transnational work-linked placement opportunities offered by the Leonardo da Vinci programme sometimes experience more difficulties in gaining recognition for their learning period abroad than peers who participate in more academically oriented placements. The most difficult aspect appears to be the validation of work-based, and non-formal, learning acquired abroad. University-Enterprise Training Partnerships, originally set up and supported in the context of the EU Comett Programme, have been established for certain sectors including aquaculture and forestry, to help alleviate this problem by working closely with enterprises. The case for extending the ECTS The conclusions and recommendations that emerged from the European University Association (EUA) /Swiss Confederation Conference on ECTS, held in Zrich in October 2002, argued the case for extending ECTS so that it would also serve as an accumulation system. This would require the quantitative measurement of units of programmes within the whole programme of an institution, as opposed to the transfer (and possibly exchange) of one unit for another from a programme of another institution. It was recognised that such a system would require the adjustment of entire study programmes on a credit system basis. This approach could complement new institutional arrangements for the Bachelor, Master and Doctorate degree cycles. The EUA considered that this extension of ECTS would promote greater flexibility in learning and qualification processes, support curriculum reform, allow transfer from outside the higher education context, facilitate lifelong learning including the recognition of non-formal learning and increase the transparency and comparability of systems and provision internationally. The EUA recommended that its member institutions would adopt this approach and extend the usefulness of ECTS beyond that of a support for international co-operation. In the 2003 Berlin Communiqu, Ministers acknowledged the important role played by ECTS in international curriculum development. They noted that ECTS was increasingly becoming a generalised basis for national credit systems for higher education and encouraged the further development of ECTS as an accumulation system. The European Commission has introduced an ECTS Label for institutions which apply ECTS in all first and second cycle degree programmes. Ten higher education institutions received this label in the first round (November 2003) and a sharp increase in the award of the label is expected in successive annual rounds. The development of a credit accumulation system can have a profound affect on policies, systems and provision. The decision to implement such a system increases in complexity the more the institution is externally regulated and controlled. The Tuning project brought to the surface a range of weaknesses in ECTS, which would have to be addressed in order for ECTS to develop into a credit accumulation system. These include the need for level indicators, qualification descriptors and transparent definitions of learning outcomes, thereby shifting the emphasis from largely quantitative (time and workload) to more qualitative measurement. The authors of Trends III stated that ECTS as a tool is undergoing rapid and far-reaching extensions before it has been understood and introduced in its original form in many institutions The factors that contribute to the success and ongoing development of ECTS, as well as the challenges that have been identified in its implementation could be usefully considered in relation to proposals for a credit transfer system for VET, which is discussed below. 3.3 Credit transfer in the Copenhagen process When the EU Council of Ministers endorsed the work programme in Barcelona (2002) it called for further action to introduce instruments to ensure the transparency of qualifications in the field of VET, along the lines of developments in the Bologna process. This call for action responded to the recommendations of the high-level task force on skills and mobility related to the need to improve comparison between qualifications and increase mobility of learners. This was reinforced in the Commissions Action Plan for skills and mobility, in which the Commission proposed to develop, in co-operation with the Member States, a modular system for the accumulation of qualifications, allowing citizens to combine education and training from different institutions and countries. The call for action followed the issuing of the European Social Partners Framework of actions for the lifelong development of competences and qualifications in February 2002, in which the need to provide a system for transferable qualifications was identified. It also responded to the EU strategies for lifelong learning and mobility. Action on credit transfer is being taken forward through the Copenhagen process. The Copenhagen declaration gives priority to: investigating how transparency, comparability, transferability and recognition of competences and/or qualifications, between different countries and at different levels, could be promoted by developing reference levels, common principles for certification, and common measures, including a credit transfer system for vocational education and training. The technical working group on credit transfer in VET (TWG-CT) was set up in November 2002 to address this priority. The Commission selected experts on the basis of suggestions from relevant ministries (EU Member States, EEA-EFTA countries, accession/candidate countries), and the Social Partners representatives at European level (UNICE, ETUC). The TWG-CT is chaired by the Commission and supported by CEDEFOP. The mandate of the TWG is to investigate, taking account of experiences in higher education and relevant projects working in this field, options for the development of a system of credit transfer for VET at European level and, in parallel to this, to investigate the role and character of common reference levels for competences and qualifications, as well as common principles for certification. The TWG reports systematically to the Copenhagen Coordination Group (CCG) and the Advisory Committee for Vocational Training, and must present a report to the Commission outlining a basis for concrete action in this field. The TWG-CT has a dedicated virtual platform for its use. The virtual Community was established to support the group and encourage a wider audience to engage in the debate and contribute research findings and examples of practice. As the TWG-CT was mandated to take into account the ECTS, investigations started at the point of the recent plans to work on linking credit to learning outcomes and developing ECTS into a credit accumulation system. The TWG-CT took into consideration that the unitisation and modularisation of courses and competence-based assessment procedures already feature strongly in VET provision. However, there are a number of issues that make implementing a credit transfer system for VET more complex than in higher education. Firstly, VET does not have the thirteen-year history of ECTS, which had helped to raise the levels of understanding and trust amongst universities and other higher education institutions working in partnership to implement the system. On a European level VET does not have commonly understood cycles or reference levels, to the same extent as in higher education. Nor is there an infrastructure within VET for European credit transfer, as provided by, for example, the organisations such as EUA and EURASHE that promote and enhance policies and practices, through networking and capacity building in higher education. In addition transnational mobility opportunities are more diverse in VET than in higher education. The duration of mobility opportunities supported by Leonardo da Vinci for VET ranges from one week to one year. Learners, from the age of fifteen onwards can participate in the programme. Placements are intended to be work-linked with periods spent in enterprises and this may require the inclusion of employers and social partners in partnership arrangements related to credit transfer arrangements. Finally, qualifications systems for VET are also quite diverse and complex within and across countries. The TWG-CT group set out to identify the functions of, and the principles for, the development of the European Credit System for VET (ECVET). The group determined that the purpose of ECVET was to offer a flexible architecture to promote mobility in VET throughout Europe. The University of Kassel in Germany was Commissioned to undertake a study in order to assess how far and under which conditions existing approaches to credit systems in VET at national/regional levels may be relevant for ECVET. It was found that only a few Member States have developed credit transfer systems for VET. In November 2003 the first report of the TWG-CT was produced. In this report, the group defines the functions of ECVET as follows: Facilitating the transfer of learning outputs/outcomes within and between various national VET systems and between formal, non-formal and informal VET encompassing either full programmes and courses, modules or units, the latter being the smallest measurable outcome; Facilitating the accumulation and mutual recognition of training/education/learning activities (modules), or qualification units/programmes towards a partial or a complete qualification, by contributing to the definition, assessment and certification of parts or full qualifications; this independent of when and where this learning has taken place; Facilitating co-operation between training providers, teachers and learners beyond national frontiers; Facilitating transparency of learning processes and outcomes; Facilitating mobility within training/education/learning processes and professional mobility by improving the description of complete qualifications. The report tracks the progress made during 2003, which included a proposal for an operational typology for ECVET and developmental work on a range of topics. These include defining VET programmes and qualifications systems and frameworks; investigating the nature and role of the concept zones of mutual trust, which determines the acceptance of differences between national qualification systems at different levels; delivery, assessment and certification considerations. The Commission is supporting a research project managed by Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA), London, which aims to identify and define the role of mutual trust in relation to credit transfer and accumulation in national VET systems and link the findings to the development of ECVET. The research will examine how the concept of zones of mutual trust, could be employed to tackle challenges militating against the acceptance of the developing ECVET model related to the quality, recognition and validation of learning acquired outside national systems and non-formal and informal learning regardless of context. The research will take into account the range of reference levels or frameworks within the different national VET qualifications systems and the full range of different types of training provision, it will also take into account ways in which mutual trust for credit transfer in national VET systems currently exist. In 2004, the TWG-CT proposes to complete the conceptual basis of ECVET, including the formulation of underlying principles, initiate pilot projects to test different approaches and work towards the development of European credit and qualifications framework. 3.4 Observations Existing EU policies, for example the directives on recognition of qualifications, make provision for the cross-frontier recognition of citizens qualifications. This places responsibility on EU Member States to ensure that qualifications transparently reflect the individuals knowledge and know-how. EU policy also encourages citizens to take advantage of learning opportunities offered in other Member States, and this arguably places a responsibility on Member States to provide appropriate recognition for these learning opportunities and to ensure that they are reflected in citizens qualifications. European level co-operation developments, such as ECTS and the emerging ECVET system, aim to assist the implementation of these policies. The development and mainstreaming of ECTS is contributing to the strengthening of transnational partnerships and support networks and is helping to build trust and increase the transparency of higher education in Europe. This trust is based on information provided by universities about programmes and courses, which describes courses in terms of content, learning outcomes and notional student workload (credit) and the Learning Agreement and Transcript of Records. The ECTS scheme allows students to move between similar courses in similar institutions and, within the confines of inter-institutional contracts, the scheme enables them to get their learning abroad validated. The ECTS scheme is also helping to make more visible the commonalities between higher education provision in universities and other institutions of higher education. It can also lay the foundations for student mobility within and across institutions be it at national or international level. ECTS is neutral as regards the type of institution or programme. It can be used across a variety of programmes and modes of delivery and therefore appears as if it could, in theory, be extended to VET and Lifelong Learning. On the other hand these developments can further entrench differences and give rise to tensions, for example between national needs for diversity and European needs for convergence; state regulation and institutional autonomy; the different needs of stakeholders, individuals institutions and systems. These tensions need to be analysed and addressed to ensure that the ongoing development of ECTS is desirable and appropriate. The ECVET is still only at the conceptual stage so it is too early to gauge whether such a scheme will contribute towards increasing the comparability and compatibility of VET systems in Europe or enhance mobility in VET or provide effective validation of learning. It is also too early to forecast whether ECVET will facilitate mobility between VET and higher education. Decision-making regarding the desirability and feasibility of introducing European credit transfer, and possibly accumulation, systems requires in depth analysis on issues such as: how might such systems affect learning? How could they accommodate different concepts, curricula and methods applied in learning contexts? What impact could they have on the assessment of learning and formal qualifications? What would be the consequences for awarding bodies and qualifications systems and frameworks? How could greater understanding and trust be built up between and across different stakeholders, institutions, sub-systems and countries? What could Europe stand to gain, or risk losing, by increasing the comparability of VET and higher education systems? The Bologna process has promoted the development and implementation of ECTS in higher education. It is important to consider that the timing of ECTS suited the needs and the motivation of higher education institutions to adapt to more flexible delivery modes. The proposed extension of ECTS from a scheme to facilitate geographical mobility to a scheme for accumulating credits towards a full qualification also appears to be responsive to the emerging needs of the higher education system. Institutional motivation to implement ECTS to both introduce innovation in the system and cater for students needs appears to have played an important role in the success and mainstreaming of ECTS. The Copenhagen process is facilitating debate on credit systems for VET at a policy level. The work of the TWG-CT is proving useful in exploring the issues and possibilities. Ultimately, it will be for the policy-makers to decide whether the implementation of a credit transfer system based on the proposed ECVET model will be supported. The TWG-CT recognises that while it is important to continue to build up the conceptual basis for ECVET it is also necessary to undertake wide-scale promotion of the model and test the emerging approaches. The policy makers in both the Bologna and Copenhagen processes could consider adopting and adapting elements of each others effective practices. The practice of working through intermediate bodies, such as EUA and EURASHE appears to be effective for the promotion and development of ECTS in higher education. European wide projects that examine courses from a particular sector with the same reference levels, such as the TUNING project, might be considered for VET to help build mutual trust and acceptance of standards and quality mechanisms. National reporting mechanisms that focus on progress in implementing credit systems could consider the latter within both VET and higher education. A survey, similar to the TRENDS III survey for the Bologna process, could be considered to track progress in the Copenhagen process in the future. More targeted support could be given to test European credit transfer in relation to programmes at the same level and with similar curricula and learning approaches, regardless of the provider institution type, for example in the hotel and catering or ICTs sectors. On the other hand ECVET could concentrate on provision that tends to be more exclusive to VET systems and providers, such as certain forms of apprenticeships and traineeships and enterprise based training initiatives. The outcomes of the current conceptual work on zones of mutual trust and the validation of informal and non-formal learning related to the development of a credit system for VET could be tested in the context of the further development of ECTS. The discussion topics selected for the virtual communities could be broadened to include debate and cross fertilisation between the developers and promoters of ECTS and ECVET. Issues for the Conference There are a number of factors that appear to have contributed to the successful implementation and continuing development of ECTS, and careful consideration of these is useful in the context of developing a parallel system of credit transfer for VET. The tradition of universities to be universal institutions provides the conditions for a certain degree of inter-institutional trust assisted by the existence of broadly similar forms of organisational behaviour and educational provision. The need for universities to raise their status and be competitive and attractive to students at an international level motivates them to engage in and support transnational co-operation, which raises their visibility and facilitates the development of institutional capacities to accommodate foreign students. The process developed for the biennial meetings for the Bologna process, including countries taking stewardship, co-ordinating, following-up and following-through and monitoring and evaluating procedures, increases their ownership of the process. The organic growth of ECTS and the direct involvement of higher education institutions in the ongoing development of the scheme thereby providing the best conditions for its relevance, suitability, usefulness and application. The degree of consultation involving the stakeholders including lecturers and students enhances institutional buy-in to the process of ECTS. The strong leadership and supporting roles assumed by NGOs with competence in higher education contributes to capacity building in institutions. The linking of ECTS with the three-cycle degree reference framework makes it more effective. The nature of transnational study-based inter-university mobility makes comparison relatively simple. The neutral character of ECTS instruments and the fact that credit is based on notional student workload appears to have facilitated its use across a variety of programmes and for different modes of delivery. Targeted EU funding has supported relevant networks and activities directly related to the development of ECTS. A number of issues have emerged, which may be of significance in relation to the plans for a credit transfer system for VET, that could be discussed at the Conference, they include: The diverse arrangements in place for driving and developing ECTS; Establishing trust between universities and other higher education institutions Establishing equivalences between programmes across different institutional types in different countries; Applying ECTS in the context of transnational work-based student placements and establishing trust between higher education institutions and enterprises; Evaluating the reasons for the time required to gain acceptance for, and mainstream, ECTS; Analysing the resource implications to maintain a support structure for ECTS and the continued availability of expertise and funds; Learning from the continuous assessment of processes and procedures adopted to apply ECTS as a credit accumulation system. The Conference provides an ideal opportunity to consider the plans for the emerging ECVET system in relation to the lessons learned over the fifteen years of developments in ECTS. Policy makers involved in both the Bologna and Copenhagen processes could consider the possibility of common approaches to dealing with the challenges of linking or including ECTS and ECVET into the proposed European qualifications framework. The following questions are suggested. Issues for discussion ECTS What, if any, challenges emerged when Implementing ECTS in higher education institutions that are state regulated, as opposed to the traditional university contexts, and how were they dealt with? What issues emerged when implementing ECTS in relation to transnational work-based placements in higher education (e.g. Leonardo da Vinci) and how were they dealt with? What challenges are emerging in relation to the extension of ECTS to serve as a credit accumulation system? Is or can credit be assigned to levels within cycles? ECVET Is the emerging ECVET model what stakeholders, including enterprises and the social partners, want? Are the needs of enterprises, sector and branch associations and the social partners adequately addressed? To what extent could key VET stakeholders be given more responsibility for this development and how? When and how will broader consultation with VET stakeholders throughout Europe occur? What degree of resistance may be expected? Has sufficient consideration been given to the differences in the profile, size and resources of institutions in the VET sub-system and the fact that many VET provider institutions neither develop curricula nor assess or accredit the learning acquired in their institutions? General credit issues What is the degree of urgency to facilitate the transfer of credits across national systems? How can credit be linked to learning outcomes? What is the experience of doing this in ECTS? How will synergy between ECTS and ECVET be assured? Can ECTS, ECVET be fully implemented without the unitisation/modularisation of VET and higher education throughout Europe? Is it feasible to develop a Europe-wide credit system without a critical mass of such systems at national/regional levels? Will both ECVET and ECTS schemes be applied in provider institutions for both VET and higher education? Is it logical to develop separate European credit systems for higher education and VET as distinctions between the sub-systems are blurring? Should work on the development of credit systems and ultimately the European framework of qualifications involve the participation of qualifications authorities, as well as other relevant stakeholders from all of the participating countries? 4. Quality 4.1 The context The highest quality will be achieved in education and training and Europe will be recognised as a world-wide reference for the quality and relevance of its education and training systems and institutions. The EU Council and the Commission set this goal as the first of five to be achieved by 2010. It responds directly to the first of the three strategic objectives agreed for the future objectives work programme: improving the quality and effectiveness of education and training systems. This section focuses on efforts related to the management and assurance of quality in the context of European co-operation processes that aims to promote mobility in VET and higher education. It considers the implications of aiming for this goal and examines relevant European developments, which set out to achieve it. Policies and practices to improve the general quality of EU education and training will be examined. Respecting the principle of subsidiarity the implementation of these policies tends to be more bottom-up and EU co-operation is more process orientated. Policies and practices to develop common EU quality management and assurance processes and procedures specifically for VET will be examined in relation to similar developments in the Intergovernmental Bologna process where the implementation of European policy is driven to a certain extent by intermediate bodies. The current trend in the EU Member States is to consider quality assurance in education and training holistically, taking into account: policy-making (e.g. legislation, social dialogue, investment), institutional matters (e.g. governance, management, relations and partnerships, staff capacities and staff development), research programmes (e.g. pedagogies, curricula, contents, materials) support services (e.g. information and guidance services) and assessment and certification processes and procedures. Quality management and assurance relies on a complex interplay of different factors such as: culture and tradition, societal trends, wealth, investment, legislation, relationships between various stakeholders, mutual trust, labour market conditions, human resources and institutional capacities. The main challenges to the quality of education and training at the present time include, the restructuring process required to facilitate lifelong learning, making the best use of resources and ensuring social inclusion. In relation to the 2010 goals it is, in the first instance, the responsibility of EU Member States to manage and assure the quality of their education and training systems in relation to national principles, priorities, needs, capacities and resources. Increasing the quality of education and training begins at the level of the provider institutions and is related to: societys expectations of the institution type; how it is resourced; how it is governed, managed and linked to the outside world; how it invests in and benefits from partnerships; how it fosters the development of its facilitators of learning and its learning environments; how it makes, implements and evaluates plans to improve quality. Member States draw on pooled EU knowledge and know-how, which can result in different aspects of practice from different Member States being transferred and adapted to national/regional circumstances. Managing quality assurance in education and training at the level of the institution and the Member State must take into account EU and wider international expectations and goals. A common understanding of high quality and the application of measures to achieve it is a basic condition for fostering mutual trust between countries, which in turn facilitates the compatibility of systems and creates the appropriate conditions for learner and worker mobility. A shared and assured concept of quality standards can secure the viability of mobility mechanisms such as the European Credit Transfer System and the certificate and diploma supplements. The recognition of qualifications between Member States is made much easier where quality concepts related to standards, approaches, structures and expression of awards are not only explicit but also shared. Improving the status and attractiveness of EU education and training systems on the world stage will depend on its quality. The driving force behind European co-operation in the field of quality management and assurance is to facilitate competitiveness, mobility and the attractiveness of education and training world-wide. However, collaboration on establishing common goals, principles, criteria, standards, approaches and mechanisms and applying and evaluating them also adds value to Member States efforts to increase the overall quality of their education and training systems and provision. In order to lay the foundations for co-operation, Member States need to make their national policies and practices related to quality management assurance and control known to each other. Once they have gained a certain familiarity with them and are aware of the underlying social and economic conditions that have contributed to their evolution they can begin to engage in collaborative actions to identify, develop, disseminate and test good practices. This section will examine how different approaches address this. In order to ensure the visibility of European efforts to increase the quality of education and training provision and to facilitate comparative analysis on a global basis, European initiatives include as partners relevant international bodies, such as UNESCO, ILO and OECD, and their networks. As appropriate, European countries engage in initiatives to improve quality spearheaded by the latter. It is also the case that a number of quality assurance agencies and accreditation agencies play significant roles in this field at national, regional and international levels. An analysis of these more global efforts is outside the remit of this study. EU education and training policies have begun to address the concept of quality more overtly in the past decade. Provision had been made in the Treaty on European Union (Maastricht June 1992) for the promotion of co-operation between Member States to achieve and maintain high standards of quality in the EUs education and training systems. The European Commission was given the role of co-ordinating EU co-operation on quality matters, responsibility for which had previously rested exclusively with the Member States. The publication of the 1993 White Paper: Growth, competitiveness, employment-the challenges and ways forward into the 21st Century stressed the urgent need to increase the quality of EU education and training systems. This section examines the EU policy instruments and actions that have been introduced in response to this need. 4.2 The quality of EU vocational education and training In 1994 the Council Resolution (94/C 374/01) concerning the quality and attractiveness of vocational training was adopted. This was followed by the Council Conclusions of 1995 (95/C 207/03) concerning the importance and implications of the quality of vocational training, which invited Member States to improve the quality and appeal of VET and develop, with the Social Partners, exchanges of information and experiences to promote methods and tools for evaluation. EU level research was commissioned on a range of issues related to improving the quality of VET. In 1998 CEDEFOP published a series of documents based on the outcomes of the research, which dealt with issues such as evaluating the quality of VET programmes; applying Internationally recognised standards to VET programmes; the use of quality indicators in VET, and enhancing training measures for VET trainers. Following a positive response from the Advisory Committee for Vocational Training (ACVT) in April 2001 to the Commissions proposal, the European Forum on the quality of vocational training was established. EU and EFTA-EEA countries, the social partners and the Commission made the commitment to address a range of matters including clarifying issues related to quality improving methods of relaying expert work towards policy-makers identifying areas of work that could be undertaken at Community level promoting the dissemination of innovation in the field of quality in VET. Four sub-groups were established within the Forum to further the debate on: quality management approaches for VET providers, self-assessment in VET institutions, types of examinations and certification practices and indicators for a European quality in VET strategy. Examining the role of quality in relation to the training of VET trainers was considered horizontally. CEDEFOP established an interactive website in the European Training Village to support the work of the Forum. The Forum facilitated the process of investigating how societal factors underpinned the different VET systems and the impact that these have on Member States arrangements for quality management in VET to increase transparency, coherence and the effectiveness of provision. The Forum explored key issues such as how the process of transnational co-operation could support high quality VET provision. It identified key elements to direct the definition of policies on the development of quality. It examined mechanisms, tools, indicators and procedures, which could assist systems to aim for quality and account for the cost/benefit relationship. It analysed issues related to determining the roles of the state, social partners, enterprises and training bodies in the design and management of a system of quality and considered the objectives, standards and evaluation systems related to quality matters. The work of the Forum was subsumed into the mandate for the Technical Working Group for quality in VET, which was established as part of the Copenhagen process. Its work will be examined below. Emphasis was placed on quality in the EU Leonardo da Vinci programme (1995 and 2000). In 2002 the Commission launched the initiative of thematic monitoring of Leonardo projects. Networks of National Agencies monitor projects gathered into five thematic clusters, one of which is Quality in Training. The aim of the exercise is to strengthen the exchange of experience and networking between projects, raise their visibility and support the dissemination of project outcomes. 4.3 The quality of EU higher education The Council Recommendation of 24September 1998 on European co-operation in quality assurance in higher education (No 561/98) called on the EU Member States to introduce quality-assessment and quality-assurance mechanisms into their higher education systems. The foundation principles for systems of quality assessment set out in the Recommendation aimed to maintain the autonomy and independence of the bodies responsible for quality assessment and quality assurance; promote both internal and external assessment, and involve all the relevant stakeholders. Member States were recommended to promote co-operation between the authorities responsible for quality assurance in order to safeguard and improve quality while taking account of national conditions, the European dimension and international requirements. The areas for collaboration included the continuous exchange of information and experience with other Member States and with international organisations active in this field. On the basis of the 1998 Council Recommendation, the European Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) was established, with the support of the European Commission. ENQA supports its members through the exchange of information and good practice, staff training and seminars. It undertakes and publishes studies and surveys on quality assurance developments in Europe and it maintains a website. ENQA also acts as a policy forum on European quality assurance developments. Higher education sector organisations are represented in its Steering Committee and government officials take part in its annual General Assembly. ENQA is currently undergoing change to enable it to include representation from all forty signatory states of the Bologna Declaration. . This will facilitate transnational evaluations and enable ENQA to undertake the role accorded it in the Berlin communiqu of September 2003. In 2003 the Commission issued a Communication for a consultation process on The role of universities in the Europe of knowledge-COM (2003) 58. It raises issues related to the need for enhanced quality assurance measures for: institutional governance, strategic management processes and procedures, institutional and programme evaluation and striving for excellence in human resources. The EU also supports a wide range of initiatives, mainly through the SOCRATES action programme, related to the objectives for improving quality in higher education. The EU 6th Framework Research and Development programme supports the enhancement of the quality of higher education institutions and their activities. EU governments participate in the wider European intergovernmental Bologna process. The Commission represents the EU as a partner in this process and supports a range of activities carried out in the context of the Bologna process, which will be examined later in this section. 4.4 EU initiatives focussed on the quality of both education and training 2000-2004 Lifelong learning In the Communication from the Commission: Making a European Area of lifelong learning a reality, (November 2001) a number of mechanisms were suggested to maximise the quality of lifelong learning strategies. These included the setting and monitoring of targets; the development of robust quality assurance tools, and evaluation exercises to test quality criteria. A working group, which comprises representation from thirty-four European countries, the Commission (including Eurostat, Eurydice, Cedefop), OECD and UNESCO, was set up to agree on a set of quality indicators for lifelong learning in 2001. The aim of setting indicators was to define a quality concept and provide European countries with a shared standard for evaluating their efforts in implementing a lifelong learning strategy. In the Commissions report on quality indicators of lifelong learning (June 2002) the necessity of closely connecting an effective quality assurance system to formal accreditation, certification and recognition systems was highlighted. This was followed up in the Council Resolution on lifelong learning (2002/C 163/01), which acknowledged quality assurance as a priority with particular reference to the validation and recognition of qualifications and called on Member States to pay special attention to improving the education and training of teachers and trainers. Member States invited the Commission to stimulate quality incentives and the exchange of good practices to foster efficient performance in all sectors of learning. The European Employment Strategy From 1999 to 2001 the EU Employment guidelines for 1999 and 2000 recommended that Member States improve the quality of their education and training systems. The 2002 guidelines called upon Member States to implement coherent and comprehensive strategies for lifelong learning, emphasising the need to improve the quality and efficiency of education and training systems. Future objectives work programme As previously mentioned the objective and goal related to improving the quality of education and training in the work programme is generic and intended to apply across education and training systems. Complementing the EU approach to promote the concept of lifelong learning, the work programme brings together decision-makers from both education and training. In collaboration with and co-ordinated by the Commission, they agree on common principles, goals and methods to guide the development and implementation of common Community objectives for improving the quality of European education and training provision. Increasing the quality of education and training is a transversal theme so the outcomes of all the thematic working groups are of importance. However, the working group addressing the theme of teachers and trainers is of particular interest as it also responds to one of the four priority actions in the Copenhagen process, which will be examined below. The working group has so far concentrated on quality issues related to teachers of general and vocational education and training. In the next phase of its work more consideration will be given to trainers and other learning facilitators supporting work-based learning and continuing vocational education and training. The group has examined and analysed a broad range of topics such as: the changing role of teachers, the new competences required by teachers the impact of social changes on the teaching environment and teaching the quality of the initial and ongoing preparation of teachers and the quality and effectiveness of teacher performance how to make sure that education and training environments are knowledge-rich learning organisations how to ensure that teachers and trainers are valued and supported to be learning professionals. The working group adopted the method of making study visits to a selected number of participating countries as a form of primary research to gather examples of good practice in enhancing the quality of the education of teachers and trainers. This facilitated direct contact with key national players and immediate access to examples of practices as well as information on the challenges facing the individual countries. The next phase of the working groups work-plan, which aims to address the differences in the profiles and subsequent differences in needs of the range of learning facilitators in VET will bring a new set of challenges. Reflecting the diversity of institutions involved in the provision of VET, the profile of learning facilitators differs widely and includes: degree holders, education degree holders, degree holders with post-graduate diplomas in education and non-graduates with professional experience who may or may not have an additional teaching qualification. The learning they facilitate ranges from the formal and highly structured to the non-formal and experiential. Facilitating learning may only be one aspect of their jobs. Assessment of their performance may be based on the competence of learners as workers or their success in gaining a qualification. 4.5 A targeted approach to quality issues in the Bologna and Copenhagen processes The Bologna process In 1999, the European signatories of the Bologna declaration for the development of the European higher education area agreed a common goal for the: Promotion of European co-operation in quality assurance with a view to developing comparable criteria and methodologies. Since 1999, national governments throughout Europe, pan-European partners, universities and other higher education institutions have placed increasing importance on this goal. Initially, co-operation focussed mainly on the quality of programmes within the context of the Bachelor/Master degree cycles. More recently, greater emphasis is being placed on institutional quality assurance. Programme related quality assurance Initially European co-operation on quality in higher education focussed on quality matters related to increasing the readability and comparability of higher education programmes and degrees. The quality of programmes influenced the value and success of the European credit transfer system, which had consequences for the expansion of mobility schemes. In the 1990s a range of pilot actions were supported that developed and tested common methodologies for programme evaluations. Forty-six higher education programmes in seventeen countries were evaluated in the context of an EU supported pilot project in 1994/1995. Other projects evaluated programmes for specific sectors such as agricultural science, engineering, physics and economics. The first wide-scale project Tuning educational structures in Europe (TUNING) began in 2001 and continues to the present day. The project, supported by the EU Socrates Programme and involves a consortium of some 135 universities led by the universities of Deusta (E) and Grningen (NL). They are engaged in work to describe generic and subject specific competences for first and second cycle studies in nine subject areas (Business Studies, Education Sciences, Geology, History, Mathematics, Chemistry, Physics, Nursing and European Studies). The project focuses on achieving a subject-based consensus on knowledge and learning outcomes in a range of disciplines within the separate contexts of the first and second cycle degree programmes. This process enables higher education institutions to share their understanding of quality reference points in relation to the composite elements of qualifications. Academic staffs have the possibility to exchange, compare and contrast contents and methodologies and learn from each others experiences. The outcomes, both tangible and intangible resulting from assimilating new insights and approaches can be directly transferred to the learning environments. The process facilitates the sharing of common understanding of key concepts. An informal network was established to work towards increased transparency between Bachelor and Master programmes in the context of an initiative known as the Joint Quality Initiative (JQI). The JQI network took on the task of developing reference points that could be shared within Europe. It produced the so-called Dublin Descriptors in 2002, which were proposed as generic descriptors for all Bachelor and Master degrees, in relation to the qualification. At the forthcoming meeting in Dublin on March 12th 2004 generic descriptors for Doctorate degrees will be discussed. This process facilitates the establishment of a shared architecture and terminology for generic qualifications in the three cycles of higher education. The Transnational European Evaluation Project (TEEP) 2002, is co-ordinated through the European network for quality assurance in higher education (ENQA) and it aims to develop a methodology for the use of common criteria and quality assurance at European level. TEEP is linked with and builds on the experiences of the previously described initiatives. Quality assurance agencies oversee the development of the transnational external evaluation method for various disciplines. The evaluation method is responsive to the 1998 Council Recommendation on European co-operation in quality assurance in higher education and combines three elements: self evaluation reports on the educational context, learning outcomes and quality assurance mechanisms, site visits and the publication of reports. Participating institutions are required to make visible their quality assurance mechanisms in relation to strategy and goals, processes and results. In this way the project takes into account institutional practices to manage quality. As the project outcomes are based on the tried and tested experiences of stakeholders in higher education institutions and rely on peer review for external evaluation they can be expected to be suitable, relevant and useful models for similar providers in higher education. Institutional quality assurance In their 2001 biennial meeting in Prague, the follow-up to the 1999 Bologna meeting, European Ministers called for closer co-operation and greater degrees of mutual trust between recognition and quality assurance networks. They encouraged all the partners to collaborate on the establishment of a common framework of reference for quality and to disseminate related good practices. In preparation for Prague over 300 higher education institutions and their representative organisations had met in Salamanca (March 2001). They defined quality as the fundamental cornerstone and the basic underlying principle for trust relevance, mobility, compatibility and attractiveness of the evolving European Higher Education Area. By 2003 all Bologna signatory countries had established, or were in the process of establishing, agencies responsible for external quality control in some form or another and the vast majority of higher education institutes were undergoing external quality assurance procedures. The European Universities Association (EUA) presented a proposal for the promotion of a European dimension to quality assurance in higher education at its Convention in Graz, Austria (May 2003), based on a position paper it had produced in 2001. It distinguished four levels to the quality debate: institutional, national/regional, European and international. Whilst acknowledging the value of the aforementioned quality assurance agencies for external review and public accountability, the EUA stressed the primary importance of developing the internal quality culture of universities. An important message emerging from the EUA Quality Culture Project (funded through the SOCRATES programme) was that setting good quality principles was useful but the goal had to be good quality practices. The latter requires organisational development, the nurturing of communities through participation, effective communication channels, and support frameworks for quality review and evaluation processes and standards At the 2003 biennial meeting in Berlin the European Ministers selected quality assurance as one of three goals prioritised for action for the following two-year period. In the Communiqu the Ministers called for the development of mutually shared criteria and methodologies. The European network for quality assurance in higher education (ENQA), which was established in 1999, was given the mandate to develop an agreed set of standards, procedures and guidelines on quality assurance and to explore ways of ensuring an adequate peer review system for quality assurance and/or accreditation agencies or bodies, and to report back to the next biennial meeting, which is planned to take place in Bergen, Norway in 2005. ENQA was requested to work through its members and co-operate with the European universities association (EUA), the European association of institutions of higher education (EURASHE) and the national unions of students in Europe (ESIB) on this task. The Bologna process is progressively building up an important support infrastructure to assist higher institutions to increase quality in a holistic way that aims to build up a total quality management approach. Intermediate bodies (European associations and networks) play an important role as catalysts and multipliers in this process. The role of ENQA is particularly important in moving forward the Bologna goals for quality assurance. They are also instrumental in sourcing support and funding for transnational activities. In general, these institutions, such as EUA, ENQA, EURASHE, ESIB play a key role in protecting and promoting the interests of their respective members and engage them in relevant and appropriate partnerships, networks and projects, develop new approaches and follow-up and evaluate important outcomes. The ongoing development and expansion of think-tanks, content networks, pilot projects and documentation is supported by effective communication channels, which facilitate the dissemination of results and initiatives to build on achievements, such as websites, regular seminars, national reporting mechanisms, European surveys (e.g. Trends Surveys) and taskforces (e.g. Bologna Promoters). The Copenhagen process Achieving quality in VET was determined as a priority to be pursued through enhanced co-operation in vocational education and training in the Council Resolution (2002)  and the Copenhagen Declaration (2002). The Copenhagen process provides the political support for the development of transparent and commonly accepted quality standards in VET. Quality assurance is a priority action line with two goals: giving attention to the learning needs of teachers and trainers within all forms of vocational education and training promoting co-operation in quality assurance with particular focus on exchange of models and methods, as well as common criteria and principles for quality in vocational education and training. Enhancing the quality of initial and continuing training of VET trainers The Copenhagen process is intended to complement and supplement the work programme activities. Progress reports feed into the work programme report. The Copenhagen process will be fully integrated with work programme activities, albeit gradually. The Copenhagen Co-ordination Group was set up to monitor the Copenhagen process, ensure synergy between its actions and the work programme activities, and to monitor the eventual integration process. It was decided to address the quality dimension related to the learning needs of teachers and trainers, together with all other facilitators of learning in working group A of the work programme. As stated in a previous section, certain categories of VET trainers e.g. crafts trainers and masters and company-based trainers have not yet been given special attention in this working group but the intention is to do so in the next phase of the work plan. Promoting co-operation in quality assurance The Copenhagen process has been organised in a flexible way, in order to take account of the diversity of VET and the demands placed on it to respond rapidly to labour market requirements in terms of rapidly changing competence needs and dealing with advancements in new technologies. The Commission co-ordinates the technical working group for quality in VET (TWG-Q) which comprises Commission selected experts, the social partners and selected representatives from some of the participating countries. CEDEFOP is also represented on the group and also manages the Virtual Community, which supports the group and is intended to open the debate on the theme to a wider public. The TWG-Q took over from the European Forum on quality in VET. It continues the approach of building consensus and collecting and analysing existing experience on common quality principles, methods, criteria and indicators to guide the implementation, on a voluntary basis, of quality assurance and management systems in VET in the European Union. The TWG-Q aims to facilitate mutual trust between European systems as well as improving the quality of programmes and provision. A strong focus is placed on the improvement and evaluation of the outputs and outcomes of VET in terms of increasing employability, improving the match between demand and supply, and better access to lifelong training, in particular for disadvantaged people. By the end of 2003 the TWG-Q had produced a number of reports responding to the mandate. Quality standards and norms Based on the analysis of the contributions from its members, the TWG-Q investigated the application, strengths and weaknesses of national and international standards and norms. In relation to applying standards to quality assurance and management the TWG-Q examined the challenges faced by VET systems and providers such as: the pressure to respond constantly and rapidly to change, ambiguities with regard to the areas for which standards should be defined and by whom as well as resources related problems. Furthermore, their analysis revealed that standards and norms have to be differentiated between the different elements of VET, at both initial and continuing levels, and between publicly and privately provided training since these provisions pursue different objectives. The report from the TWG-Q states that every Member State has input, process and output standards set by different institutions: governments, national bodies, regional authorities and private organisations that relate to systems (e.g. quality and effectiveness), providers (e.g. accreditation, examination and qualification requirements), and individuals (e.g. competence based learning). International standards exist in some branches and industries. Common Quality Assurance Framework In accordance with its mandate the TWG work identified a common core of criteria and a set of indicators for quality development at European level. This led to the drawing up of a proposal on a Common Quality Assurance Framework, which the group considers could be applied at both the system- and VET provider-levels. The framework could serve a range of purposes: as a checklist, as an instrument, as a reference or even a normative framework. It comprises four interrelated elements: a model, a methodology, a monitoring system, and a measurement tool. The TWG-Q also identified a set of key questions reflecting the key issues related to the application of a common quality assurance model. Quality indicators The TWG-Q has also proposed a set of indicators including two that are overarching: the share of VET providers applying quality management systems respecting the Common Quality Assurance Framework by type of approach and investment in training of trainers. Six indicators relate to policy priorities for VET systems: unemployment according to groups, prevalence of vulnerable groups, participation in initial vocational training and lifelong learning, successful completion of training, destination of trainees six months after training and utilisation of acquired skills at the workplace. Two qualitative indicators have also been proposed: existing mechanisms to adapt VET to changing demands in the labour markets and existing schemes to promote better access including guidance. The TWG-Q performs the important function of collating and analysing information to increase knowledge of how the quality of VET is measured in the Member States. Research outcomes provide the basis for enhanced co-operation in the area. Practices, including models are used to provoke debate, for comparative purposes and to make progress towards greater transparency and even compatibility. The members of the TWG-Q share their experiences and expertise with a wider public through the Virtual Community set up for that purpose. The outcomes of the work need to be complemented by intensive and extensive dissemination and project activities involving the broad spectrum of VET providers and other stakeholders. In recognition of this the TWG-Q intends to continue with, and initiate, a range of activities for the next phase. The group plans to continue the mapping of institutions responsible for quality assurance of VET systems in the Member States to get a better overview of who is doing what in this field. This will foster the exchange of information, experience and co-operation between institutions with similar functions and agendas. 4.6 Observations The foundations have been laid for European co-operation to improve the quality of education and training in the context of the Future Objectives work programme. The objective of achieving enhanced co-operation with regard to quality assurance has been separately identified for VET in the context of the Copenhagen process and for higher education in the Bologna process. The focus of attention is on quality assurance, accreditation and the recognition of qualifications. Within these three different contexts different groupings have been given similar mandates related to improving the quality of education and training in Europe that include reflection on, and analysis of, shared knowledge and know-how, benchmarking and the adaptation and transfer of good practices. These groupings have been instructed to propose innovative policies and practices and facilitate their application within the EU, to include the Accession countries, EFTA-EEA countries and an even wider Europe in the context of Bologna. In addition to more process-orientated objectives, the Copenhagen process aimed to achieve tangible outcomes such as generic models, methods, instruments and materials. The latter are intended to increase the quality of decision-making with regard to providing accreditation; making awards; developing curricula; managing learning environments; fostering and assessing learning. These initiatives aim to have an impact on both systems and practices. Objectives have been set to widen participation in developments and make use of networks to disseminate all outcomes related to quality. The initiatives have also adopted a range of communications approaches, including interactive websites, virtual communities, conferences and seminars and publications. The initiatives are also all concerned with increasing the quality of cross-frontier education and training mobility programmes so that the learning acquired in these contexts is valued and can be formally recognised. The European Union action programmes are a source of innovative practices for the three initiatives. These programmes have adopted a more thematic focussed approach than their predecessors and the full potential of the different measures (pilot and mobility projects, joint actions, thematic networks, accompanying measures and valorisation) can be exploited to test emerging priority themes, such as quality management. The Copenhagen and Bologna processes and the work programme all respond to the same goal of enhancing the management of quality in education and training, a range of factors separates them, including: Governance and bureaucratic arrangements associated with EU policy-making (work programme and Copenhagen); Commission led and centralised approaches (work programme and Copenhagen); Involvement of the Social Partners and stakeholders (work programme, Bologna and Copenhagen); Direct involvement of provider institutions in development and testing (Bologna); Intermediate organisations as a driving force (Bologna); Pitching developments to primarily meet the needs of public (state regulated) education and training systems (work programme), self regulating higher education institutions (Bologna) public (state regulated) and private systems and providers, including enterprises (Copenhagen); Dealing with different degrees of complexity that characterise general education, higher education and VET across different countries Taking into account the ranges in capacities of the respective stakeholders to engage in transnational co-operation and the extent and nature of the resources available to progress developments within the different sub-systems. Despite the emphasis placed on EU level co-operation to increase the quality of VET since 1994 a recent Communication from the Commission makes several references to the insufficient and even lack of quality in EU vocational training. The added value of EU co-operation processes must be under constant monitoring and review to ensure their relevance and potential for success. The outcomes of the Bologna process indicate that quality assurance related to qualifications is seen as part of a more holistic approach to quality assurance including policy, systemic, institutional and programme, and even sector elements in the context of Copenhagen. This requires more national and institutional level developments that should precede or coincide with pan-European developments. Differences that effect the application of common mechanisms for quality management and assurance within and across sub-systems nationally and regionally include: the extent to which a provider institution is integrated into national/regional systems; requirements for public accountability; its size and how it is governed; the nature of institutional partnerships and funding arrangements; the degree to which provision is related to the world of work; its linkage with industry and enterprises; the nature and length of programmes; the curricula and pedagogy adopted. Attempting to establish common approaches and practices for VET and higher education at a European level must also accommodate differences related to how national/regional systems reflect their different social and economic needs and the role and nature of quality management and assurance in that regard. This raises the question as to whether co-operation related to improving the quality of education and training would be more effective if it were to involve initially the same institutional types offering similar programmes and qualifications within VET and higher education at national level. This could be followed by co-operation between different institutional types offering similar programmes and qualifications. European co-operation would then follow the same sequence. The extent to which such co-operation exists at the national/regional level would be an important topic to discuss at the Conference. Given the differences in the political nature of the initiatives, the approaches taken to enhance co-operation at European level, the starting points and current status of the initiatives and the sub-systems themselves, encouraging greater convergence at this point in time could be premature and contested (given the contrary policy pull to respect and promote diversity across Europe). However, it is worth considering the possibility of bridging initiatives, for example the following could be considered: Test conceptual frameworks for quality management and quality assurance in institutions that provide programmes at the interface of VET and higher education. Consider joint training initiatives for mixed groups of VET and higher education academics/teachers/trainers to apply the concepts emerging from the different European initiatives. Joint ventures on quality issues between NGOs with competence in VET and higher education could be supported. Joint actions to pool experience and set and implement common principles and criteria for quality issues related to study-based and work-linked placements could be mutually beneficial and serve to increase understanding and transparency across the sub-systems. Shared concerns regarding the quality of non-formal learning and improved guidance services for learners could also be the subject of joint actions. As both Bologna and Copenhagen prioritise the investigation of credit systems, a joint venture could be agreed to assess the impact of more flexible provision on institutional quality assurance systems. On a less intrusive basis, the following approaches might be suggested: Existing working groups and networks could be supported to broaden representation from both sub-systems. Multinational and multi-actor study visits, based on the CEDEFOP/ARION models, with representation from both sub-systems could examine policies and practices, which aim to ensure the quality of both sub-systems. The virtual communities could encourage greater participation by key actors from VET and higher education to share knowledge and know-on quality matters. Dissemination events could target greater participation from the different education and training systems. A number of issues could usefully be addressed at the Conference, and these are indicated below. Issues for discussion What are the underlying causes for VET to be considered of insufficient quality and not attractive enough? Are the data on regional/national and sectoral approaches to managing quality in VET and higher education comprehensive and up-to-date? What are the strengths and weaknesses of these approaches? What else could be done at European level to support quality assurance at national/regional/institutional levels? What is known about the effect quality assurance has on national educational and occupational mobility and the recognition of qualifications? Are there examples of common approaches to quality assurance within and across VET and higher education at the regional/national levels? What makes these common approaches desirable and feasible? Does the blurring of VET and higher education have implications for quality assurance and the co-operation on such at European level? Are national VET systems sufficiently prepared for testing of the outcomes of the TWG-Q (Copenhagen) related to quality assurance? How can they be best disseminated and tested? What measures could be taken to involve the full spectrum of VET stakeholders, in particular, learners directly in transnational collaborative activities within the context of the Copenhagen process, at least to the same extent as in Bologna? How can providers at the interface of VET and higher education be best served by the Bologna and Copenhagen processes? How are the effectiveness and efficiency of both the Bologna and Copenhagen processes evaluated in relation to their goals for quality assurance? 5. Qualifications Frameworks 5.1 Context As has been shown in earlier sections of this paper, the theme of transfer of qualifications and competences is becoming an increasingly important driver of European co-operation in the field of education and training, and it is the subject of several separate but related policy initiatives. It is clear that work on the related themes of transparency, credit transfer and quality assurance has begun to achieve a degree of convergence in outcomes and in thinking on conceptual, political and technical levels. As will be described below, frameworks of qualifications have been established in many countries, both in Europe and elsewhere. Frameworks have been developed covering occupational and professional sectors, and some frameworks operate transnationally. What is the next step? It seems that moving towards a framework of qualifications at European level is one possible answer. This suggestion is emerging, in slightly different formulations, from a number of sources that have already been mentioned earlier in the paper For example, an overarching framework of qualifications for the European Higher Education Area features strongly in the actions proposed within the Bologna process since the Berlin Communiqu in September 2003. A European qualifications framework is put forward as a concrete proposal by the Commission in its interim report on the Lisbon goals, which includes a report on the progress of the Copenhagen process. The Joint Interim report of the European Commission and the Council on progress towards the Lisbon goals calls for a European qualifications framework. This concept features in some reports of the working groups in the future objectives work programme. It is also a visible theme in sectoral initiatives, especially in new and emerging employment sectors with no traditional qualification paths. It appears that the idea of some form of integrated framework of qualifications is gaining ground at European level, and it is worthwhile to examine some of the issues involved in designing, developing and implementing such a framework, so that further action is planned from an informed standpoint. This section of the paper explores the idea of qualifications frameworks from a number of perspectives, firstly considering the definition of and rationale for qualifications frameworks, then examining some of the features of existing national, international and sectoral frameworks and issues in implementing them. Finally, the possible role of qualifications frameworks in achieving the Lisbon goals is outlined, and issues are raised that may be further discussed at the conference. Qualifications frameworks: definition and rationale In embarking on any discussion of qualifications frameworks, the first problem that is encountered is one of definition: what is a qualification; what is meant by a framework? A full discussion of the linguistic nuances suggested by the common use of these terms in the English language, let alone the difficulties posed by translation, is beyond the scope of this paper. It might be helpful, however, to propose broad working definitions for the purpose of clarity. The following are suggested not as strict prescriptive definitions, but rather as descriptions of how the terms qualification, qualifications system, and qualifications framework may relate to each other at national level in current practice. Qualification A qualification is achieved by an individual who satisfies an authorised agency that he/she has reached the required standards in a course of study or other learning programme. A qualification may confer official recognition for access to the labour market and to further education and training. It may also confer a legal entitlement to practise a trade or profession. Qualifications system A national qualifications system includes all aspects of a country's activity that result in the recognition of learning, including policy development, institutional arrangements, standards setting, quality assurance processes, assessment and awarding processes, skills recognition and other mechanisms that link education and training to the labour market. Qualifications framework A qualifications framework can be defined as either a conceptual framework or a technical framework, and some frameworks include both elements. A conceptual (or theoretical) framework may include a philosophical rationale underpinning the approach to qualifications, core principles and operating guidelines, such as statements about access, linkages, articulation and quality. A technical (or instrumental) framework usually includes a classification of qualifications according to a set of criteria for levels of learning achieved. Many technical frameworks can be presented as diagrams showing the relationship of different levels of qualifications to each other. The scope of national qualifications frameworks may be comprehensive of all learning achievement and pathways or may be confined to a particular part of the education and training system, for example higher education, vocational education and training or an occupational area. Some frameworks have more design elements and a tighter structure than others do, and some are based in legislation whereas others are based on consensus with links to regulations. A distinction is sometimes drawn between a national qualifications framework, which implies that only national qualifications (i.e. those awarded by national bodies) are included, and a national framework of qualifications, which includes all qualifications made in a country. In the latter case, it is the framework that is national rather than the qualifications. This distinction may form the basis of establishing a typology of national frameworks, but such analysis has not been undertaken as part of the current study. It is important to note that while all countries have a qualifications system and many have at least a conceptual qualifications framework, not all have developed technical frameworks. The introduction of frameworks seems to be linked to the level of state regulation and control in the education and training system and to the extent to which there are already clear and transparent linkages, overall coherence and articulation between qualifications across different levels and areas of education and training. Where systems are more centralised, it may be easier to establish a national framework than in regionalised or federal structures. Structures for social dialogue at national level can also influence the decision about establishing a national framework. Having considered a possible definition of a qualifications framework, it is useful to examine the reasons why such constructions have emerged in national education and training policies and practice in recent decades. According to Adam, existing national qualifications frameworks are complex structures designed to achieve specific economic, social and political objectives. Many countries are currently examining their qualifications structures and modernising their education systems to respond to the challenges of globalisation and change at political, economic, social and technological levels. It appears that most national frameworks aim to establish a basis for improving the transparency, quality, accessibility, linkages and public or labour market recognition of qualifications within a country and internationally. In doing so, frameworks establish inter-relationships between qualifications for the purposes of recognising equivalence and for articulation and progression between qualifications. These purposes are essentially institutional in that they relate to provider-based delivery of qualifications. The institutional purposes can be classified as follows: Equivalence and linkages This relates to connecting and comparing qualifications, often through a levels-based framework, which can also provide a flexible basis for credit transfer between qualifications. Quality assurance A set of quality criteria is usually applied to qualifications to be included within a framework and to the delivery and award of qualifications. Quality can also be used as a basis for allocating public funding although frameworks may not be developed for this purpose. Coherence and transparency This is often concerned with linking general education and vocational qualifications, and providing accessible pathways of progression for lifelong learning. In addition to the institutional purposes, qualifications frameworks also perform a number of important user functions, focusing on the needs of learners in particular. This shift to a learner perspective is an important feature of some recently developed national frameworks. National frameworks can Raise the awareness of citizens and employers in relation to qualifications Facilitate recognition of skills and competences and support mobility of learners and workers Improve access to learning opportunities for all, and thereby promote social inclusion Identify alternative routes of entry, progression and exit Facilitate and support learners and clarify lifelong learning opportunities. As education and training systems have become more dynamic and diverse, and as economic and social demands upon them increase, it is not surprising that governments should regard qualifications frameworks as useful policy instruments. They are used to bring a degree of co-ordination and coherence to disparate qualifications arrangements, and to the institutions and providers that control or influence these qualifications. Many of the frameworks that have been developed share common themes of progression and access, reduction of sectoral boundaries and rigidities, broader recognition of learning outcomes, flexibility and seamlessness. They seek to reconcile the tensions between the need for greater flexibility at individual level and the rigidity of institutional arrangements, between a focus on the learner or on the system. National frameworks therefore can be seen as adding important value to the national qualifications system, both at institutional and at individual level, by making systems more transparent, more coherent, more accessible, more flexible, more consistent in quality and generally more responsive to the needs of learners, society and the economy. 5.3 Making the case for a European qualifications framework The European Commission, in its communication on the success of the Lisbon strategy, makes a very strong case for the establishment of a European qualifications framework. It suggests that the European Labour market cannot function effectively without a common European reference framework for the recognition of qualifications in higher education and vocational training. Such a framework, in the view of the Commission, is essential for creating a genuine European Labour market, to facilitate mobility and make European systems more transparent. A common European framework should be based on national frameworks, which in turn should be comprehensive and include all levels of initial and continuing training. The Commission sees that mutual trust is based on compatible and credible quality assurance instruments and these are essential to the development of this common framework of qualifications for Europe. It declares a commitment to make all necessary efforts to achieve a European framework by 2005, and states that it expects the Member States to do likewise. The achievement of this goal is seen as a priority in making the Lisbon strategy a success. In proposing the establishment of a European framework of qualifications, the European Commission appears to see this as a way to address a number of policy issues that are similar to those already addressed by the establishment of frameworks at national level. It would support and enable coherent lifelong learning strategies, improve the quality and the attractiveness of vocational education and training, promote mobility and link with the work taking place on qualifications within the Bologna process. It would address institutional issues such as the relevance of programmes and qualifications, quality assurance, transparency, credit transfer and recognition as well as learner focused issues such as access, progression and mobility. This question of a European framework of qualifications has been taken up in the Joint Interim Report of the European Commission and the Presidency Education and Training 2010, the success of the Lisbon strategy hinges upon urgent reforms, February 2004. This underlines the need to develop a European framework, based on national frameworks, to be a common reference for the recognition of qualifications and competences. It notes that this framework should be based on the national frameworks which in turn must be coherent and cover higher education and vocational education and training. As the debate on the concept of the European qualifications framework is at a very early stage, it is worthwhile at this point to consider the issues that have been encountered to date in developing and implementing qualifications frameworks at national, international and sectoral levels. This may help to focus the debate, identify important to tensions and challenges and indicate some aspects that might influence the way forward. Implementing qualifications frameworks At national level, several EU Member States and other countries have introduced, or are in the process of introducing, credit systems, and qualifications frameworks, which aim for example to promote and recognise more flexible learning pathways, or to enhance the quality and attractiveness of vocational education and training. Some have credit and qualifications frameworks (for example, Scotland). As already seen, there is now an emerging view that it is time to develop a framework in which such national initiatives can interact with each other, thus facilitating transfer across national borders. While it is not possible in this brief paper to examine national developments in detail, some of the issues that have been encountered are outlined, with a view to identifying the critical success factors in establishing a qualifications framework. This may inform the debate on the desirability and feasibility of establishing a European framework. This is all the more important given that many European countries do not have explicit national frameworks and the Berlin Communiqu calls on Member States to elaborate a framework of comparable and compatible qualifications for their higher education systems. In the case of higher education, Ministers from the Bologna Signatory States (at their meeting in Berlin, in September 2003) identified the following elements to be part of the national qualification frameworks: workload, level, learning outcomes, competences and profile. National frameworks As already mentioned, many countries have multiple systems of qualifications and various efforts have been made to encompass these qualifications within national frameworks to support co-ordination, correspondence, coherence, integration and transparency within and between qualifications systems. Some national frameworks are comprehensive, including all levels of education and training (e.g. Ireland, Scotland), while some distinguish, for example, between vocational and academic education, or between higher education qualifications and vocational education and training qualifications e.g. England, Wales and Northern Ireland, Scotland, Denmark (higher education). Some frameworks refer only to qualifications in a specific field of learning. Finally, frameworks vary widely in their legal status, e.g. voluntary, regulatory, statutory and treaty-based. A number of predominantly English-speaking countries (including New Zealand, England, Wales and Northern Ireland, Australia, Scotland, South Africa and Ireland) have formally developed and published national frameworks of qualifications within the past decade or so. Denmark has recently developed a framework of qualifications in higher education. Although these frameworks have been mutually informed they are by no means identical. They differ in objectives and detail, however a common feature of the qualifications systems of these countries is a mixed economy of qualifications, partly derived from legal, governmental authority and partly from voluntary, mutual, recognition in the labour market. Many European countries have traditionally differentiated between education and training and have maintained parallel frameworks for vocational (or professional) education and training and academic (or general) education. These frameworks extend from secondary through to tertiary education and training, with the existing qualification systems typically heavily dependent on legal public authority. The relative inflexibility associated with qualifications based in the legal code has raised issues for these systems in an era of internationalisation and globalisation, including the mobility of people with qualifications and the capacity of institutions to operate at an international level in providing programmes. Countries throughout the world are also exposed to the globalised qualifications offered within professional/industry sectors, especially in information technology and in other emerging occupational/professional areas. These usually operate without reference to any national qualifications system or framework. Frameworks of qualifications often incorporate mechanisms for the recognition of smaller bundles of learning outcomes than those associated with traditional qualifications. These are sometimes referred to as credit systems and the components are variously termed units or modules. Unit standards can be recognised as well as whole qualifications, across the levels of these frameworks. The United States, for example, has long experience of operating a credit accumulation and transfer system for higher education. There, the decision to recognise the credits of another institution rests with the receiving institution and the system depends on numerous bilateral and multilateral agreements, which in some cases are regulated by the individual states for public institutions. In 2001, CEDEFOP conducted a study on European structures of qualification levels, focussing in particular on five countries/European regions: Germany, France, Spain, Netherlands and England and Wales. In the context of major structural changes in the labour force and work organisations, this study aimed to find out how education and training systems, and in particular national systems for classifying qualification levels, respond to these changes. The study analysed the characteristics of national qualifications frameworks, including the number and definition of levels, definition of qualifications, criteria for classification, and procedures for updating qualifications. It examined the similarities and differences between national frameworks and the 1985 European five-levels structure (see below), and assessed whether, how and to what extent the European structure of qualification levels was being applied in the respective EU Member States. The study analysed the scope of national classification systems using the criteria of breadth of application and use, cohesiveness and comprehensiveness. The report also listed six criteria for defining levels within a framework of qualifications: Input criteria/admission requirements for education and training programmes. Characteristics of the programmes delivering qualifications, programme duration and learning venues. Output criteria in terms of learning outputs; the attainment goals. Output criteria in terms of occupational practice or characteristics of work. The position of a qualification in occupational hierarchies. Equation statements, formally stating the equality of qualifications at a certain level. The study found that the role of the state in developing and maintaining standards and qualifications varies both between the countries and within the countries. The report states that qualifications are social constructs and thus the allocation of qualifications to levels can become subject to political and socio-cultural pressures. Overall, it found that none of the countries studied had a classification system consisting of one unique set of qualifications serving as the reference frame to certify a wide variety of learning and work experience at a wide and exhaustive range of levels. Also the study found that a completely unified structure does not seem to be very realistic in most countries, as there will often be institutions that will want to issue qualifications that are outside such a system. A major observation emerging from the study is the difficulty in distinguishing between a framework and a system and the need to clarify what is understood by a framework, either conceptual or technical, as outlined in the working definitions proposed at the beginning of this section. The CEDEFOP study indicates that work on the establishment of national frameworks is at varying stages of development in the countries studied, and by this is also seen to be the case in other countries, if the websites of the National Reference Points for vocational qualifications are consulted. This may explain the reluctance to signal in the Joint Interim Report (February 2004) a date by which a European framework of qualifications, which explicitly is based on national frameworks, should be put in place. International frameworks As seen above, qualifications frameworks at national level serve a number of purposes including classification system, transparency tool, recognition tool, and they take a number of forms, both conceptual and technical. One expert commentator in discussion has remarked with the authors on this topic that a framework is not just a set of boxes and numbers. When considering the nature of existing and possible future international frameworks, there is a need to address the same concerns and establish a shared understanding about the purposes, scope and design of these frameworks. It is clear that there is a considerable international interest in qualifications frameworks at the present time. The OECD, European Union, ILO, UNESCO and World Bank are active in the area and as already indicated many countries are using qualifications frameworks to reform their education and training systems. On an international level, some of the European Community initiatives and instruments to promote mobility and transparency described in earlier sections of this paper have a strong international dimension. The absence of a common framework of reference levels (which could be considered to be the cornerstone of a technical framework) may have prevented developments such as the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) and Europass-Training from realising their full potential as instruments for credit accumulation and recognition of diverse learning experiences. The Bologna process has achieved consensus on the goal of developing a European framework for higher education qualifications, and this is giving rise to significant further joint action on quality and credit transfer initiatives, as described in earlier sections of this paper. The new Europass is a common framework for the transparency of qualifications, designed to help individuals to make their learning and achievements more visible throughout their learning careers in formal, non-formal and informal learning contexts. The growth in European integration and co-operation, as well as the advent of globalisation, has led to the development of number of related frameworks at a transnational level in Europe. The first of these was the European five-level framework of vocational training qualifications adopted by European Council decision in 1985. The purpose of this decision was to make progress towards achieving comparability of vocational training qualifications, in particular for skilled workers, so that they would be able to obtain suitable employment in another Member State. However, as is discussed earlier in this paper, this framework, while serving as a guide to the development and revision of national qualification systems, has not been adopted by Member States on a widespread basis. The CEDEFOP 2001 study found that the European five-level framework was not very well known or widely used in the countries studied. In some cases however, it had influenced the development of the national framework of levels. It has also informed the debate on linking qualifications to the changing profile of the labour market, although one of the main reasons often cited for its lack of continuing impact is the difficulty of keeping pace with rapid changes in many occupational sectors. In embarking on developing any future international framework of levels, policymakers would be well advised to take note of this earlier experience, and in particular the problem of combining occupational skill levels with levels of training in a single framework, as the 1985 model attempted to do. Some of the other reasons that are often given for the relative lack of impact of the framework include the complexity of its approach to comparability and the absence of shared understanding among the different countries of the diverse cultures and traditions that shaped the landscape of qualifications. The main problem may well be that it was before its time, and that countries were not yet ready to agree on comparability because there was insufficient trust about the quality of each others systems. In the intervening twenty-year period, actions that have been taken at policy level and within many transnational partnership projects have greatly enhanced transparency and built shared understanding. This contributes significantly to creating a climate of trust within which work towards a European framework might now be more readily accepted by Member States. The highest level authoritative classification of international education and training systems is that of the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). The International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) was designed by UNESCO in the early 1970s and adopted in 1978 to serve as an instrument suitable for assembling, compiling and presenting statistics on education both within individual countries and internationally. It is a framework for collecting statistical information about provision of education and training rather than about qualifications. However, it shares two features with qualifications frameworks, namely a specification of levels and of fields of learning although the latter may not be considered an exact fit with the vocational education and training or higher education sub-systems covered by national frameworks. In both of these features the ISCED framework aspires to be comprehensive and universal. In 1997, UNESCO agreed on a revised ISCED to reflect changes in the structure of education and training systems. It would seem important that any future development of qualifications frameworks at international level would be linked in some way to the well-known and widely used ISCED levels, for greater transparency and coherence. This is already the case to some extent within the Bologna three-cycle structure. An indication of the significance currently being attached to systems of qualifications within the OECD is a project currently under way to investigate the role of qualifications systems in promoting lifelong learning. This project is seeking to share experiences of dealing with the pressures and demands on qualifications systems over the past decade, identify common policy issues and challenges, and share experience and instruments for designing and managing qualifications systems, including frameworks of qualifications. Each country has produced an extensive background report and the resulting analysis, due to be published in 2004, will provide valuable insights into the impact of qualifications systems on learners, education and training systems, societies and economies. One of the themes being investigated within the overall project is the impact of qualification frameworks on lifelong learning. Sectoral frameworks The challenges of internationalisation and a rapid change in economies and in occupations have given rise to the development of sectoral qualifications. In recent years some sectors of business and industry have become active in developing education and training solutions and qualifications and/or competence frameworks that are often beyond the scope of national qualifications. This has led to a broad range of initiatives including for example the development of international training modules, assessment standards, assessment methods, curricula and qualifications and/or competences. At the European Commission level, the Directorates General for education, enterprise, employment, internal market and transport support the development of qualifications and competences at sector and branch level. Sectoral projects also feature significantly in the Leonardo da Vinci programme. Social partner organisations, chambers of commerce, multinational companies and private enterprises have taken autonomous initiatives to develop sectoral frameworks, often aimed at new and emerging sectors where there may be no traditional learning and qualifications paths. In the information and communications technology sector for example, the current initiatives include the Career-Space projects sponsored by a consortium of companies, including multinationals, the credit system for advanced IT training developed in Germany, the Microsoft training programme, and the European Computer Driving Licence (ECDL). While the range of sectoral initiatives may be considered to have produced useful outcomes for the sectors concerned, the lack of co-ordination, strategic overview, and long-term follow-up affects the potential for wider impact and sustainability. The Professionalisation Durable (Sustainable professionalisation) project initiated under the French Presidency in 2001 attempted to devise a model for the construction of common European qualifications standards across all sectors. The model was piloted in two sectors, hotel and automotive, with nine countries jointly developing a common occupational profile and skills description for the occupations of accommodation manager and logistics technician. A study on the project carried out on behalf of the European Commission concluded that there was potential for further refinement and simplification of the model and for integration with other initiatives at sectoral, national and international levels, particularly in the context of the Copenhagen declaration. The work of the project is continuing and further information can be found on the website of the European Training Village. In considering the possible future development of a European framework of qualifications, it is important to take account of the sectoral developments and of the possible interfaces between sectoral, national and international frameworks. Some sectoral frameworks have been developed because of the rigidities of existing education and training provision and qualifications, the emergence of new types of work and difficulties for the formal education and training system to keep pace with this, and the difficulty in achieving articulation and linkage across national systems. In these cases it seems that was easier for sectors or occupations to work together across national boundaries rather than trying to work with or develop national frameworks. As mentioned in the section on transparency above, the draft directive on professional recognition proposes the establishment of professional platforms where sectors can agree voluntarily on common standards. While it is necessary to distinguish between the tasks of setting standards and of fitting them into a framework, there is nevertheless scope to integrate the important work at sectoral level into any future work on designing an over-arching European qualifications framework. In 2003, the Advisory Committee for Vocational Training (ACVT) agreed a strategy for the development of qualifications and competences at sectoral level, as part of the follow-up to the Copenhagen declaration. Firstly, a systematic mapping exercise is being undertaken by CEDEFOP to increase the visibility of initiatives at sectoral level and to provide the basis of an inventory that will help users to communicate and develop links with each other. This inventory will also facilitate the development of policy linking, for example, the sectoral social dialogue, the planned common platforms proposed as part of the draft directive on professional recognition and projects within Leonardo da Vinci and other Community programmes. Secondly, a more systematic use will be made of the Leonardo da Vinci programme in support of developing sectoral qualifications. Thirdly, the ACVT will be used as a platform for cooperation, communication and transparency in relation to the development of sectoral qualifications. The experience of the Professionalisation Durable project will be incorporated within this work. While this work is not directly concerned with developing frameworks, it nevertheless represents an important step in co-ordinating a wide range of disparate sectoral initiatives and building on existing good practice. It also moves towards integrating sectoral initiatives with national and international developments, and towards providing a level of strategic co-ordination that enables good practices at all three levels to inform each other. Common issues in developing and implementing frameworks Having taken a general overview of why and how national, international and sectoral frameworks of qualifications have been developed, it is possible to identify a number of common issues that influence the choice of approach in different circumstances. These issues can be classified as conceptual, political and technical. Conceptual issues concern defining a qualification; the definition, purpose and scope of a framework; its core principles and philosophies. Political issues include the ownership and control of the framework, the involvement of stakeholders, the assignment of roles and responsibilities to various agencies and the linkages that the framework supports within and outside the national qualifications system. Technical issues comprehend complex matters such as levels of qualifications; establishment of criteria and standards; procedures for access, transfer and progression for learners; arrangements for credit, quality assurance and validation of non- formal and informal learning. If the idea of a European framework is to be developed into a concrete proposal, these and other issues will need to be addressed. 5.5 The role of qualifications frameworks in achieving the Lisbon goals The development of a European qualifications framework has moved onto the centre of the policy stage with the adoption of the joint interim report on the Lisbon strategy, where it is presented as a key goal. Other national and international policy developments and sectoral initiatives are also converging towards this goal, as described above. The Bologna Declaration in 1999 marked the formal beginning of a process to create a European Higher Education Area. As described earlier in this paper, this intergovernmental agreement which now includes forty European states has begun to develop a more closely co-ordinated system of programmes of study and associated qualifications across the area. In particular the agreement on a three-cycle structure could be seen to constitute a partial framework for higher education in Europe. Within the Copenhagen process, work on transparency, quality and in particular credit transfer has led to a growing awareness of the need for common reference points for qualifications. The work of the Tuning project to develop descriptors for qualifications is also relevant. National and sectoral frameworks have attempted to introduce order and coherence to qualifications systems and structures within their own remit, but their scope has sometimes been limited in transnational terms. Some of the current work within the Bologna and Copenhagen processes illustrate a certain commonality of concerns and approaches to the idea of a framework, which might be considered more closely in the context of planning the way forward. Several national and international initiatives on qualifications have been undertaken in parallel with the Bologna process, including the Joint Quality Initiative (JQI) Dublin descriptors, the Trans-European Evaluation Project (TEEP), the Tuning project, developments in national qualification frameworks and various thematic seminars. The Danish Bologna seminar on Qualification Structures in European Higher Education was held in Copenhagen on 27-28 March 2003. This seminar was informed by a background report that explored alternative approaches for clarifying the three cycles in European higher education qualifications. The report and the seminar examined the issues and debates associated with describing qualifications. They also focussed on current European approaches to qualifications structures, alternative methodologies and theoretical foundations for describing levels in higher education qualifications, including lifelong learning. The Danish seminar resulted in a series of detailed recommendations to higher education stakeholders that were later taken up by the Education Ministers in Berlin. The 2003 Berlin Communiqu then called for the creation of a European qualifications framework, including provision for lifelong learning. In the communiqu Ministers encourage the Member States to elaborate a framework of comparable and compatible qualifications for their higher education systems, which should seek to describe qualifications in terms of workload, level, learning outcomes, competences and profile. They also undertake to elaborate an overarching framework of qualifications for the European Higher Education Area. Ministers furthermore call those working on qualifications frameworks for the European Higher Education Area to encompass the wide range of flexible learning paths, opportunities and techniques and to make appropriate use of the ECTS credits. They stress the need to improve opportunities for all citizens, in accordance with their aspirations and abilities, to follow the lifelong learning paths into and within higher education. There are significant connections between the full Bologna agenda and the creation of effective systems for the description and location of European qualifications. Each of the main action lines identified in the Prague communiqu is fundamentally affected by the development of common and effective qualification descriptors, and this to some extent shows the genesis of the idea of a European qualifications framework within the Bologna process. The adoption of a system of easily readable and comparable degrees to aid recognition requires common and clear descriptors. The adoption of a system essentially based on two main cycles presupposes some agreement about the nature and role of degrees at different levels. The establishment of a system of credits is itself one approach to help describe and quantify qualifications and make them more transparent. The promotion of mobility, of staff, students and researchers, can only be facilitated by a common understanding of qualifications. The promotion of European co-operation in quality assurance requires transparent and, if possible, universal approaches to the expression of qualifications, qualification descriptors and other external reference points for quality and standards. The promotion of the European dimension in higher education can be helped by more transparency between existing courses, curricula and levels. Regarding lifelong learning, any consensus for describing qualifications and levels must have implications for qualification structures, non-university qualifications and degrees and thus all stages and types of learning. Finally, promoting the attractiveness of the European higher education area would be made easier as the readability and comparability of European higher education qualifications is made real by the development of a framework of qualifications. As work within the Bologna process proceeds in the aftermath of the Berlin Communiqu, refining the ways of describing qualifications and levels in higher education is a central concern. There is a stated commitment to taking the process of developing a common framework forward to a new level before the Bergen meeting in 2005. However, the situation is complicated by the existence of several alternative and competing approaches to qualifications frameworks. Some stakeholders in the European higher education sector are beginning to collaborate at international level to resolve these problems and move towards a common understanding as a basis for further work.. For example, a Danish initiative to bring together a working group of relevant stakeholders to undertake development work in relation to the overarching framework of qualifications for the European area of higher education and to provide some guidance on the development of national frameworks is underway and will report to the Bologna Follow-Up Group. This group plans to report by the end of 2004 and feed this work into a related conference in January 2005, Denmark on the issues. One of the key questions being addressed by this group is an exploration of the range and purposes of national frameworks of qualifications and the different ways in which they deal with issues such as the expression and measurement of programmes, credit allocation, the identification of learning outcomes and competencies, qualifications and level descriptors, subject benchmarks. In some cases traditional models and methods of relating qualifications structures mainly to cycles of learning are being added to by the development of systems based on explicit reference points using learning outcomes and competences, levels and level descriptors or indicators, subject benchmarks and qualification descriptors. Those who favour these approaches maintain that they provide more precision and accuracy and facilitate transparency and comparison. However, it is unlikely that all national systems will immediately move in this direction, and this has implications for the kind of over-arching European qualifications framework that would accommodate the huge diversity of national approaches. A major question is what the core elements of a European framework would be and how it would add value to national frameworks. These questions could usefully be explored further at the Dublin conference. The Technical Working Group on Credit Transfer in VET (TWG-CT) has focused on developing new approaches to qualifications frameworks at both national and European level as away of facilitating credit transfer and mobility for learners and workers. The group has found that few Member States have so far introduced frameworks including ones that combine initial, further and higher education as well as lifelong learning. Frameworks tend to be adapted to particular national situations, and are linked to patterns of education, training and lifelong learning. The group notes that the Bologna process has led to the development of a broad consensus concerning levels or degree structures within higher education. It suggests that a comparable consensus in the field of VET would provide a crucial reference at national and European levels and constitute an important step forward in promoting transparency, comparability, transferability and recognition in VET. In this context, the TWG-CT considers that the development of common reference levels or qualifications frameworks for VET is a necessary condition for enabling the sustainable development of credit transfer systems both at national and European or international level. In common with the working group that is developing work on a European framework at higher education level, the TWG-CT recognises that a European framework for VET cannot mirror all different regional, sectoral or occupation-specific situations. Rather, a European qualifications framework must be understood as a meta-framework, which avoids too much detail. The aim of such a meta-framework must be to create and support zones of mutual trust, a theme which the group is explicitly exploring through a Commissioned research study. The TWG-CT, informed by previous and current work on qualification systems and frameworks, has identified the following key questions: How can current and emerging national qualification frameworks be made more compatible and coherent with one another? What kind of typologies and classifications are needed of subjects or programmes, knowledge, skills and competences, as well as of generic skill or job profiles and more detailed job roles or levels? Should qualification systems and frameworks from the outset refer to or include credit (along the lines, for example, being implemented in Scotland and Wales)? If so, should a European credits and qualifications meta-framework be envisaged? How many levels should be defined within such a meta-framework? What other zones of mutual trust can contribute to mobility and increased co-operation within VET on the one hand, and between VET and the world of work on the other? The group agrees that considerable effort is needed to clarify the issues and consult stakeholders and experts on possible approaches and solutions. A study was launched in September 2003 to advise the TWG-CT on how to cope with this question of further developing qualification frameworks throughout Europe, as well as to identify how to develop zones mutual trust. This study draws on experiences in a number of countries and at international/European level. Recommendations will be presented in spring 2004. As a longer-term goal, the TWG-CT recommends that a key objective for European co-operation in education and training should be the development of a coherent European credit and qualifications meta-framework. However, given the state of progress in the TWG CT, much work remains to be done on the development of a credit system for vocational education and training. It is not clear whether this should be in parallel with, be preceded by, or precedes the development of this overarching framework. The group argues that a meta-framework would facilitate the assessment and recognition of learning outcomes across national and sectoral borders, and contribute to the achievement of the Lisbon goals. It seems that the fixing at the highest political level of the objective to develop a European framework as a common reference for the recognition of qualifications provides a strong rationale for ongoing parallel developments in the fields of vocational education and training and higher education. It also highlights the need for increased co-operation and synergy between the Copenhagen and Bologna processes within the strategic framework of the Education and Training 2010 work programme (the Objectives process). However there are still questions about the political acceptance by Member States of the role of credit in any European framework. It cannot be assumed that the high-level political commitment is reflected on the ground in all Member States, and there is a need to ensure that there is sufficient buy-in to the idea or there is a risk that it might be seen as a top-down imposition, which would compromise its acceptability. In the discussion on qualifications frameworks surrounding the work of both the TWG-CT and the working group reporting to the Bologna follow-up group, a number of common issues are beginning to emerge, such as Relationships between national framework and an overarching framework Ownership and control of an overarching European framework Responsibility for its development, support and updating Bottom-up versus top-down development Level of detail required in the framework: loose or tight Achieving balance between simplicity of use and comprehensiveness of coverage Focus on inputs or outcomes Definition of core elements or building blocks of the overarching framework. There may be scope for joint discussion, research and proposals on these issues in the near future across the working groups that are currently active in the fields of higher education and vocational education and training. 5.6 Observations There is currently an attempt within the European Commission (supported by the Presidency on the Joint Interim Report) to integrate a number of different processes and initiatives related to education and training into a single coherent strategy aimed at achieving the Lisbon Education and Training 2010 goals. Each of the current processes has a different history, a different institutional basis and to some extent different objectives. The Future Objectives work programme, and Copenhagen Process are now being brought together under a single reporting framework that integrates different action lines. Following the Berlin Communiqu, Member States may include their actions under the Bologna process in their annual reports on the actions they have taken to implement the Lisbon strategy. One of the effects of this is to make the links between vocational education and training and higher education more clear. Facilitating and promoting the recognition of non-formal and informal learning is also a common thread in these processes. Lifelong learning is seen as an overall unifying concept, and the idea of a European qualifications framework has emerged as a critical success factor from both individual and system points of view. For the individual, the important thing is to be able to move between levels and stages of learning and learning contexts (from one system to another, one country to another, one sector to another, one job to another, one level of qualifications to another), and to transfer their qualifications, receiving appropriate recognition. For systems, the important thing is how coherent, flexible and open they are, and how they manage issues such as quality assurance, credit transfer, and transparency, flexibility and stability, and relevance. The key challenge is to create a European qualifications framework that facilitates the connection between national qualifications frameworks or qualifications systems in order to introduce more transparency to the relationship between different European qualifications. The added value of a European framework is that it could allow national frameworks and systems to articulate with each other. This does not imply that there should be shared or common qualifications but that the European framework acts a broad reference frame which makes it possible to understand, value or recognise qualifications across jurisdictions and to recognise and support the diversity of qualifications. Creating such a shared basis for understanding will improve the recognition of international qualifications, enhance the mobility of citizens and make credit transfer more effective. In addition, it will provide a basis for effective quality assurance. In this way, it can be seen that the proposal to establish a framework at European level links all of the key themes that have dominated education and training policy and practice for the past decade or so. It seems clear that the development of any over-arching European model must be flexible enough to encompass national variations. A European qualifications framework would amount to an agreement about a common structure or architecture within which different national qualifications could be located. It would not or need not entail the creation of identical qualifications in terms of specific standards, delivery, content or approach, although the development of shared descriptors or a shared understanding of generic qualifications, such as the Bachelors and Masters in higher education, does bring added advantages to recognition and comparability. Rather, it would provide a context within which a wide variety of qualifications could be located. It would mean the establishment of a European framework that would accommodate the more detailed national qualifications frameworks that in turn reflect different national priorities and cultures. The major issue to be addressed at this point is whether the work that has been undertaken in the areas of quality assurance, credit transfer and transparency, together with sectoral, national and international developments on qualifications frameworks, constitutes an adequate platform for the development of a common European qualifications framework. This issue can be addressed from three perspectives: conceptual, political and technical. From the conceptual perspective, the various working groups have already made considerable progress on defining possible key building blocks for a qualifications framework and on formulating a rationale for its development. There is currently work in progress within both higher education and vocational education and training to address such issues as the key purposes and principles underpinning a common framework, the actors who should be involved in developing it, and the scope and content of a possible framework. From the political perspective, there is a strong message emerging from work taking place under the Copenhagen and Bologna processes that a common framework is the way forward, and that there is a commitment to making it happen. The reasons for this strong political support include: It can be a powerful driver of progress towards many of the key Lisbon objectives. In particular, it can help make lifelong learning a reality. It can help to remove some of the major obstacles to mobility, between levels of education and training, between different learning contexts, between jobs and sectors, and between countries. Many of the enabling conditions are already in place, or are at an advanced stage of development: quality assurance, credit transfer, transparency. In moving towards the Lisbon 2010 goals, the view has been expressed that overall progress at the political level has been slow. As the preceding sections of this paper show, however, progress is visible and tangible in a number of key areas. It is possible that work on qualifications frameworks may be considered by some stakeholders to be advancing too fast. Much of the current collaboration in this regard is largely self-initiated by authorities in some Member States, involving voluntary bottom-up working groups and relatively few actors are as yet participating in the technical work. There is a need to communicate this work and broaden the debate, and this is recognised and is being addressed by the groups concerned. It should be recognised that the process of implementing strategy is never easy, quick or cheap, and sufficient time should be allowed to reach good results. There is a particular need to build political support at the level of the Member States. It is not yet clear that all are in agreement with the new strategic goal, and some attention will need to be paid to winning over the actors and states who are currently agnostic, sceptical or unsure about the need for national and/or European frameworks and the role or impact they may have. In particular, due regard needs to be given to the complex and diverse VET systems that currently exist, and an extensive and intensive process of consultation and communication will be needed to ensure that all stakeholder interests are fully engaged in further debate on a qualifications framework. It is not safe to assume that the progress reached in terms of learning cycles and levels of qualifications in higher education within the Bologna process can simply be replicated for VET. The important thing is to continue collaborating towards achieving the goals, and not to try to force agreement before stakeholders are ready. On a technical level, much has been achieved by the separate working groups and networks in a relatively short space of time. There is an opportunity in the near future to undertake some more collaborative approaches, particularly by linking or even integrating the work plans of the TWG-CT and the higher education network on a European framework. The results of some current research studies, such as those being undertaken by the OECD, by QCA on behalf of the TWG-CT, and by the forthcoming Dutch presidency, will play an important role in informing future developments. Issues for discussion Conceptual issues Why do we want a European framework of qualifications? What are the principles and philosophies that should underpin a European framework? What are its purposes? Who are the beneficiaries? Is it desirable and feasible to have a single framework covering all of lifelong learning, in all countries, in all sectors, at all levels? How can a framework help the achievement of the Lisbon goals? Can a European framework add anything at the national level where no national framework already exists, or where it is currently incomplete? Is a national framework a prerequisite for being part of a European framework? Should a European framework provide a link between national qualifications systems, or national qualifications frameworks? Political issues What is the level of support for the idea of a European framework in the Member States? Who should be responsible for devising a framework? How should the key stakeholders be involved? Who should support and monitor implementation of a framework? Should a European framework be explicitly linked to national frameworks, or vice versa, or should they operate completely independently? Technical and implementation issues How can the diverse requirements of VET, higher education, non-formal and informal learning be accommodated? How can the needs of occupational sectors be addressed in a European framework? Having recognised the need for a common framework, what is needed to make it happen? What might it look like? What parts are already in place? What are the obstacles to developing and implementing a framework? How can we ensure that Member States are ready for it? 6. Conclusions This research study set out to examine how a number of common themes related to education and training have developed through European policy and practice in recent years. The starting point for the study was the Community aim of having a competent and mobile workforce capable of making Europe into the most dynamic knowledge economy by the year 2010. Because the theme of mobility is closely linked to the way that learning and competences are recorded and valued in different countries, it was decided to focus on the area of qualifications, and in particular on policies and practices that facilitate the transfer of qualifications across national boundaries. The study focused in particular on examining the themes of transparency, credit transfer, quality and frameworks of qualifications. The major part of the study comprised extensive documentary research, which was seen as an important starting point to inform the subsequent analysis. This brought together a very large number of policy documents, instruments and reports which deal with the themes as they have emerged in both higher education and vocational education and training. The first stage of the study described developments in relation to the four selected themes in the context of European education and training policy over the past four decades. In analysing the nature of the processes that surrounded the development and implementation of policy, the study then compared and contrasted approaches that have been adopted in higher education and in vocational education and training. Strategies were interrogated and tensions were identified between policy and practice at Community and national level, and between the approaches taken to the themes in different parts of the education and training systems. The findings from the documentary research were validated by primary research carried out in key European institutions. Current initiatives at European level were also examined, to establish the up-to-date position in both policy and practice. This covered a wide range of sometimes disparate activities that are being advanced under the different umbrellas of the Future Objectives process, the Copenhagen process, the Bologna process, lifelong learning and alongside them. The study has raised issues for further debate and research and this provides a background for discussion at the Dublin conference in March 2004. The study focused on collaborative European developments, and traced the trends and ideas that are emerging from a number of contexts, including the Bologna and Copenhagen processes, the future objectives work programme and the lifelong learning strategy. Links were also made to other important parallel policy developments, within the social partner and sectoral frameworks for example. As the study was centred very firmly on the European stage, it considered in general terms the likely impact at Member State level of implementing EU policy. However it is recognised that EU policy mechanisms do not always comprehend all that is happening either in Member States or at collective level, particularly in the area of higher education where the Bologna process for example is a broader intergovernmental initiative that goes beyond the European Union. This research has brought together in a single study a summary of the key initiatives and policy instruments related to the common themes. It has shown where there are commonalities of issues and approaches to the themes in higher education and in vocational education and training. It has identified where tensions have emerged and has asked questions about the nature of the strategies and joint actions undertaken, as well as about the implications of implementing collective policies at national level. It has raised questions about the potential in the future for further joint actions in specific thematic areas. It seems from this study that the current climate is right for achieving the ambitious and challenging goals on transparency, recognition and transfer of qualifications that are part of the Education and Training 2010 agenda. There have been many positive developments towards achieving these goals, especially in terms of: building consensus among stakeholders establishing mutual trust developing common understanding of key concepts such as transparency and quality defining shared goals, purpose and vision for the future engaging in partnerships that respect diversity valuing different perspectives and traditions creating a climate for change creating the imperative for change. This progress has been helped considerably by a number of significant developments. Projects and exchanges in education and training have played an important role The European social agenda with its emphasis on serving citizens, society and the economy has provided a firm foundation for policy. Finally there is the important effect that arises from the infiltration of ideas into education and training from other fields, for example employment, trade and fiscal policy. However, in looking towards the future, the conditions for success need to be systematically created: Establish a clear, coherent and integrated vision of the future win support from, and involve, all key stakeholders allocate sufficient resources set targets that are specific, measurable, and achievable, relevant, and timed monitor and report progress against the targets evaluate performance and make relevant adjustments as required begin concrete actions which encompass VET, Higher Education and Lifelong Learning, such as EUROPASS In conclusion, the study has found that considerable progress has been made in relation to the selected themes, in spite of appearances to the contrary. While at first sight a lot of what is going on might appear fragmented and unfocused, there is nevertheless a clear strategic direction emerging which provides a unifying framework of clear goals and challenging objectives. The achievement of strong consensus about the goals and objectives is significant, especially against the background of diverse cultures, traditions and systems of education and training across Europe. However it is clear that in undertaking policy development and proposing further joint actions, due attention needs to be paid to building the readiness and capability of all stakeholders at national and Community levels. While the boundaries are blurring and common issues and challenges face both sectors, there are important differences between European level co-operation and understandings in vocational education and training and in higher education. It cannot be assumed that the same approaches work in both areas, and this study contains some strong messages in this regard. As a first step, it is important to share knowledge and information across vocational education and training and higher education, and it is suggested that this should happen in the context of current initiatives on transparency, credit transfer, quality assurance, and qualifications frameworks. The Dublin conference can act as an initial forum or trading zone for conversations between policy makers and practitioners about how different approaches have worked, about what is desirable and feasible in the future, and about the enabling conditions that will help to achieve the Lisbon goals. The outcomes of the conference will be, firstly a greater shared understanding of the issues and concerns that face all parts of the education and training system; secondly a recognition of the progress that has been made to date on removing one of the major obstacles to the mobility of learners and workers, and finally a commitment to further joint action in the future. Annex Issues for discussion based on sections 1-6 1. General issues related to the current context How can the urgency at European level to make more progress towards achieving the 2010 goals be reconciled with the needs of national/regional systems and providers to take the time they need to implement the necessary reforms? Are the current levels of mutual trust in the quality of EU systems, provision and qualifications high enough to achieve the 2010 goals? Are measures to facilitate mutual trust across pre-accession countries and between them and EU countries effective enough? How effective is it to address qualifications issues within a number of different European-level initiatives? How effectively are the Member States and the Commission ensuring synergy and complementarity between the different initiatives that have a direct impact on qualifications? How can the different co-operation processes and procedures be measured and evaluated in order to determine which practices are the most efficient and effective? How effective is the Open Method of Co-ordination in achieving progress with regard to the common goals? How is this approach being monitored and evaluated? What practices could be adopted to ensure that knowledge on VET and higher education developments is reflected in national reporting procedures related to the Lisbon goals? Should the emerging common European references and principles (related to the conference themes) that have been developed within the different initiatives be synchronised and evaluated prior to implementation by states? What challenges need to be addressed prior to the proposed introduction of a European reference framework for qualifications in vocational education and training and higher education? Is there a danger that such a framework might undermine national pragmatism and flexibility in relation to recognising qualifications? 2. Transparency Transparency issues in general Has transparency worked as a strategic approach: are the goals and objectives clear and shared by all relevant stakeholders? What are the implications for individuals of having no formal recognition processes in place for a wide range of qualifications and professions? (For example in relation to labour market access outside the home country.) What is the value added of the transparency framework for national qualifications systems? Is a framework of reference levels more effective than existing instruments in achieving transparency? For example the establishment of three cycles in higher education under the Bologna process may have assisted transparency. Would this approach apply equally to vocational education and training systems? Europass as a strategy Is the proposed new Europass framework a useful development? Is the linking and integration of documents necessarily a good thing? Should Europass include all qualifications in education and training? Is the Europass strategy supported by relevant stakeholders and is this enough to make it happen? Are stakeholders convinced of its benefits and added value? How can the strategy be communicated to users? How can Europass accommodate recognition of non-formal informal learning does this need further work? How can it be linked to other competency frameworks/competence evaluations for the workplace? How can Europass create a bridge between diverse lifelong learning contexts? Are some targeted initiatives needed to ensure that specific groups are not excluded from access to Europass? What real value will the Europass transparency framework have for the individual learner? Implementation Has transparency become a reality at national level in the first instance? Is this a bigger issue than transnational transparency? What progress has been made in implementing the existing transparency instruments at national level? What barriers to implementation have been met, and how have they been overcome? What agencies manage the various transparency instruments to make them accessible to users? What competences are required of the different agencies? What goals should be set for implementing Europass? How can progress on achieving the goals for implementing Europass be measured? Contribution to other goals for education and training How can transparency lead to the development of mutual trust, firstly at national level and then at Community level? Is the issue of trust between higher education and vocational education and training at national level fully resolved? If not, can European approaches help? Has sufficient progress been achieved in transparency to provide a foundation for the further development of credit transfer, quality assurance and a common European qualifications framework? 3. European credit transfer ECTS What, if any, challenges emerged when Implementing ECTS in higher education institutions that are state regulated, as opposed to the traditional university contexts, and how were they dealt with? What issues emerged when implementing ECTS in relation to transnational work-based placements in higher education (e.g. Leonardo da Vinci) and how were they dealt with? What challenges are emerging in relation to the extension of ECTS to serve as a credit accumulation system? Is or can credit be assigned to levels within cycles? ECVET Is the emerging ECVET model what stakeholders, including enterprises and the social partners, want? Are the needs of enterprises, sector and branch associations and the social partners adequately addressed? To what extent could key VET stakeholders be given more responsibility for this development and how? When and how will broader consultation with VET stakeholders throughout Europe occur? What degree of resistance may be expected? Has sufficient consideration been given to the differences in the profile, size and resources of institutions in the VET sub-system and the fact that many VET provider institutions neither develop curricula nor assess or accredit the learning acquired in their institutions? General credit issues What is the degree of urgency to facilitate the transfer of credits across national systems? How can credit be linked to learning outcomes? What is the experience of doing this in ECTS? How will synergy between ECTS and ECVET be assured? Can ECTS, ECVET be fully implemented without the unitisation/modularisation of VET and higher education throughout Europe? Is it feasible to develop a Europe-wide credit system without a critical mass of such systems at national/regional levels? Will both ECVET and ECTS schemes be applied in provider institutions for both VET and higher education? Is it logical to develop separate European credit systems for higher education and VET as distinctions between the sub-systems are blurring? Should work on the development of credit systems and ultimately the European framework of qualifications involve the participation of qualifications authorities, as well as other relevant stakeholders from all of the participating countries? Quality What are the underlying causes for VET to be considered of insufficient quality and not attractive enough? Are the data on regional/national and sectoral approaches to managing quality in VET and higher education comprehensive and up-to-date? What are the strengths and weaknesses of these approaches? What else could be done at European level to support quality assurance at national/regional/institutional levels? What is known about the effect quality assurance has on national educational and occupational mobility and the recognition of qualifications? Are there examples of common approaches to quality assurance within and across VET and higher education at the regional/national levels? What makes these common approaches desirable and feasible? Does the blurring of VET and higher education have implications for quality assurance and the co-operation on such at European level? Are national VET systems sufficiently prepared for testing of the outcomes of the TWG-Q (Copenhagen) related to quality assurance? How can they be best disseminated and tested? What measures could be taken to involve the full spectrum of VET stakeholders, in particular, learners directly in transnational collaborative activities within the context of the Copenhagen process, at least to the same extent as in Bologna? How can providers at the interface of VET and higher education be best served by the Bologna and Copenhagen processes? How are the effectiveness and efficiency of both the Bologna and Copenhagen processes evaluated in relation to their goals for quality assurance? Qualifications Frameworks Conceptual issues Why do we want a European framework of qualifications? What are the principles and philosophies that should underpin a European framework? What are its purposes? Who are the beneficiaries? Is it desirable and feasible to have a single framework covering all of lifelong learning, in all countries, in all sectors, at all levels? How can a framework help the achievement of the Lisbon goals? Can a European framework add anything at the national level where no national framework already exists, or where it is currently incomplete? Is a national framework a prerequisite for being part of a European framework? Should a European framework provide a link between national qualifications systems, or national qualifications frameworks? Political issues What is the level of support for the idea of a European framework in the Member States? Who should be responsible for devising a framework? How should the key stakeholders be involved? Who should support and monitor implementation of a framework? Should a European framework be explicitly linked to national frameworks, or vice versa, or should they operate completely independently? Technical and implementation issues How can the diverse requirements of VET, higher education, non-formal and informal learning be accommodated? How can the needs of occupational sectors be addressed in a European framework? Having recognised the need for a common framework, what is needed to make it happen? What might it look like? What parts are already in place? What are the obstacles to developing and implementing a framework? How can we ensure that Member States are ready for it? References Websites Information on EU policy instruments, lifelong learning, Education and Training 2010, the Future Objectives work programme, the Copenhagen process and action programmes  HYPERLINK "http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/education" http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/education Information on the Bologna process, associations and networks (e.g. ENQA, EUA, EURASHE, NARIC-ENIC), projects and studies (e.g. JQI/Dublin Descriptors, TEEP, TUNING) and reports  HYPERLINK "http://www.bologna-berlin2003.de/" http://www.bologna-berlin2003.de/ Information on the Transparency and Quality Fora  HYPERLINK "http://www.cedefop.eu.int/" http://www.cedefop.eu.int/  HYPERLINK "http://www.trainingvillage.gr/" http://www.trainingvillage.gr/ Information on the Technical Working Groups for Credit Transfer, Transparency and Quality, Sectoral Qualifications, studies and reports  HYPERLINK "http://cedefop.communityzero.com/" http://cedefop.communityzero.com/ Information on the EU Employment Strategy, EURES, EU Social Fund, Skills and Mobility  HYPERLINK "http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/empl_esf/index_en.htm" http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/empl_esf/index_en.htm  HYPERLINK "http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/skills_mobility/" http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/skills_mobility/ Information on Social Partners Framework  HYPERLINK "http://www.etuc.org/en/index.cfm?target=/en/dossiers/colbargain/lll.cfm" http://www.etuc.org/en/index.cfm?target=/en/dossiers/colbargain/lll.cfm  HYPERLINK "http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/2002/04/feature/eu0204210f.html" http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/2002/04/feature/eu0204210f.html Information on sector initiatives  HYPERLINK "http://www.career-space.net/" http://www.career-space.net/  HYPERLINK "http://www.microsoft.net/" http://www.microsoft.net/  HYPERLINK "http://www.ecdl.net/" http://www.ecdl.net/ Publications Making learning visible, CEDEFOP 2000 Internationalising VET in Europe CEDEFOP 2000 An age of learning, CEDEFOP 2000 European structures of qualifications levels, CEDEFOP 2001  For convenience, in this paper the term European Union (EU) refers to the set of Member States and institutions at any point in time between 1957 and the production of this paper in February 2004.  Communication from the Commission: Education and Training 2010. Draft joint interim report on the implementation of the detailed work programme (2003)  The report on the "Concrete Future Objectives of Education and Training Systems", endorsed by the Stockholm European Council in March 2001.  A European Commission and Presidency Joint Interim Report on the Education and Training 2010 goals will be submitted to the Spring European Council, 2004  The university is an autonomous institution.it produces, examines, appraises and hands down culture by research and teachingits research and teaching must be morally and intellectually independent of all political authority and economic power.its constant care is to attain universal knowledge, to fulfil its vocation it transcends geographical and political frontiers Extracted from the Magna Charta Universitatum 1988  E.g. Prague Communiqu 19.05.2001 section sub-titled higher education institutions and students  COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION The role of the universities in the Europe of knowledge COM(2003) 58 final  For the purpose of this paper universities will be differentiated from other higher education institutions that do not share all of the fundamental principles laid down in the Magna Charta Universitatum  Definitions from: Making Learning Visible, CEDEFOP 2000.Non-formal learning is defined as learning that is embedded in planned activities that are not explicitly designated as learning, but which contain an important learning element. Informal learning is defined as learning resulting from daily life activities related to work, family or leisure  Council Decision laying down the principles for implementing a common vocational training policy, April 2 1963 (63/266/EEC)  Council Regulation establishing a European Centre for the development of vocational training (CEDEFOP) 10.02.1975  Gravier case and the ruling of the European Court of Justice 1985  Council Decision of 16th July 1985 on the comparability of vocational training qualifications in the Member States of the EC 85/368/EEC  Council Decision amending Decision 87/569/EEC (PETRA) 91/387/EEC  The Lisbon Conclusions defined the Open Method of Co-ordination as a means of spreading best practice and achieving greater convergence towards the main EU goals and indicated that it would be a fully de-centralised approach using variable forms of partnerships and designed to help Member States to develop their own policies progressively. The Open Method of Co-ordination would draw on tools such as indicators and benchmarks as well as on comparing best practice, periodic monitoring, evaluation and peer review etc. organised as mutual learning processes.  Refers to the process adopted for the implementation of the priority actions common to both the Declaration and the Resolution. The EU Member States, EFTA-EEA and Accession countries as well as the Social Partners participate in the process  The process initiated in response to the Joint Declaration of the European Ministers of Education convened in Bologna on the 19th of June 1999. This is not an EU process but EU Member States participate in it.  For information on the Lisbon HYPERLINK "http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/EN/cadreprincipal.htm"Convention see http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/EN/cadreprincipal.htm  Detailed work programme on the follow-up of the objectives of education and training systems in Europe 20 February 2002. COM (2001) 501   HYPERLINK "http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/socrates/ects.html" http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/socrates/ects.html  The Copenhagen process refers to the implementation of the priorities actions in the Council Resolution on the promotion of enhanced co-operation in VET and the Copenhagen Declaration November 2002  From Berlin to Bergen the EU contribution October 2nd 2003  From Prague to Berlin February 14th 2003  Joint declaration of the European Ministers of Education, convened in Bologna on the 19th of June 1999  ( HYPERLINK "http://www.bologna-berlin2003.de/" http://www.bologna-berlin2003.de/  The European University Association (EUA) and the European Association of Institutions of Higher Education (EURASHE) work with and on behalf of their member institutions to debate and carry out experimental work on issues of common concern.   HYPERLINK "http://www.eua.be/" http://www.eua.be/   HYPERLINK "http://www.bologna-berlin.de/" http://www.bologna-berlin.de/   HYPERLINK "http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/education/tuning/html" http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/education/tuning/html  High level task force on skills and mobility, final report 14.12.2001  COM (2002) 72 13.02.2002-Section 3.1.3. page 15  Council Resolution on lifelong learning 27.06.2002   HYPERLINK "http://cedefop.communityzero.com/" http://cedefop.Communityzero.com/  Credit Transfer in VET progress report. European Commission November 2003  A zone of mutual trust is an explicit or implicit understanding or arrangement between individuals, enterprises and other organisations concerning the delivery, recognition and evaluation of vocational learning outcomes. It offers practical help with recruitment into jobs, about further learning and decisions about the value or recognition of qualification and certification. It may be dynamic in nature and may become more or less formal in scope and form according to the mutual confidence and needs of the stakeholders involved. The details of the agreements between organisations can be used to build a framework of recognition based on levels of vocational learning. These reference levels, with their associated descriptors, can form a framework and provide a language that can be used to compare vocational learning gained in different settings. Mike Coles QCA  Definitions from: Making Learning Visible, CEDEFOP 2000.Non-formal learning is defined as learning that is embedded in planned activities that are not explicitly designated as learning, but which contain an important learning element. In-formal learning is defined as learning resulting from daily life activities related to work, family or leisure  2004 Work programme of the TWG-CT-ideas for discussion at the 19.12.2003 meeting. (presentation downloaded from the virtual Community)  Detailed work programme on the follow-up of the objectives of education and training systems in Europe. COM (2001) 501, adopted by the Council and the Commission in February 2002 and endorsed by the Council in March 2002.  Quality management Co-ordinated activities to direct and control an organisation with regard to quality ISO 9000  Quality assurance-Part of quality management focussed on providing confidence that quality requirements will be fulfilled ISO 9000  Quality-The consistent conformance of a product or service to a given set of standards or expectations ISO 9000  European level associations, including non-governmental organisations, and networks representing the interests of sectors or education and training provider institutions or set up for a particular purpose, e.g. quality assurance.   HYPERLINK "http://www.trainingvillage.gr/" http://www.trainingvillage.gr/  The term universities in the communication is taken to mean all higher education institutions  Working group: Improving education of teachers and trainers-Progress Report November 2003   HYPERLINK "http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/2010/et_2010_en" www.europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/2010/et_2010_en  Joint declaration of the European Ministers of Education Convened in Bologna on the 19th of June 1999   HYPERLINK "http://www.jointquality.org" http://www.jointquality.org  Communiqu of the meeting of European Ministers in charge of Higher Education. Prague, May 19th 2001  Message from the Salamanca Convention contained in the reader for the Graz Convention   HYPERLINK "http://www.Bologna-berlin2003.de" http://www.Bologna-berlin2003.de  Communiqu of the meeting of European Ministers in charge of Higher Education. Berlin, September 2003   HYPERLINK "http://www.enqa.net" http://www.enqa.net  The Copenhagen process refers to the activities planned and underway to address the priority actions contained in both the Resolution and Declaration (see below)  The Resolution on the promotion of enhanced European co-operation on vocational education and training approved by the Council of the European Union (Education, Youth and Culture) on 12 November 2002  Declaration of the European Ministers of Vocational Education and Training, and the European Commission, convened in Copenhagen on 29 and 30 November 2002, on enhanced European co-operation in vocational education and training The Copenhagen Declaration   HYPERLINK "http://www.cedefop.communityzero.com/" http://cedefop.Communityzero.com/  Quality standards and norms in European VET. Kim Farschou September 2003  A European Common Quality Assurance Framework Report Kim Farschou October 2003  A limited set of coherent quality indicators proposed by the TWG-Q Report Edwin Seyfried October 2003  Education and Training 2010-Draft joint interim report on the implementation of the detailed work programme on the follow-up of the objectives of education and training systems in Europe.  Communication from the Commission: Education and Training 2010. Draft joint interim report on the implementation of the detailed work programme (2003) Section 1.1.4, page 9  The definitions above are informed by the work of Mike Coles undertaken as part of an OECD study currently in progress on qualifications systems and lifelong learning activity.  Stephen Adam, Qualifications structures in European higher education: alternative approaches for clarifying cycles and levels in European higher education qualifications, paper presented to the Bologna seminar held in Copenhagen 27-28 March 2003  Communication from the Commission, Education and Training 2010: the Success of the Lisbon Strategy Hinges on Urgent Reforms, Draft joint Interim report on the implementation of the detailed work programme on the follow-up of the objectives of education and training systems in Europe. November 2003  CEDEFOP, European structures of qualifications levels, 2001.  Council decision of 16 July 1985on the comparability of vocational training qualifications between the Member States of the European Community (85/368/EEC)   HYPERLINK http://www.career-space.net www.career-space.net  For more information, see the virtual Community on sectoral qualifications, http://cedefop.Community zero.com/sq   HYPERLINK http://www.microsoft.net www.microsoft.net   HYPERLINK http://www.ecdl.net www.ecdl.net  www.trainingvillage.gr/etv/projects_networks/CCprojects  The report, Qualifications Structures in European Higher education Consideration of alternative approaches for clarifying cycles and levels in European higher education qualifications can be downloaded from:  HYPERLINK "http://www.bologna.dk" http://www.bologna.dk   HYPERLINK http://www.bologna-berlin www.bologna-berlin2003.de/Communiqu  For example, the Joint Quality Initiative (JQI), European Network of Quality Assurance (ENQA), Tuning, etc.  Subject benchmark statements is a UK approach that provides the academic Community with a means for describing the nature, standards and characteristics of programmes in a specific subject. This approach has also been adopted by the Tuning educational structures in Europe project.  Joint Interim Report, February 2004 Education and Training 2010: the success of the Lisbon Strategy hinges on urgent reforms.  Communication from the Commission: Education and Training 2010. Draft joint interim report on the implementation of the detailed work programme (2003) Section 1.1.4, page 9 PAGE 100 PAGE 1 / <=>Rde<=AB} ~ ?@YFǼҫ͖yyytͼymH sH  6OJQJj0JCJOJQJU56CJOJQJ CJOJQJ56mH sH  5mH sH 56CJOJQJ CJOJQJCJOJQJmH sH  5OJQJOJQJ CJOJQJ5;CJOJQJCJ5CJOJQJ5;CJOJQJ5;OJQJ- -./+$dh$d%d&d'd@&NOPQa$$dha$$a$$a$ $dh@&a$$dha$W!PP |wnf^Q $ 9! dh@&a$$dha$$dha$ $dh@&a$$a$+$dh$d%d&d'd@&NOPQa$.$ !dh$d%d&d'dNOPQa$)$dh$d%d&d'dNOPQa$  T = $ 9! dha$ $dh@&a$ $ 9! dh@&a$'`' & F$dha$=>MNOPQRdenni$a$#$d%d&d'dNOPQ$a$$dha$ $dh@&a$ $ 9!dha$J$dhC$Eƀ/Ԃa$  89?@Y=>M1!2!&&-).)--|/$a$$dha$ $dha$$dha$F= !!/!2!.)-"/L/k1m1n111*2444Q5R5nFoFGfGgGhGGGG'LQLLL(M)M;NNNNNNNNOOOOW5Wc[`__-f.fNfOfPfĜ 0JOJQJKHOJQJmH sH j0JOJPJQJU6OJPJQJ OJPJQJ5656OJQJj0JOJQJU 5OJQJ ;OJQJ>*CJOJQJ 6OJQJ5CJ6OJQJ:|/~//k1m1n111*2+23366O8P8==#AI$ & F\Eƀ`̂f.a$$dha$$dha$#A$AGGGfGgGhGGII6K7K%L&L'LQLOOQQWWW5Wc[d[$dha$$dha$ $dha$d[\\^___`__bbTfUfjjkk lL$ & FZdhEƀ`̂fa$$dha$ l^lleL$ & FZdhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & FZdhEƀ`̂fa$lllmmAmpp+t,tw][L$ & FfdhEƀ`̂f.a$$dha$L$ & FZdhEƀ`̂fa$ PflmmAmbxvx/}0}Ցבߑܝݝ:FDKlCD.% \:T{(3^ `xbKH CJOJQJ56OJQJmH sH 6H*OJQJj0JOJQJU 6OJQJ56 5OJQJOJQJKww`|a|b||Y~~~[L$ & FgdhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & FgdhEƀ`̂fa$$dha$~UeL$ & FgdhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & FgdhEƀ`̂fa$UeL$ & FgdhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & FgdhEƀ`̂fa$mnRSIW$dha$L$ & FgdhEƀ`̂fa$WeL$ & FhdhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & FhdhEƀ`̂fa$?eL$ & FhdhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & FhdhEƀ`̂fa$ >?xye]]]]][]]$dha$L$ & FhdhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & FhdhEƀ`̂fa$ )*kl-.L$ & FfdhEƀ`̂f.a$$dha${|%&TUlL$ & FfdhEƀ`̂f.a$$dha$lm L$ & FfdhEƀ`̂f.a$$dha$dh (eL$ & FjdhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & FjdhEƀ`̂fa$(eeL$ & FjdhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & FjdhEƀ`̂fa$KeL$ & FjdhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & FjdhEƀ`̂fa$K_`bx)$dh$d%d&d'dNOPQa$$dha$L$ & FjdhEƀ`̂fa$x\!n$ & Fmdh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$n$ & Fmdh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$b$k & Fkdh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQn$ & Fmdh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$} !n$ & Fldh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$n$ & Fldh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$ k!n$ & Fldh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$n$ & Fldh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$kGc-$ & Fldh$d%d&d'dNOPQa$n$ & Fldh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$f^$dha$)$dh$d%d&d'dNOPQa$n$ & Fldh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$2x,    "?@sKL¶j0JB*OJQJUphB*OJQJph56B*OJQJph CJOJQJ56OJQJmH sH 5CJmH sH  5OJQJ 6OJQJ6CJOJQJOJQJ>*CJOJQJ<$a$$dha$ $dha$$dha$$dha$F & F\Eƀ`̂f.'     rs"?@sLM $dh@&a$$dha$dh$dha$$dha$ eL$ & FdhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & FdhEƀ`̂fa$7""$$$(%(+++ $ & Fdhxa$$a$$dha$L$ & FdhEƀ`̂fa$ItAB""""B$C$h$i$j$|$}$0)1)+++U/y/z///Y0Z00 1 18444556@9C9~9M?W???\@@6EGGLMVVXXXXg`OJQJmH sH  6OJQJNH566 0JOJQJjOJQJUjOJQJU NHOJQJOJQJ 5CJKH 0J5CJ5CJD+S/U/z/0R11SL$ & FdhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & FdhEƀ`̂fa$$dha$ $dha$1117484466@9A9C9~99???CC$dha$$a$ $dha$L$ & FdhEƀ`̂fa$C5E6EGGLLMSRRL$ & FdhEƀ`̂fa$ $dha$$dha$ R4SSSVVVYY\\e]]][]]]] $dha$L$ & FdhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & FdhEƀ`̂fa$ \g`h``~aambMN$ & FdhxEƀ`̂fa$N$ & FdhxEƀ`̂fa$ $dhxa$ $dha$g`h``*OJQJ5OJQJmH sH OJQJmH sH 5CJOJQJOJQJ5B4!n$ & Fdh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$n$ & Fdh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$'(wx$dha$ $dh^a$ $dh@&a$$dha$$dha$)$dh$d%d&d'dNOPQa$xZ[qrtMN@A+,defFGdh $dha$GseL$ & FdhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & FdhEƀ`̂fa$LM"#$D>e]]]]]][] $dha$L$ & FdhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & FdhEƀ`̂fa$ >?@A&|}XY1 $dh^a$$dha$ $dh@&a$ $hdh^ha$$dha$&3z{|}BJNZ_qMU  k l p  6% &33355888<<<<<===X>>>>>>>>$B%B,VVVٺ6H*OJQJj0J6OJQJU >*OJQJ5CJOJQJ56OJQJOJQJmH sH  5OJQJj0JOJQJU6B*OJQJph 6OJQJOJQJA1=eL$ & FsdhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & FtdhEƀ`̂fa$@eL$ & FsdhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & FsdhEƀ`̂fa$@i j n o p   opAB6 $dh@&a$$dha$L$ & FsdhEƀ`̂fa$67%%% & & ''L$ & FudhEƀ`̂fa$ $dh@&a$ $ & Fdh@&a$$dha$ '2))*eL$ & FudhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & FudhEƀ`̂fa$)* ++eL$ & FudhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & FudhEƀ`̂fa$+),,,,--eZRZR$dha$ $ & Fudha$L$ & FudhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & FudhEƀ`̂fa$-0.1..*/]L$ & F"dhEƀ`̂fa$$dha$L$ & FudhEƀ`̂f a$*/z//eL$ & F"dhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & F"dhEƀ`̂fa$/~00eL$ & F"dhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & F"dhEƀ`̂fa$0]111333e]]UL $dh@&a$$dha$$dha$L$ & F"dhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & F"dhEƀ`̂fa$334an$ & F!dh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$/$hdh$d%d&d'd@&NOPQ^ha$4455!n$ & F!dh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$n$ & F!dh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$5555U/$hdh$d%d&d'd@&NOPQ^ha$ $hdh^ha$n$ & F!dh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$578!n$ & F!dh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$n$ & F!dh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$88888888#9Jn$ & F!dh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$ $dh@&a$dh$dha$-$hdh$d%d&d'dNOPQ^ha$#999!n$ & F!dh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂f NOPQa$n$ & F!dh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$91::!n$ & F!dh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂f NOPQa$n$ & F!dh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂f NOPQa$:;;!n$ & F!dh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂f NOPQa$n$ & F!dh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂f NOPQa$;<<<<<<=bZZQZE $dh^a$ $dh@&a$$dha$-$hdh$d%d&d'dNOPQ^ha$n$ & F!dh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$==>>'B(B+F,FGG"H]L$ & FvdhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & FvdhEƀ`̂fa$$dha$ "HUHHeL$ & FvdhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & FvdhEƀ`̂fa$HHIIMMqOrO|Q}QT TVVbWcWdWWW $dh@&a$$dha$L$ & FvdhEƀ`̂fa$VVbWWW X2XX[[9_:_ddqeeeff#f$famymzmmGoIopEqFqXqqqreu~uuYw{wxy~ ~*+PMņƆdžLp҉Xvwƌ>*OJQJh OJQJh CJOJQJ >*OJQJ H*OJQJj0J6OJQJU0J56OJQJ0J5OJQJ 0JOJQJj0JOJQJU 5OJQJOJQJ 6OJQJ=WrYsY[[_\\\]L$ & FxdhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & FxdhEƀ`̂fa$$dha$\ ]X]Y]O`P`bbcce^VVVVVV$dha$dhL$ & FxdhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & FxdhEƀ`̂fa$ cqereseee|i}immnnoopppEqFqXqrreufuXwYw{w$dha$ $dh@&a$$dha${wxxy}{~{$~%~k~~~[L$ & FydhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & FydhEƀ`̂fa$ $dha$ ~reL$ & FydhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & FydhEƀ`̂fa$9:NOPMdžKLpщ҉ $dh^a$ $dh@&a$$dha$L$ & FydhEƀ`̂fa$҉XY^_>?YZYZzQRkl`a6734vw $dhC$a$$dha$$dha$ƌx`bCsŕԕ-8AWZzNOQkla067صʺһӻ\6 0JOJQJ NHOJQJ j0JUj0JOJQJUh H*OJQJj0JOJQJU 6OJQJOJQJ OJQJhG%0[L$ & FzdhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & FzdhEƀ`̂fa$$dha$ ׵صɺʺ]^Z[\noLMghab $dh@&a$$dha$ \n[\U2^_:;I,.CIa.Fp~hO<=ܑ܄j0JCJOJQJU6CJOJQJB*OJQJph56B*OJQJph6B*OJQJph6OJQJmH sH OJQJmH sH 6CJOJQJ56OJQJ CJOJQJj0JOJQJU 6OJQJOJQJ 5OJQJ4bg]L$ & F$dhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & F$dhEƀ`̂fa$$dha$geL$ & F$dhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & F$dhEƀ`̂fa$PgeL$ & F$dhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & F$dhEƀ`̂fa$gTUe]][S]]$dha$$dha$L$ & F$dhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & F$dhEƀ`̂fa$eL$ & F{dhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & F{dhEƀ`̂fa$/reL$ & F{dhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & F{dhEƀ`̂fa$reL$ & F{dhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & F{dhEƀ`̂fa$()[\e]]]]]]]$dha$L$ & F{dhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & F{dhEƀ`̂fa$ ceL$ & F&dhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & F&dhEƀ`̂fa$eL$ & F&dhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & F&dhEƀ`̂fa$ 4e]Xdh$dha$L$ & F&dhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & F&dhEƀ`̂fa$4qeL$ & F%dhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & F%dhEƀ`̂fa$q xye]]]]T $dh@&a$$dha$L$ & F%dhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & F%dhEƀ`̂fa$a!n$ & F'dh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$n$ & F'dh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$$!n$ & F'dh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$n$ & F'dh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$n!n$ & F'dh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$n$ & F'dh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$!n$ & F'dh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$n$ & F'dh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$:;HIzuzs$a$$dha$$dha$n$ & F'dh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂f NOPQa$ ,-./0w#$d%d&d'dNOPQ $7$8$H$^a$/$$d%d&d'd7$8$H$NOPQ^a$#$d%d&d'dNOPQ 0FG_Z,$$d%d&d'd@&NOPQ^a$*$$d%d&d'dNOPQ^a$$a$#$d%d&d'dNOPQ%$d%d&d'd@&NOPQ _`JKopqNO           dh $dha$$dha$$^a$*$$d%d&d'dNOPQ^a$ g t          ;<  %&&&&-I-R-W-_---------11%444 >K>T>[>a>>>>>??AA/A༟mH sH 6OJQJmH sH j0JOJQJU5CJOJQJOJQJmH sH j0JCJOJQJU 5OJQJ 6OJQJ6OJQJ6CJOJQJ CJOJQJB*CJOJQJph<z]P$ & FM pdhEƀ`̂fa$P$ & FM pdhEƀ`̂fa$z ]P$ & F5 pdhEƀ`̂fa$P$ & F5 pdhEƀ`̂fa$ Z[;<   $dha$$a$ dh$dha$L$ & F5dhEƀ`̂fa$   %%&&&B*C*--11$4%4dh $dha$ $dhda$$dha$$dha$L$ & F|dhEƀ`̂f.a$%4778/99IQ$ & F0dh7$8$Eƀ`̂f.H$a$Q$ & F0dh7$8$Eƀ`̂f.H$a$ $dh7$8$H$a$$dha$99&:]Q$ & F0dh7$8$Eƀ`̂f.H$a$Q$ & F0dh7$8$Eƀ`̂f.H$a$&:c:::??A]MC=5$dha$7$8$H$ $dhda$$hdh7$8$H$^ha$Q$ & F0dh7$8$Eƀ`̂f.H$a$Q$ & F0dh7$8$Eƀ`̂f.H$a$AAA/A{C|CHIRRXX[[[[^^aa$f%fkk"q$dha$ $hdh^ha$ $dh7$8$H$a$$dha$ /A{CDHHJIJLXLYLRUXU`UfUX[[[aaQaRatauaaabb"f#f$f%f#q[quvB|}}~~E~F~qr:xLpڇ_V̊:;VWX𴦴0JH*KHOJQJmH sH  0JOJQJ j0JUH*6 5OJQJ 6OJQJ5OJQJmH sH j0JOJQJUOJQJmH sH OJQJCJOJQJmH sH A"q#q[quuuvvB|C|st@AZ[12 $ pdha$ $dh^a$$dha$ $dhC$a$ $dh7$8$H$a$$dha$ 7$8$H$Xq!2]^BI >H|hyz_`(89:;<>KMlVXp5CJ5CJ>*CJOJQJKH6CJ5CJOJQJ CJOJQJ56OJQJ B*ph 6OJQJ5CJOJQJ CJOJQJ OJQJhj0JOJQJUOJQJ?2՜֜LQL$ & FUdhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & FUdhEƀ`̂fa$ $ pdha$$dha$HeL$ & FUdhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & FUdhEƀ`̂fa$HqrEF$dha$L$ & FUdhEƀ`̂fa$ FǩeL$ & FdhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & FdhEƀ`̂fa$ǩ&eL$ & FdhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & FdhEƀ`̂fa$&deL$ & FdhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & FdhEƀ`̂fa$Ϊe]UHH]] !;dh^`;$dha$$dha$L$ & FdhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & FdhEƀ`̂fa$NO9:L$ & FIdhEƀ`̂fa$$dha$$dha$ $ pdha$$dha$ eL$ & FIdhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & FIdhEƀ`̂fa$x)$dh$d%d&d'dNOPQa$$dha$$dha$L$ & FIdhEƀ`̂fa$  +$dh$d%d&d'd@&NOPQa$)$dh$d%d&d'dNOPQa$+$dh$d%d&d'd@&NOPQa$ A!n$ & FSdh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$n$ & FSdh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$!n$ & FCdh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$n$ & FCdh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$T!n$ & FCdh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$n$ & FCdh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$n!n$ & FRdh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$n$ & FRdh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$nf;+$dh$d%d&d'd@&NOPQa$)$dh$d%d&d'dNOPQa$n$ & FRdh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$S!n$ & FVdh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$n$ & FVdh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$!n$ & FVdh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$n$ & FVdh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa${|f;+$dh$d%d&d'd@&NOPQa$)$dh$d%d&d'dNOPQa$n$ & FVdh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$ ]!n$ & FCdh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$n$ & FCdh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$]!n$ & FCdh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$n$ & FCdh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂fNOPQa$/!n$ & FCdh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂f NOPQa$n$ & FCdh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂f NOPQa$/fgxyzf^^^V^^^$dha$$dha$)$dh$d%d&d'dNOPQa$n$ & FCdh$d%d&d'dEƀ`̂f NOPQa$ HI%?]L$ & F}dhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & F}dhEƀ`̂fa$$dha$?eL$ & F}dhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & F}dhEƀ`̂fa$'eL$ & F}dhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & F}dhEƀ`̂fa$'Eije]]$dha$L$ & F}dhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & F}dhEƀ`̂fa$ eL$ & F~dhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & F~dhEƀ`̂fa$CD]L$ & FIdhEƀ`̂fa$$dha$L$ & F~dhEƀ`̂fa$<eL$ & FIdhEƀ`̂fa$L$ & FIdhEƀ`̂fa$<_`eZZRJRR$dha$$dha$ $ & FWdha$L$ & FIdhEƀ`̂f a$L$ & FIdhEƀ`̂fa$() .n89: $ & Fldha$ & Fkdh $ & Fmdha$$dha$$dha$$a$$dha$:KLMl!VWXp9 $ & Fdha$ $ & Fdha$ $ & F dha$#$d%d&d'dNOPQ&$$d%d&d'dNOPQa$pz1{ $ & Fdha$ $ & F dha$ $ & Fdha$ $ & Fdha$#$d%d&d'dNOPQ$dha$ $ & F dha$ $ & Fdha$ $ & Fdha$ $ & Fdha$L\xyabxJ S   |}Y`}@ '(   ./abjGOJQJUjOJQJU 0JOJQJjOJQJUjOJQJU;CJ6;OJQJj0JOJQJU56CJOJQJ 6OJQJ CJOJQJ6CJOJQJOJQJ58JKLWXYZ\xyCY $ & Fdha$$a$$dha$ $ & Fdha$ $ & Fdha$#$d%d&d'dNOPQ$dha$ $ & Fdha$YL`abx3 h  `  V I R S T    $ & Fdha$$a$ $ & Fdha$ $ & Fdha$ $hdh^ha$ $ & Fdha$Is|5Mh2 $ & FRdha$ $ & FCdha$ $ & FSdha$$dha$ $dh@&a$ $ & Fdha$'T@Rk )0adh $ & FCdha$$dha$ $ & FVdha$*+z{|   HItudef    > jhOJQJUjuOJQJUjtOJQJUjOJQJUjOJQJUjOJQJUjOJQJUOJQJ 0JOJQJjOJQJU7a*Jt [       !U!V!W! ""H##dhdh> ? @ Y Z [ \ ~             !!F!W!X! "!"""""""G#H#I#J###%%%%%d&e&f&g&2'3'4'(((())))))))޷CJOJPJQJ j0JU CJOJQJj0JCJOJQJU 6OJQJ;CJOJQJj OJQJUOJQJ 0JOJQJjOJQJUj OJQJU<#%%e&2'()))S**,-.C//l041q112\2O333Q4445$a$))R*S*T*U****,,---@.B........// /B/C/D/////$0%0j0k0l0m0n0415161_1i1k1Ỳ~|t6CJOJQJ6j0J6U0J jUB*CJOJQJph 0JOJQJ jS B*OJQJUphB*OJQJphjB*OJQJUphj0JOJQJUj0JCJOJQJUOJQJ j0JUCJ CJOJQJCJH*OJQJ-k1q1r1s111111222 28292Z2[2\2]2^2N3O3P3Q3R3r3s3t333333333333333344O4P4Q4R44444пj CJOJQJU0JCJOJQJmH sH j4 CJOJQJUjCJOJQJU CJOJQJ0JCJOJQJ6CJOJQJj6CJOJQJUj0JCJOJQJUCJH*OJQJ j0JU CJOJQJ445555354555V5W5X5Y5Z55555999v:w:;;;;;U<V<<<M=N=6>7>8>9>:>f>g>h>>>>>>>>F?G?H?I????????=@>@᰾j U0JCJOJQJmH sH j- CJOJQJUjCJOJQJUCJOJQJmH sH j0JCJOJQJU CJOJQJ0Jjx U jU j0JU<5X559v:;;U<<M=7>>>F??=@@@IAABBBBCD EYEEF$dha$>@?@@@i@j@k@@@@@@@@@@@@IAJAKALAzA{A|AAAAAABBB B B+B,B嚓vh彶Zj)CJOJQJU0JCJOJQJhmH&sH&j.CJOJQJUhjCJOJQJUh CJmH&sH&j0JCJU j0JUCJOJQJhmH&sH& CJOJQJj0JCJOJQJU0JCJOJQJmH&sH&jGCJOJQJUCJOJQJmH&sH&jCJOJQJUmH&sH&#,B-B@BABBBCBDBBBPCQCCCCCCCCDDDDDDDDDDDD E E EEEYEZE[EEEEEFFFFFFFFFGΠΠΠΒΒ~mH sH 0JjOJQJUOJQJjOJQJUCJNHOJQJCJNHOJQJmH sH CJOJQJmH sH j0JCJOJQJU CJOJQJ j0JUCJOJQJmH&sH&0JCJOJQJmH&sH&jCJOJQJU1FFFG5H-I[JJ:K}KK-L`LLMMiNN0OO PPPPPPPh]h&`#$ 0^`0GGGG3H4H5H6HEHH-I.IRII[J\JfJJJJ:K;Khttp://www.trainingvillage.gr/DyK yK Dhttp://cedefop.communityzero.com/DyK yK http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/empl_esf/index_en.htmDyK yK zhttp://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/skills_mobility/DyK yK http://www.etuc.org/en/index.cfm?target=/en/dossiers/colbargain/lll.cfmDyK yK http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/2002/04/feature/eu0204210f.htmlDyK yK :http://www.career-space.net/DyK yK 4http://www.microsoft.net/DyK yK *http://www.ecdl.net/DyK yK phttp://conventions.coe.int/treaty/EN/cadreprincipal.htmDyK yK &http://www.eua.be/DyK yK <http://www.bologna-berlin.de/DyK yK Dhttp://cedefop.communityzero.com/DyK yK >http://www.trainingvillage.gr/kDyK :www.europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/2010/et_2010_enyK http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/2010/et_2010_enDyK http://www.jointquality.orgyK :http://www.jointquality.org/DyK !http://www.Bologna-berlin2003.deyK Dhttp://www.bologna-berlin2003.de/DyK http://www.enqa.netyK *http://www.enqa.net/DyK yK Lhttp://www.cedefop.communityzero.com/DyK www.career-space.netyK :http://www.career-space.net/DyK www.microsoft.netyK 4http://www.microsoft.net/DyK  www.ecdl.netyK *http://www.ecdl.net/DyK http://www.bologna.dkyK .http://www.bologna.dk/DyK www.bologna-berlinyK 6http://www.bologna-berlin/( i0@0 Normal_HmH sH tH H@H Heading 1$<@&5CJKHOJQJF@F Heading 2$<@&56CJOJQJN@N Heading 3$$dh@&a$6OJQJmH sH uB@B Heading 4$@&5OJQJmH sH uD@D Heading 5$$dh@&a$ 6OJQJF@F Heading 6$$dh@&a$56OJQJ\@\ Heading 7,$$dh$d%d&d'd@&a$ 6OJQJ^@^ Heading 8$$7$8$@&H$^a$56OJQJmH sH uD @D Heading 9 $$dh@&a$ 5OJQJ<A@< Default Paragraph Font< @< Footer  !CJmH sH u>B@> Body TextCJOJQJmH sH uBP@B Body Text 2KHOJQJmH sH u8&@!8 Footnote ReferenceH*.@2.  Footnote TextRQ@BR Body Text 3dh 5CJOJQJmH sH u&)@Q& Page Number8Yb8  Document Map-D OJQJdrd List Number (Level 3)$$ NN;^N`;a$CJdd List Number (Level 4)$$   ;^ `;a$CJ(U@( Hyperlink>*B*"W@" Strong5\:O: Text 1$Rxx^Ra$CJ1 Manual Heading 3 & F SRdxx>T^R`CJOJQJmH sH ufC@f Body Text Indent$7$8$H$^a$6B*OJQJmH sH u6+@6  Endnote Text $a$D^@D Normal (Web) ddCJmH sH uHS@H Body Text Indent 3 ^OJQJP1@P List Number$!$ hh^h`a$CJ8V@!8 FollowedHyperlink>*B* 6*@16 Endnote ReferenceH*@B@  Balloon Text$CJOJQJ^JaJ:'@Q: Comment ReferenceCJaJ,b,  Comment Text&lR@rl Body Text Indent 2)'$ 9! Vdh@&^`Va$ CJOJQJA}0nBH(IJKOb/y~ܙCҾ~#[K\Mzk9:::$>9[yiz*}łN6ҷ[^<0HF]Q]t]]"bEzqW]L  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNc9<.r? t h = wE1BuN1~1G !Y"[##$S$${%+&&')E))&*** +C+T,,-2..b/e/LFPfg`Vƌ\/AX> )k14>@,BGMP)06KPVgn=|/#Ad[ llw~UWl(Kx k+1CR\mbvҨ;l(exG>1@6')*+-*//034558#99:;="HHW\c{w~҉bggr4q0_z  %49&:A"q2HFǩ& n]/?'<:Ya#5FPP*,-./12345789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJLMNOQRSTUWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefhijklmopqrstuvwxyz{|}~P+B i | ' .a*{ Hte?Y[LXXTXTXTXXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXT !4!T^ y/3`~/A{/$ E ]###)*#******+,<,R,V,},,e/XXTXTXXXTXXXXXXXXXXXX _Hlt65245157 _Hlt65245169 _Hlt65244999 _Toc46747836 _Toc46747837 _Toc46747838 _Hlt3112178 _Hlt3112179 _Hlt65468340 _Hlt65468029 _Hlt65467982 _Hlt65467983 _Hlt65404588 _Hlt65468324 _Hlt65404747 _Hlt65245280 _Hlt65245273 _Hlt65245269 _Hlt65245262 _Hlt64273242 _Hlt64273243 _Hlt64347621 _Hlt64347622 _Hlt64408461 _Hlt64408462 _Hlt64408474 _Hlt64408473 _Hlt64091791 _Hlt64091792 _Hlt62967153 _Hlt62967154~ʶ    '*+++//11111619:9:K=K=L@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@ױ  !!(*+++//71V1V1W1W1W1::==L589<>HVWk<<<<<<=H=|===>->@>LLLLLLLVWLLLLLVLLLLL Cynthia Deane Cynthia Deane Cynthia Deane Cynthia Deane Cynthia Deane Cynthia Deane Cynthia Deane Cynthia Deane!National Qualifications Authoritydefault7C:\web3\STTC\publications\Research Report 8th March.docV(6 {< M R1N 87V < suw:*u   6q(ewf"FP6~2 T 8r {xtY+ | )M JX   r  j  3  CiF #*6tYjO  \ WT]; ; fpB{ #6= U"1iA2JĺCr (z9 Csf5.  PC  (! ."0 m5D" N" 5"[Nh# {$Xm=-& X&tYB( wGJ)+&*) p$*zv,Y+ -`+f2+tYDz- >|K/ ,&c/ s_0zz-Jm2 )2  *3 4 V;5 |%_6 Z6 |6{Vf}d7 ^7 P9 9 lo": ~3: =; t-<= #= _?@(&y38E TE 7I wUJ^mJj^K  M !M 3VgO MO |K/)2Dz-RleaS> T alUeftV=1 W="3 WLLLLdgnword-eventsink 7728152@LP@Unknownamurphy  G:Times New Roman5Symbol3& :ArialA& Trebuchet MSG MS Mincho-3 fg7& Verdana5& :Tahoma5"Geneva;Wingdings?Wingdings 2?1 Courier New"0h##IՂ`d<7 w!0d*W2H)Presidency Background Paper February 2004NQAIQualificationsElizabeth WattersdefaultZOh+'0$4 DP l x  *Presidency Background Paper February 2004rdNQAIdenElizabeth WattersunQualificationsrualNormalcdefault3faMicrosoft Word 9.0n@F#@ @2m @2m `dZ՜.+,D՜.+,|8 px  European developmentse ro<* *Presidency Background Paper February 2004 Title H _PID_HLINKS_AdHocReviewCycleID_EmailSubject _AuthorEmail_AuthorEmailDisplayName_PreviousAdHocReviewCycleIDAEN$http://www.ecdl.net/K!http://www.microsoft.net/Khttp://www.career-space.net/LAhttp://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/2002/04/feature/eu0204210f.htmlz(Hhttp://www.etuc.org/en/index.cfm?target=/en/dossiers/colbargain/lll.cfm P=http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/skills_mobility/rTBhttp://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/empl_esf/index_en.htmU"http://cedefop.communityzero.com/{h http://www.trainingvillage.gr/y0 http://www.cedefop.eu.int/"http://www.bologna-berlin2003.de/;7(http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/education8fhttp://www.enic-naric.net/tu3http://www.bologna-berlin/{h0http://www.bologna.dk/EN-http://www.ecdl.net/K*http://www.microsoft.net/K'http://www.career-space.net/@U$&http://www.cedefop.communityzero.com/E[!http://www.enqa.net/"http://www.bologna-berlin2003.de/YBhttp://www.jointquality.org/?nAhttp://www.europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/2010/et_2010_en{hhttp://www.trainingvillage.gr/U"http://cedefop.communityzero.com/zf4http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/education/tuning/html http://www.bologna-berlin.de/nb http://www.eua.be/"http://www.bologna-berlin2003.de/N\Fhttp://www.europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/socrates/ects.htmlj88http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/EN/cadreprincipal.htmvFXBResearch Report for EU Presidency Conference, Dublin 8 March 2004ewckelly@nqai.ie  celine kellye s)  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXZ[\]^_`bcdefghijsRoot Entry F'q uData 1Table6WordDocument&SummaryInformation(YDocumentSummaryInformation8aCompObjjObjectPool'q 'q   FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q