Communications and reforming models of National Qualifications Frameworks: Scotland and Ireland

1. Communications and reforming models of National Qualifications Frameworks: Scotland and Ireland David Raffe University of Edinburgh Seminar on Qualifications Frameworks, National Council on Education, Santiago, 15 October 2013

2. Overview • A conceptual framework: National Qualifications Frameworks (NQFs) and how they differ • The Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF): a communications framework • The Irish National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ): a reforming framework • Some concluding comments

3. 1. A conceptual framework: National Qualifications Frameworks and how they differ

4. What is a Qualifications Framework?

5. How NQFs differ • National context – size of country, policy culture, expertise, education system, labour market, concept of qualification • Scope – sector v comprehensive; over-arching framework v sub-frameworks • Design – number of levels, descriptors, fields, credit, tight v loose, role of learning outcomes • Leadership and control – roles of stakeholders, regulatory v voluntary, ‘top-down’ v ‘bottom-up’ • Purposes and how NQFs try to achieve them …

6. Possible purposes of NQFs

7. Possible change processes: how NQFs may try to achieve their purposes Choice may depend upon • National context: governance, culture, etc • Time scale

8. Three types of NQF • Communications framework: starts from existing system, describes it, aims to make it more ‘transparent’ and support rationalisation and coherence; a tool for change rather than a driver of change • Reforming framework: starts from existing system, aims to make it more transparent but also to achieve specific reforms, e.g. fill gaps, improve quality, update standards • Transformational framework: starts from desired future system, aims for radical change, driver of change as well as tool for change

9. … or a continuum of NQFs … but … • An NQF may vary across its ‘sub-frameworks’ and between sub-frameworks and over-arching framework • An NQF may change over time

10. 2. The Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF): a communications framework

11. Scotland: the national context • Separate system within UK • Small country, uniform institutions • Policy-making culture • Earlier reforms developed ‘sub-frameworks’ • Higher education degrees • Schools and colleges qualifications (Scottish Qualifications Authority) • Competence-based occupational qualifications (SVQs) … which established much of architecture of future framework • Pressures for more unified system • Choice of ‘communications’ NQF

12. A communications NQF : describing the existing system

13. Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF) • Design: comprehensive, links sub-frameworks; ‘loose’; 12 levels; level descriptors for 5 ‘characteristics’ of outcomes; credit • Purposes: to make system easier to understand; to promote access and progression • Change processes: common language, unitisation, engaging stakeholders

14. SCQF: Implementation • Formal launch 2001, implementation from 2003 • Voluntary framework, led by ‘owners’ of qualifications sub-frameworks (including universities) and quality body • Other organisations can also become ‘credit-rating bodies’ and admit qualifications to the framework • Implementation slow – especially non-mainstream qualifications • Partnership strengthened in 2007 • But framework has retained stakeholder support

15. SCQF: Uses • Uses include: • Programme development, planning and managing educational provision • Coordinating provision across institutions and sectors • Supporting access, progression and credit transfer • Recognition of prior learning • Guidance • Human resource management • Slow to realise potential uses – still greater than actual uses • A ‘useful tool’ – whose use depends upon other drivers

16. SCQF: Impacts and issues • Broadly successful but • Aims were modest • Built on (more radical) earlier reforms • Much of impact achieved by becoming ‘national language’ – promotes coherence • More impact in education than in labour market • Barriers to a unified framework: • Different types of learning • Institutional barriers • Political barriers • Needs to be part of a broader policy strategy

17. 3. The Irish National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ): a reforming framework

18. Ireland • Small country, uniform institutions • Policy community • Emerging ‘sub-frameworks’ for: • Universities • Non-university higher education • General education (schools) • Further education and training • Pressures for more coherent system • Pressures for reform within sectors … • European influence – especially HE • Choice of ‘reforming’ framework

19. A reforming NQF: describing the existing system and driving specific reforms • Design: comprehensive; loose; 10 levels; descriptors for knowledge, skills, competence; award types; guidelines for quality assurance and for access transfer and progression; regulatory within 2 sectors • Purposes: broader than Scotland: (also) raising standards, enhancing quality, changing culture • Change processes: broader than Scotland: (also) regulation, quality assurance, cultural change

21. NFQ: Implementation • Formal launch 2003 • Built on earlier and continuing reforms • Initially led by single Authority & separate awards councils for each sub-framework • Merged into single body in 2012 – now more emphasis on integration across sub-frameworks? • Stakeholder engagement

22. NFQ: Issues • Reasonably successful – given more ambitious aims and different starting point than Scotland – but • Implementation and impact slow … • … and variable across sectors; less in general education • Competing philosophies of NQF and educational selection • Slow to integrate sub-frameworks • Concerns that many changes have been superficial • ‘Anomalies’ in placing existing qualifications • Impact needs strong ‘drivers’ (funding, public recruitment) • More impact in education than labour market

23. 4. Concluding comments

24. General model of change erience)

25. Possible Issues for Chile

26. Thank you for your attention David.Raffe@ed.ac.uk Some references CES Briefings. http://www.ces.ed.ac.uk/publications/briefings.htm Collins, T., Kelly, F., Murdoch, H., Raffe, D. and Murphy, A. (2009) Framework Implementation and Impact Study: Report of Study Team. Dublin: National Qualifications Authority of Ireland. European Training Foundation, CEDEFOP and UNESCO (2013) Global NQF Inventory https://lnconnections02.etf.europa.eu/activities/service/html/mainpage#activitypage,FFFG22d8f11eac53429991307645a2765038. Howieson, C. and Raffe, D. (2013) The paradox of Scotland: limited credit transfer in a credit-based lifelong learning system. Oxford Review of Education. DOI: 10.1080/03054985.2013.806250. International Labour Organisation. ILO research programme on implementation and impact of NQFs. http://www.ilo.org/skills/projects/WCMS_126588/lang--en/index.htm Raffe, D. (2011) Are ‘communications frameworks’ more successful? Policy learning from the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework. Journal of Education and Work, 24, 3-4, 283-302. Raffe, D. (2011) The role of learning outcomes in National Qualifications Frameworks, in Bohlinger, S. and Münchhausen, G. (eds) Validierung von Lernergebnissen: Recognition and Validation of Prior Learning. Bielefeld: Bertelsmann. Raffe, D. (2013) What is the evidence for the impact of National Qualifications Frameworks? Comparative Education,49, 2, 143-162.