Formation Continue du Supérieur

APPENDIX
I. Definitions
1. General Terms:
a. The general terms used throughout the present Recommendation are the same as those understood in the Lisbon Recognition Convention and referenced in the definition of terms (Section I) of the Convention.
2. Terminology specific to the present Recommendation:
a. “National Qualifications Framework(s) (NQFs)” refers to qualifications frameworks developed at the national or sub-national level and specific to a country’s structure of education and training;
b. “Overarching frameworks” refers to regional frameworks to which NQFs are related (for example the QF-EHEA and EQF-LLL);
c. “Qualifications frameworks” refers in general terms to both NQFs and overarching frameworks.
II. Scope and General Considerations
1. The Recommendation focuses on the use of qualifications frameworks as important information and transparency tools in the recognition of higher education qualifications and qualifications giving access to higher education.
2. The Recommendation takes account of the fact that, from a lifelong learning perspective, qualifications frameworks can also facilitate the recognition of prior learning, since qualifications frameworks describe qualifications in terms of learning outcomes independently from learning paths. It also takes account of the fact that qualifications frameworks can be used to facilitate access to the labour market.
3. The Recommendation demonstrates ways in which qualifications frameworks may be helpful in establishing similarities between foreign qualifications and relevant qualifications within the education system in which recognition is sought, and whether or not there are substantial differences between qualifications.
4. The fact that not all countries, or indeed all signatories to the Lisbon Recognition Convention, have national qualifications frameworks should not be an impediment to recognizing qualifications from such countries. Likewise many older qualifications may not be placed in a qualifications framework even if the country in question has now developed one.
5. National Qualifications Frameworks facilitate recognition especially when they have been linked in a transparent and comparative way – through self-certification and referencing – to the overarching frameworks, such as QF-EHEA and EQF-LLL.
6. While the existence of a NQF alone does not lead to “automatic recognition”, the positioning of qualifications within the NQF of the awarding country and their relation to one or more overarching frameworks gives important information to facilitate the recognition processes.
III. Recommendations
1. The competent recognition authorities, and the ENIC Network should develop a common understanding on how to use national, European or other overarching qualifications frameworks for the purpose of facilitating the fair recognition of qualifications and should identify the opportunities and challenges they present.
2. Qualifications frameworks should be used to make it easier for competent recognition authorities to assess foreign qualifications.
3. Qualifications frameworks should be used while considering the five key elements in recognition: level, learning outcomes, quality, workload and profile. However, qualifications frameworks provide limited information to support the recognition process when it comes to the profile of a qualification.
4. The following principles should apply to assure the effective use of qualifications frameworks in recognition practice:
a. Level
i. If a National Qualifications Framework has been self-certified or referenced, there is, as a general rule, no need for the competent recognition authority to investigate the level of qualifications further;
ii. In the case that qualifications have been referenced/self-certified towards the same level in overarching frameworks, they should be seen as broadly compatible;
iii. When level discrepancies occur, qualification specific information including the Diploma Supplement or other documents should be used. In these cases, the formal rights the qualification in the awarding country should be taken into account.
b. Learning outcomes
i. The learning outcomes of National Qualifications Frameworks and of overarching qualifications frameworks are generic and provide a reference point for recognition;
ii. In cases where the learning outcomes provided by the qualifications frameworks are insufficient for recognition purposes, the more detailed descriptions of learning outcomes provided by institutions should be used. The description of learning outcomes in the Diploma Supplement or other documents is useful for recognition purposes.
c. Quality
i. A transparent link between recognition, qualifications frameworks and quality assurance should be established;
ii. If a National Qualifications Framework has been self-certified or referenced, there is an assumption that the individual qualifications included in the framework by the competent authority are quality assured. Therefore as a general rule there is no need for the recognition authority to investigate the quality of the qualification.
d. Workload
While recognising that qualifications should as far as possible be assessed on the basis of learning outcomes, competent recognition authorities may also be guided in their assessment by the workload learners are assumed to require in order to obtain the given qualification. This is normally expressed as credits and indicates the typical workload expected to achieve the learning outcomes associated with a qualification.

The second meeting of the Reporting WG took place on 02 July 2013 in Luxembourg. The meeting was attended by 21 representatives.
During the meeting, the WG members discussed the indicators found in the 2012 Bologna Process Implementation Report chapter by chapter to assess their relevance to the 2015 reporting exercise. Moreover, the participants considered the new scorecard indicator proposals and those used for the 2012 Report, and provided their recommendations on whether the indicator should be maintained in the 2015 Report and whether any amendments are needed.
Prior to the pre-test of the BFUG questionnaire, the 2012-2015 BFUG structures will have the opportunity to comment on the suggested indicators and propose new ones.
The third meeting of the Reporting WG will be held on 15 November 2013 in Riga, Latvia.

New subsidiarity text on “The use of Qualifications Framework in the recognition of foreign qualifications”

During its sixth meeting held in Split on the 19 June, the Lisbon Recognition Convention Committee adopted a new subsidiarity text on “The use of Qualifications Framework in the recognition of foreign qualifications” as well as its Explanatory Memorandum.

The development of national qualifications frameworks provides a new tool for transparency and comparability for the recognition of qualifications. The Recommendation takes notes of this situation and indicates general guidelines for their use.

BFUG 2012-2015 working group (WG) on Social Dimension (SD) and Lifelong Learning (LLL) held its second meeting on the 17th of April 2013 in Dublin, Ireland. The meeting had a focus on the role of LLL in widening access to education and qualifications.  
Wile exploring the idea of peer learning and peer reviews in SD, the WG agreed to comment on the development tools of the Peer Learning for SD (PL4SD) pilot project, evaluate the milestones achieved and select countries to be reviewed and external experts for conducting the review.  
Finally, the WG reached a consensus to develop a strategy/framework on SD and LLL by 2015 with clear targets to be achieved.  
The third meeting of the SD&LLL WG will be held in Brussels in mid October or in early November of 2013.

By Wikichild Co-ordinator Melinda George. It’s far too often that we hear the word “youth” immediately followed by “unemployment”. Hardship of the global economic crises are not spread equally among all individuals and households. According to the OECD’s Employment Outlook 2013, unemployment rates will remain high for the next 18 months across the board, but youth are hit the hardest (see the table below). While not all youth in Europe face difficulties when searcing for a meaningful and practical job, there is without quations a core group in each country that face either unemployment, inadequate jobs or social exclusion. The most disadvantaged youth are those with low skills or from migrant backgrounds. Read more...

By Charlotte Demuijnck. The OECD’s contribution on education to the post-2015 framework: PISA for development is the second in a series of contributions to the post-2015 agenda. This paper provides a brief overview of progress to date with the education-related MDGs and looks forward to what global education goals could look like beyond 2015.
Building on the success of the universal access in primary schooling since the establishment of the MDGs, the emerging consensus of the international community on the post-2015 agenda is that education-related goals and targets should remain included in the post-2015 framework. As a matter of fact, the UN High Level Panel report released in May 2013 advises that one of the next universal goals be “Provide Quality Education and Lifelong Learning”. In this regard, the paper on education reflects the Organisation’s converging views towards this consensus. In fact, the OECD’s true contribution to the debate lies in its innovative and efficient approach to forming future education goals, which are both qualitative and measurable. Read more...

By Jan Hofmeyr. With post-recession growth remaining sluggish, the emerging economies must interrogate the sustainability of their development models and adapt domestic policies to promote inclusive growth and greater social equality.
Since the acronym was coined by Goldman Sachs’ Jim O’Neill in 2001, the story of the BRICs (later to become BRICS) has almost exclusively been relayed in gross domestic product (GDP) terms. It has been one that emphasized size and scale where magnitude and margins propelled markets.
By now the statistics are all too familiar: In 2013, Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa together contributed 25 per cent to global GDP, conducted 15 per cent of global trade, and hosted 40 per cent of the world’s population. By 2016, China is expected to overtake the United States as the world’s largest economy in purchasing power parity terms.
The turbo-charged growth in these countries not only made many fabulously wealthy, it also catapulted millions out of poverty into the middle class. In Brazil, for example, Lula’s Bolsa Familia reduced the incidence of poverty by 27% since its inception. The rapid extension of government grants and pensions in South Africa also lifted millions out of poverty. And most remarkably, in China 680 million people escaped the ranks of the poor between 1981 and 2010; a decline in poverty rates from 84% to 10%. Read more...

By Julia Laplane, OECD. Education is a cornerstone of a functioning society. As Benjamin Franklin put it: “An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest.” But as education becomes longer and increasingly expensive, are we teaching our young people the right skills for the current market? With an outstanding student debt reaching $1 trillion last year in the US alone, and millions of graduates unable to find jobs in OECD countries, the question of return on investment has become a real economic priority.
In our technology-driven economies, knowledge is, more than ever, power. The OECD Skills Strategy is built around the notion that “Skills have become the global currency of 21^st century economies”. A recent article in the OECD Observer on the impact of knowledge on economic growth pointed out that iPod production in 2006 accounted for 14 000 jobs inside the United States and 27 000 jobs outside. Today, Information and communication technology (ICT)-intensive occupations represent more than 20% of all jobs in the OECD. In such a fast-changing economic landscape, the issue of skills shortages has become a global concern. According to a recent international survey of more than 2,700 employers by consulting firm McKinsey, some 40% of employers reported that they face difficulties when recruiting entry-level staff because the candidates have inadequate skills for the jobs available. Furthermore, almost 45% of young people said that their current jobs were not related to their studies. So we need to ask how much of our investment in education should deliver greater productivity and income for workers. Read more...

By Dirk Van Damme, Head of the Innovation and Measuring Progress division, Directorate for Education and Skills.The insight that education is valuable both to individuals and to countries is not new. Using continuously improving data and statistical tools, we have come to understand and appreciate the magnitude of education’s impact on employment, income, health and life opportunities in general. From a purely economic point of view, private returns on investment are well beyond 10% per year, and public returns are only slightly below that figure. Fears that increasing participation and greater numbers of graduates – resulting in ever-increasing numbers of highly qualified people in the work force – would result in some kind of inflation, in diminishing returns and burgeoning graduate unemployment could not be confirmed by the data.
When the financial crisis erupted in 2007-08, rapidly turning into a global economic recession and a fiscal crisis in the Euro-zone and other countries, it was very difficult to predict its impact on education. Data for the years 2008 and 2009 showed that in the first years of the crisis, the impact on education remained limited and was confined to countries in severe crisis, such as Ireland, Iceland and Greece. Education is generally protected from shocks to the economic system because of its intrinsic slow pace of change. Individuals and families did not drastically alter their patterns of participation in education; and in the first years of the crisis, governments used stimulus packages and deficit spending to try to soften the blow, leaving education budgets more or less untouched. But we know that things started to change dramatically from 2010 onwards, when unemployment – especially among youth – climbed steeply and governments turned into austerity mode. Read more...