EQF Pro 1 st Partner Meeting Lille,, 9:30 16:30. Present: Michel Feutrie (MF); Danièle Pouliquen (DP), Maike Schansker (MS), Isabel Martins (IM), Joana Coutinho (JC), Doris Gomezlj (DG), Jean-Marie Dujardin (JMD), Francis Rogard (FR), Alain Nicolas (AN), Elena Poles (EP), Stanislaw Jerzy Rozwadowski (SJR), Lucian Cernusca (LC), Peter Lassey (PL), Tom Leney (TL) Apologized: Alexandre Kazantsev, Loreta Staskuniene Observer : Carme Royo, Sonja Moreau AGENDA: 1. Welcome and Introduction 2. Presentation of the project and partners 3. Presentation by each partner of the problematic emerging at levels 5 and 6 of the EQF in the perspective of the establishment of a National Qualification Framework in his/her country/institution 4. Short presentations of the qualifications selected by the partners and discussion 5. Discussion between partners on the workplan, timetable, products and tools grid for the project 6. Administrative and financial matters 1. Welcome and Introduction MF welcomed everybody and introduced the partners to the specificity of the EQF Pro project: It s a transversal project linked to key activity 1 ( EQF projects: actions to develop and test the European Qualifications Framework, including national and sectoral qualifications frameworks ) and we can consider it as crucial in this context. MF characterized the EQF as a combination of the logic from VET (levels 1-5) on the one hand and the logic emerging from HE or EHEA (BMD as levels 6-8) on the other. The risk of a rupture between level 5 and 6 seems clear. In addition, the different learning cultures at HE level will not facilitate the acceptation of a common system. MF underlined the interest of other European projects in the results of EQF Pro. Some have already noted their interest. DP thinks that EQF Pro will be invited to a Thematic meeting that the European Commission will organize very soon. 2. Presentation of the project and partners
After having distributed a set of documents which will help or illustrate certain aspects of the EQF theme, MF let the partners introduce themselves. He then pursued his introduction to the topic by elaborating a diagram of the EGF problematic (see Annex 1). Two conceptions are opposed in this diagram: The European Higher Education Area (EHEA) linked to the Bologna Process (BMD), ECTS, Diploma supplements and learning outcomes with the objective of mobility and 45 countries involved form the first one. As comprehensive framework, it aims to converge national systems, in order to allow this mobility. The second conception is the one of a European Qualifications Framework (8 levels), linked to ECVET and the Copenhagen- Process and 27 countries involved. This conception has chosen an open method of cooperation, EQF figuring as a translation device for the readability of NQF. The crucial point is the relationship between these two conceptions. For instance, by 2012, all diploma supplements will have to indicate the EQF level of the diploma achieved. The main element that our project will have to treat is the CONTINUITY: continuity in LLL, learning pathways without dead ends, continuity between different kinds of HE institutions We will have to analyse in each partner country, what are current difficulties to ensure this continuity or where potential difficulties could appear. We will have to identify real problems, find possible solutions and examine if good practices exist. These concrete problems and concrete solutions will hopefully lead to recommendations for the European Commission, that we will be able to disseminate. The partners AGREED to the following working method: a) Elaborating a state of the play or global survey of one sector (bank/insurance and/or IT) b) Focussing on specific cases by case studies of 2-4 qualifications in each country The continuity linked to the LLL perspective has to be our objective, when we will work at national (NQF) and European level (EQF). Two kinds of questions will always be present in our minds: a) the cultural question: What are barriers, blockages for continuity in this specific country? b) the technical question doing the case studies and treating with formal results It was AGREED that doing the different case studies, partners
have to adopt a micro approach at institution level as well as a Macro approach at national level, the two approaches being put into a European perspective by a transversal analysis. 3. Discussion between partners on the workplan, timetable, products and tools grid for the project As the background and the objectives of the EQF Pro project have been cleared, partners were able to discuss how to achieve these objectives more in detail. PL noted that professional bodies are very active in developing innovative things, especially in our 2 chosen sectors. JMD advanced the question of the resources for LLL programs. Proceeding to a short overview of the workpackages of EQF Pro, the partners AGREED, that two tools will have to be developed: 1. a grid or common scheme helping to describe the general situation and trying to identify possible obstacles (on institutional, legal, cultural or technical level) 2. a tool indicating how to select case studies in the 2 sectors, a grid to analyse these qualifications and to help partners in linking the formal description to our objectives The partners AGREED that a focus group in each institution with partners from outside the institution (social partners, employers, people from other HE institutions, professional bodies, chambers of commerce, employment institutions ) has to be founded as soon as possible. The objective is to confront the ideas of the project to these actors, who form an integral part of the learning culture of one country. The logical evolution of the EQF Pro project has been AGREED as follows: >Case studies and state of the play in each partner country Transversal analysis (all countries and sectors) Basis of a draft Report The transversal analysis will be presented as preliminary dissemination (WP 6) during an Open Seminar in May 2009. The objective will be to see the reaction of the stakeholders in the field. Three crucial moments during the project were defined: 1. The invitation by the EC to present the progress of the project ( Thematic meeting ). Date unknown. 2. The Open Seminar in May 2009
3. The Final Event in October 2009 to present the products/results of the project. The workplan has been designed as follows: April 08 August 08: WP 3 Preliminary Activities Establish the 2 grids/tools Create the Focus Group Identify possible Case Studies September 2008: Partner Meeting 2 September 08 February 09: WP 4 Research Analysis of the qualifications selected by partners - Case Studies - Discussions at national level January 2009: Partner Meeting 3 (Discussion on Case studies) March 09 April 09: Transversal Analysis May 2009: WP 6: Preliminary dissemination ( Open Seminar ) June 09 August 09: Preparation of dissemination tools September 2009: Partner Meeting 4 Oct 09: WP 7 Dissemination & recommendations (Final event) November 09 January 2010: Prepare Final Report EUCEN ALL ALL 4. 5. Presentation by each partner of the problematic emerging at levels 5 and 6 of the EQF in the perspective of the establishment of a National Qualification Framework in his/her country/institution AND Short presentations of the qualifications selected by the partners and discussion BELGIUM: JMD informed the partners about the current situation: In the banking and Finance sector, many programs and operators exist for levels 5 and 6. The Hautes écoles are delivering a professional Bachelor at level 6, for example. At level 5, institutions of Enseignement de promotion social
(social promotion) are delivering qualifications which would correspond to a French BTS (Brevet de Technicien Supérieur) after 2 years and courses organized on evenings and Saturdays. JMD indicated the cultural differences between a Bachelor obtained at a University and one obtained at a Haute Ecole. ROMANIA: LC explained that the BMD structure has been adopted in Romania, but that it is still in its first steps. In the University of Arad, you can get a Bachelor s degree by regular and distance learning, for example. This would take 3 years. A bachelor of science studies can be over 3 4 or 5 years, which makes it difficult to associate an European level. Master is bachelor +2 years. The identification of the level which is relevant for EQF will be therefore based on Learning outcomes. PORTUGAL: Universities and Polytechnics are the institutions delivering a Bachelor's degree (level 6). These are called Licenciaturas and take three or four years. Level 5 is delivered by Polytechnics and Universities and are called CETs - Cursos de Especializacao Tecnologica. These 2 institutions are generally separated, although it exist some joint organizations. The continuity between level 5 and 6 is at institution level. On a basis of a special application to a University or to a Polytechnics, level 5-graduates can continue their studies and obtain a Bachelor degree. FRANCE: After Secondary school (and the baccalauréat), students can reach level 5 by three different ways. A 2 years program at either a BTS branch of a lycée, either a technical college (DUT) either a University will allow students to obtain this level. We can say that the French system is rather open, you can easily switch from one type of education institution to another, continuity exists in most cases. UK: The High Schools in UK deliver levels 2 to 3 of the EQF. Universities are delivering levels 4 to 8. New foundation degree is also at level 5. The issues concern the qualifications provided outside university. The decision of the level is peer regulated. The vocational qualification system delivers up to level 3. Further Education Colleges are acting in behalf of Universities and are competing each other and with the Universities. Technology centres do not design courses but manage and provide these programs up to level 5.
SLOVENIA: In Slovenia old a new (BMD) programs are coexisting for the Moment. It s typical for the Slovenian education system, that professional and university studies are not sharply separated; both branches are coexisting at the same level at Universities, for example. In Slovenia, a ministry of Higher Education supervises levels 6-7-8 of the EQF, both university programs and professional business programs. Slovenia also has elaborated an NQF. The EQF partners discuss extensively how to implement the EQF in practical terms, especially if in one qualification, the knowledge could be associated with one of the EQF levels, skills with another one and competence with another. GERMANY: MS presented an interesting study program of the University of Oldenburg, where the Chamber of Commerce and the University cooperate, the University granting the qualification Versicherungsfachwirt/in automatically with 48 ECTS in the context of RPL and offering a Bachelor of Business administration, also possible to obtain by distance learning. The competing situation between Universities and Fachhochschulen has currently been solved, both institutions delivering a level 6 degree. POLAND: In Poland, two ministries are responsible for education. The ministry of Education is competent for education from the Primary to the Matura (end of Secondary school); the ministry of National education is competent for education beyond secondary school. Polytechnics and Universities are at the same level. The Polish system has another philosophy of education, general and broad teaching are more important than specialized and professional studies. Practical exercices are something new for Polish students. All partners agreed that it would be useful to work on the two tools to elaborate. The group was splitted in 2 working groups: one for the guidelines for the partners to present the local and national situation; the other to work on the grid to present the case studies. Results of the first group are:
Grid for description of the state of the play of qualifications level 5 and 6 in sector bank/insurance and/or IT Macro-level enquiry Continuity L5-L6, barriers, good practices, Technical issues, cultural questions Variety of providers Brief the focus group: bridges, barriers for learners articulation of work practice/school learning system defined/operated by content, duration vs learning outcomes assessment process recognition of experiential learning, including job standards gaps between supplied/demanded learning outcomes teachers orientation culture converging/separated pathways and coherent/non coherent governance effects, impact on mobility trust and or quality assurance readability and secret gardens The second group sorted the following points out: GRID for a STUDY CASE of a QUALIFICATION (Draft) 1. Common data: What level is it? Who defines the level? Who assesses the level? 2. European description: Describes broadly the qualifications in terms of knowledge, skills and competences. What is the time input from the students? Is there any flexibility in the delivery? If yes, which one? What is the assessment process? 3. Access: What are the requirements to enter the qualification? 4. Progression path: What is the next step after a qualification? Is study available to move further? Is professional career available to move further? What are the criteria to move further?
5. Qualification Competitive Environment: What is/are the other competitor s qualification? Who provides the competitor s qualification? 6. Relation qualification/sector: What are the relations of the qualification with the sector? 6. Administrative and financial matters DP gave a short overview of financial and administrative matters. A Partner Agreement will be sent to all partners indicating the partner s budget and his own contribution. Partners will be able to send their first invoice the Financial Administrator in Barcelona once the Partner Agreement has been signed by both parties (Michel Feutrie for EUCEN and the legal representative of the partner institution for the partner). Partners will have to send a Report Form for each travel they do and a time sheet corresponding to the hours worked for the project every year. The next Partner meeting was scheduled on 8 and 9 September 2008, it will last one day and a half. ACTIONS PLAN Create a focus group in each country, associating partners from outside the University (social partners, employers, people from other HE institutions, professional bodies, chambers of commerce, employment institutions,...) ALL 31.8.08 Identify possible Case studies ALL 31.8.08 Establish one grid / tool helping to describe the general situation and trying to identify possible obstacles Establish one grid / tool helping to select case studies and a grid to analyse these qualifications EUCEN EUCEN