Minutes EQF Pro 2nd Partner Meeting Barcelona, 8 September 2008 (14:00-19:00) and 9 September 2008 (9:30 15:00). Present: Michel Feutrie (MF); Joana Coutinho (JC), Doris Gomezlj (DG), Jean-Marie Dujardin (JMD), Francis Rogard (FR), Alain Nicolas (AN), Elena Poles (EP), Jerzy Rozwadowski (JR), Lucian Cernusca (LC), Peter Lassey (PL), Alina Mockute (AM); Asta Dirgeliene (AD); Birute Anuziene (BA); Aurora Teixeira (AT); Tom Leney (TL) Apologized: Alexandre Kazantsev, Ina Grieb Observer : Sonja Moreau AGENDA: 1. Adoption of the minutes of the first Partner meeting 2. Presentation of the different Focus Group meetings in the partner countries: State of the play at national level 3. Discussion of the main findings, transversal analysis (similarities, differences, problems, difficulties...), structure of the report on the state of play 4. Discussion on micro-level grid 5. Identification of appropriate qualifications for Case Studies in each partner university 6. Planning of the production of Case Studies 7. Any other business 1. Adoption of the minutes of the first Partner meeting As Michel Feutrie could not attend the meeting from the beginning on, Jean-Marie Dujardin had kindly accepted to replace him during the first day. The minutes of the first Partner meeting in Lille were formally ADOPTED.
2. Presentation of the different Focus Group meetings in the partner countries: State of the play at national level After a short introduction into the problematic of the EQF Pro project, JMD animated the debate concerning the state of the play at national level. The objective of the EQF Pro project is to analyse the EQF-levels 5 and 6 in the sectors of banking/assurance and IT in each country. It seemed interesting to the partners to know in which of the partner countries an official NQF has been adopted. The result of a short round table concerning this question was: - Countries working with a NQF: FR, PT, LT (very recently), UK - NQF in discussion/progress: BE, SI, PL, RO TL insisted on the distinction between the two terms Qualification system (just a map of what exists) and Qualifications framework, which he defined as a way of organizing a Qualifications system. Each partner was asked to present his/her country report, to get an idea of the current situation in each country. During the discussions of the different presentations, a list of interesting transversal questions was created. Everybody agreed we should try to answer these questions when doing the different Case Studies: - State of the art : NQF in each country - Vocabulary: qualifications, competences - What regulations for qualifications? How? By whom? Social partners involved? - Which information in diploma supplement? Is it already available? Or only in 2012? - (Public) Qualification machinery? - Does it fit to the labour market? - Applicable to all sectors (industry, services, IT)? - Who are the influent actors: academics, social partners? What balance between them? - Sectoral qualifications: public recognition? - Public qualifications: recognition by the market? - Conditions of entry in Level 5: qualifications? Validation? Differences between public, private, sectoral qualifications? - Diploma / qualification accreditation - CISCO/MICROSOFT certification versus public certification - Dual role of the University: create knowledge (in advance) and deliver knowledge for the employers needs - Prestige/image perceptions: students / parents ( useful qualifications ), education & training institutions, qualification in the sector (accreditation) - Traditional qualifications versus useful/practical qualifications - Number of students in HE: increasing trend?
- Levels 4 and 5: only for professional qualifications? - Levels 4 +5 and 6: differences and continuities of skills - Degree of competition between operators 3. Discussion of the main findings, transversal analysis (similarities, differences, problems, difficulties...), structure of the report on the state of play Having assisted to the end of the discussion on the first day of the meeting basis of the list of transversal questions, MF presented the following draft str report on the state of play: 1. Glossary in EN and FR (similar to CEDEFOP, DISCO,...) 2. Binary System: a) Vocational versus general qualifications b) Ministry of Education/Higher Education versus other Ministries c) State run versus run by professional bodies ( guilds ) 3. Role of the State: level of regulation of the system / control on qualifications system? 4. Role of professional bodies and social partners a) Process of accreditation of a programme/qualification: Do social partners participate at local and national level or not? Is this participation voluntary or compulsory? b) Certification in a specific sector: Is the participation of professional bodies / social partners compulsory or does it only have a control function (CISCO..) 5. Bologna Structure and NQF / EQF 6. Continuity, progression, bridges 7. Perception of users / Motivation / Strategies of choice regarding individuals, families, employers 8. Trends / Next steps at short-, mid- and long-term 9. Qualifications and LLL During the discussion which followed, partners attracted the attention on different topics. PL underlined that professional bodies vary enormously and get the role of universities and professional bodies analysed more in detail. For JMD, in point 6 of the draft structure, the question of cooperation or competition of operators is important to analyse, as education & training is also a market. JR reminded to the others that it is important to have in mind if the country has got a centralized or a decentralized system. He was thinking about the very closed and nearly petrified professional bodies in Poland which don t let any place for innovation, new ideas and cooperation. MF insisted on the LLL perspective: people will have to change their professional activity/field several times during their lives and this has got a big impact on qualifications forwarders, learners and employers/social
partners. JMD rose the question of funding: Who pays for training at level 5: guilds, the sector, individuals, public funding? AN wanted to underline the importance of advice and guidance for the strategies of choice and for bridges between qualifications. TL suggested to bear in mind the question of power concerning qualifications: Who regulates, who pays, who decides? PL indicated that some qualifications may be implemented just for money, not to meet employers or labour market s needs. 4. Discussion on micro-level grid Facing this huge range of important aspects that the project has to analyze, TL presented a series of questions to guide the EQF Pro partners. Some questions and issues that are interesting to research in the case studies 1. Does the NQF generate clarity of arrangements in the countries that have one at these intermediate EQF Ls 4 and 5? Or is it too early to tell? What are the governance arrangements in different countries for recognising new qualifications? Social partner involvement? And in these particular sectors? How do changes relate to changing demands in the labour market? 2. Where there are simple or single types of diploma or qualification at L5, how does this impact on a making a coherent NQF? Where there are multiple qualifications and pathways at L5, what challenges does this create for coherence of a framework? 3. Basically, given that (1) large numbers in each cohort do HE qualifications and that (2) the choices people make involve dealing with risks what are the strategies of choice and pathway that learners/families use. 4. A hypothesis is emerging: L4 and 5 EQF refer almost exclusively to LM related qualification, not to general education qualifications and transitions. Why is this? Short-term labour market skills needs? Employability? Who pays? 5. In some countries, the professional bodies are outside the state control (at least, the MoE/MoHE control). The result is that L4 and L5 qualifications exist but, on the other hand, they lie outside the territory of NQF if this is state generated. What are the implications of this? 6. What is the generating role of the ethos of universities and of professional associations/social partners, and what is the feedback into qualifications through NQF processes? This raises, as a research question, issues of power and influence. This has policy implications for the kind of organisation that an NQF is. Everybody agreed to say that their case studies should try to answer these questions. A discussion about the concrete completion of the case studies
followed, AT insisting on the importance of a common template for the interviews with the Focus group, to get comparable results. It was approved that MF s draft Micro-level grid sent on 22th of July would be revised following the questions risen during the meeting. For example, TL suggested to add a forth section dedicated to probing questions depending each country. This section would allow to cover specific aspects of one country, as the powerful role of professional bodies in Poland or the strong competition between High Schools, Universities and Enseignement de Promotion Sociale in Belgium. Partners also asked for some practical recommendations concerning the composition of the focus group, TL suggested the following members to be part of a focus group: - employers and employers organisations - public authorities - students/learners/users - people from the university 5. Identification of appropriate qualifications for Case Studies in each partner university It was AGREED that each partner will do one case study in each sector (bank/assurance and IT), if ever possible. Sometimes it may be interesting to produce two case studies per sector, for example if two qualifications on the two levels 5 AND 6 exist in one university. Everybody is free to decide which qualification and which population/focus group will be most appropriate to get answers to Tom Leney s questions, covering at least partially MF s proposed structure of a report and the different aspects that we have worked out during the meeting. 6. Planning of the production of Case Studies and of the whole project The following methodology was AGREED and the workplan REVISED: First stage: Partners provide case studies on the basis of the revised grid Delivery dead line: mid-december 2008 EUCEN circulates these case studies among partners. Partners are invited to identify in the case studies possible answers to Tom s questions. Second stage: Partner meeting in January 2009 1. Discussion on the contribution of the case studies to these answers, verification if/how they meet Tom s questions 2. Elaboration of a synthesis which each partner will present to its focus
group 3. Preparation of the dissemination meeting in May 2009: Who should we invite? Where can we organize it? Which case studies will be presented? Third stage: Get back to focus group with the remarks of the January meeting - Verify more in depth The dissemination event in May 09 will propose to participants: - Transversal analysis at policy and case study level on the basis of national situations - the answers to Tom s questions - Presentation of 3-4 case studies - Open discussion / workshops in order to give us indications on the ways and directions to explore 7. Any other business The partners from the University of Versailles kindly proposed to host the next Partners meeting. Everybody AGREED on this proposition and the date of this meeting was CHOSEN at 19 and 20.1.2009. MF thanked the FR for this kind invitation. As all action points had been treated, the meeting was closed at 15:00. ACTIONS PLAN Send minutes of the meeting to the partners EUCEN ASAP OK Revise the micro-level grid: add relevant questions in order to be able to answer Tom s questions Write a draft report on transversal issues arising from the presentations of the current situation in the eight countries Provide to partners recommendations on the composition of a focus group and on methodological approach to develop with them a glossary EUCEN ASAP EUCEN 15.10.08 EUCEN ASAP Prepare a draft glossary EUCEN 15.10.08 Write their national report (Macro-level grid) and send it to MF Partners ASAP Prepare the case studies, send it to MF Partners 15.12.08 Discuss these case studies with their focus group Partners 15.12.08 Rewrite the document on questions to which the case studies will try to answer and possibly add several useful questions External Evaluator