Formation Continue du Supérieur

ECA (European Consortium for Accreditation) has been founded in 2003 with the primary aim of mutual recognition of accreditation decisions. The two other aims of ECA are:
2. mutual learning and disseminating best practices in accreditation;
3. providing transparent information on quality and supporting internationalisation of institutions and students. ECA is an Affiliate of ENQA.
Conclusions of ECA Workshops
From 2003 until 2007 ECA held two Workshops in each year. During these plenary meetings ECA members shared and discussed the results of the work that took place in the Working groups. From 2008 onwards the Workshops are held annually. Below you can find the Conclusions of the fourteen Workshops that have been held until today.

On Saturday 13 April 2013, the newly appointed Minister for Tertiary Education, Dr Craig Emerson, announced $2.3b in budget savings from the higher education sector to help fund the implementation of the Government’s reforms to school education.  The cuts covering the period 2013-14 to 2016-17 are comprised of:
* $900m in efficiency dividends of 2% in 2014 and 1.25% in 2015 which apply to all grants under the Higher Education Support Act 2003, excluding Australian Postgraduate Awards.
* $1.2b savings from converting Student Start-up Scholarship (SSS) to HECS type loans, and
* $229m by removing the 10 per cent discount for up-front HECS payments.
Responding to the announcement, NTEU National President, Jeannie Rea said, “The NTEU applauds increased government investment in education and welcomes the school education reforms. However, this should not come at the cost of public investment in universities and support for higher education students.”
NTEU calls upon members and all those who oppose these further cuts to make their opposition known to the Federal Government.

By Paul Kniest. A bad hair news day for Dr Emerson
May Day 2013 was not a good day for the Gillard Government when it comes media coverage of higher education policy. On the same day that the NTEU published an open letter to the Prime Minister signed by almost 1,000 members of Australian universities professoriate expressing their feeling of anger and betrayal at the April 13 $2.3billion cuts to higher education, The Australian published several other stories highly critical of the government’s handling of particular tertiary education polices.
In a story entitled “Tertiary fund out of control”John Ross reports Mr Phillip Clarke, Chair of the Education Investment Fund (EIF) advisory board as saying government inertia and media-driven policy had derailed the Education Investment Fund. Read more...

The final version of the EQAR Strategic Plan for the years 2013-2017 is now available for public and is published as part of the Annual Report 2012.
The Strategic Plan as well as the Annual Report 2012 were adopted at EQAR's 7th General Assembly, held at Dublin Castle on 13 March 2013.
For more information, click here.
21 March 2013: At EQAR's 7th General Assembly, held at Dublin Castle on 13 March 2013, members adopted the Strategic Plan for the years 2013-2017. This marks an important step to strengthen EQAR's strategic role, as was recommended by the international expert panel that reviewed EQAR in 2011. Read more about present and past General Assemblies.

OECD Week 2013: Paris, May 28-30
“It’s all about people”— this message is at the heart of the debate for the discussions at the 2013 annual OECD Week bringing together the annual OECD ministerial meeting and the OECD Forum where the key issues on the global agenda are debated between all stakeholders – not just ministers, but business, labour, civil society and academia.
“We are all stakeholders in the crisis and many problems have to be solved on an international level. Developing effective strategies which convert skills into jobs, growth and better social outcomes will depend on a right mix of many national and international measures,” in the words of Norwegian Finance Minister, Sigbjørn Johnsen, chair of the 2013 OECD ministerial meeting. Debate at the Forum on May 28-29, and the ministerial meeting from May 29-30 will focus around three key themes – promoting inclusive growth, rebuilding trust and fostering sustainability. Read the full message from OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría.
Forum issue: Promoting inclusive growth
With 200 million people unemployed and public debt at historic highs in many countries after five years of crisis, creating jobs, particularly for the millions of young people who are struggling to find a first foothold on the employment ladder, employment is a key element of the debate. But jobs are only part of the equation. We need to rethink the kind of economic growth that we want in future, that will be sustainable not just economically but socially and environmentally, and whose benefits are available to everyone. This means ensuring that education systems equip young people with the skills needed for the 21st century workplace, and that there are jobs available. But we also need to ensure that older workers are not excluded, and that they can build retirement savings so they do not end their lives in poverty. And we need to ensure that developing countries play a full role in the changing global society and economy. We need to make full use of all the available talents in our societies, old and young, men and women, if we are to achieve sustainable inclusive growth. When our economies and societies change, we need to make sure our ways of measuring and understanding what is happening are keeping pace. Take how we measure trade – our current system was essentially set up when raw materials or finished goods were exported from country A to country B, and capital consisted of your products, factories and offices, and patents on your unique inventions. Today, a car, plane or mobile phone consists of raw materials, parts and processes from dozens if not hundreds of sources, and much of the capital needed to keep business moving is the knowledge held inside people’s heads. So we need a new way to measure trade, and capital ---- something the OECD has been doing and developing for half a century. The OECD Forum will be looking at these issues with sessions ranging from jobs and youth to the importance of small business in creating growth and jobs. The launch of the regular OECD Economic Outlook on May 29 will mark the transition to the OECD ministerial meeting, when informed by the Forum discussions, ministers will look at how to craft new approaches to economic challenges – examining the lessons learned from the crisis, and revisiting our fundamental assumptions about the functioning of the global economy for better policymaking in the future.
Forum issue: Rebuilding trust
Trust between people and government is a cornerstone of our societies. But that trust has been undermined by the crisis, and today many people do not trust government, business or the media. This can make it difficult for governments to win support for their efforts to get their economies onto a sound, sustainable footing while protecting the most vulnerable people. From taxation to education or health care, people want to know that they will be treated on an equal footing, and that the rules apply to everyone. How taxes work in a global context, how to reduce inequality and what a new “social contract” of trust between citizens and government might look like will all be up for debate at the OECD Forum – and will inform the ministerial debates.
Forum issue: Fostering sustainability
Despite crises and recessions, living standards worldwide have been rising on average over the past 50 years or more and we have grown used to the idea that the communities we live in will become wealthier, better educated, more enlightened, healthier, and so on. Until recently, just about everybody assumed that children would have a better life than their parents.
Forum issue: Fostering sustainability
One of the most lasting legacies of the recession that followed the 2007 financial crisis may be the end of that assumption. In presenting its Green Growth Strategy in 2011, the OECD warned that if we want to make sure that the progress in living standards we have seen these past fifty years does not grind to a halt, we have to find new ways of producing and consuming things. And even redefine what we mean by progress and how we measure it. Growth as such will not solve the problems unless it is inclusive, equitable and sustainable. And not just in OECD countries. Natural capital accounts for an estimated 26% of total wealth in low-income countries, compared with 2% of wealth in advanced economies. The OECD Forum and the OECD ministerial meeting will look at how economic, environmental and social sustainability can be fostered nationally and internationally. They will provide an opportunity to debate many of the issues surrounding sustainability, such as energy, the relative responsibility of the developed and developing economies and who should pay the costs of moving to a more sustainable approach.
Forum issue: Better Life Index
Economic growth does not exist in a vacuum; its purpose is to improve people’s wellbeing. While economic measures such as gross domestic product (GDP) remain a valuable measure of economic activity, it was becoming clear even before the crisis that we needed better ways to capture how the growth was being shared, and what actually contributes to people’s wellbeing. Instruments such as the OECD Better Life Index, part of the OECD Better Life Initiative, and similar projects in many countries around the world reflect the need for a better way to capture what matters to people – from education and health to a nice home and a good job. The annual update of the Better Life Index will offer an opportunity to discuss what wellbeing means, and how such measures can be used to inform policymaking. In the words of OECD Secretary General Angel Gurrïa: "Better policies for better lives is a journey, not a destination, and all these issues will be at the centre of the 2013 OECD Forum and Ministerial Council meeting discussions. I look forward to your participation in a lively and productive debate."

INFORM - Issue 13 - National qualifications frameworks: contributing to better qualifications
What value do national qualifications add?
An NQF has no value without qualifications inside it. The ETF believes that NQFs should lead to better qualifications that are more relevant to the labour market and flexible enough for holders to progress between qualifications or combine them from different fields. Developing and implementing an NQF requires both technical and social/ institutional processes. NQFs introduce a common language – of levels, outcomes, credits, award types and so on – among stakeholders, in particular employers, sectoral representatives and the education world (ministries, qualifications authorities, schools etc.). This leads to a shared understanding and acceptance of concepts and implementation, policies and strategies. The most important of these is the use of learning outcomes for level descriptors in the framework and the definition of individual qualifications in the different NQF levels. Level descriptors are usually generic, while those for individual qualifications are more specific.
Outcomes tell us what is inside the qualification enhancing comprehension and transparency. This creates the basis of trust essential for the recognition and acceptance of individual qualifications. In an NQF, the levels typically share a common set of descriptors of the knowledge, skills and competences to be acquired by the learner. The same descriptors are used across general education, academic education, VET and adult learning qualifications, underscoring the relationship between them and allowing individuals, employers, qualifications authorities and training providers to compare and link qualifications offered by different institutions. In this way, NQFs help to illustrate potential learning pathways, enabling learners to choose and transfer between different types of qualifications at the same level (for example, between general, vocational and academic qualifications). They can also enable learners to progress to higher-level qualifications in the same field. Thus, NQFs can be a tool to help people manage their own careers.
In most ETF partner countries, a qualification has traditionally been obtainable only by taking a formal training course. But now countries are using NQFs to develop systems to validate non-formal and informal learning, usually for the first time. NQFs apply the same assessment standards to obtaining a qualification, no matter how the learner acquired the knowledge and skills necessary to achieve it. So NQFs can support recognition of skills acquired informally and give a boost to learning beyond formal education, particularly for adults.
NQFs are therefore lifelong learning instruments, linking general education, higher education and VET, defining learning pathways for individuals and encompassing systems and procedures to recognise skills acquired lifewide. Frameworks are also usually associated with quality assurance arrangements. To be included in an NQF and associated qualifications registers, qualifications must be validated against criteria and providers often have to be accredited to award the qualification. Assessments also have to be quality assured, or verified. In many ETF partner countries these are wholly new requirements, which should increase employer trust in qualifications.
In most cases, NQFs are established by laws before real implementation begins. Where ministries lead, the ETF observes two general approaches. One is driven by a labour ministry with an employability agenda, involving sectors and social partners and focussing on occupational standards. The second is led by an education ministry or higher education community and focuses on education standards. Ministries traditionally dominate education and training policy and in most ETF partner countries, social partner engagement in education and training is weak. But NQFs can provide a platform for social dialogue. They are usually developed by a range of actors, including ministries, employers, trades unions, education authorities, VET agencies and individual experts all working collaboratively on the framework, occupational standards and qualifications, thus supporting labour market relevance. Indeed, in some cases, notably Russia and Ukraine, employers have initiated the NQF process and in Turkey sectors play a strong role in developing and awarding vocational qualifications.
This wider stakeholder engagement is beginning to influence the design and content of curricula and qualifications. Traditionally ETF partner countries have used subject- or input-based curricula, but increasingly they are developing occupational standards to make vocational qualifications more relevant. Occupational standards – themselves a type of learning outcome – are normally developed by sectors or professional bodies and involve experts who practice the occupation. Basing qualifications on occupational standards and labour market demand, and linking them to higher-level qualifications and allowing for progression, raises their “market value”. Developing an NQF also deepens institutional capacity, especially in transition or developing countries. Some states establish new bodies such as qualifications authorities to design, construct and coordinate the framework. Others are starting to build different forms of sectoral organisations, while new quality assurance bodies are also emerging. The added value of NQFs is therefore in driving greater quality in qualifications and qualifications systems.

INFORM - Issue 13 - National qualifications frameworks: contributing to better qualifications
A qualifications framework as a common reference
The ETF is coordinating a regional project to support international cooperation in qualifications development and recognition. Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia are developing qualifications in two economic sectors - construction and tourism. Two occupations were selected for each sector: bricklayer and site supervisor, and waiter and hotel receptionist, respectively. To compare qualifications, the EQF is used as a common reference. Experts from each country were asked to (re)describe the qualifications for the occupations in terms of knowledge, skills and competences against the EQF descriptors, resulting in common profiles. The project demonstrates that a common reference tool (in this case the EQF) can support the development of relevant national qualifications. The project also shows that no single institution can do all the work required. Reliable information on national qualifications and the necessary expertise to develop occupational standards requires a range of stakeholders, including ministries, sectors, qualification authorities and the social partners.
Developing relevant qualifications
The Turkish NQF provides a platform for cooperation between the government and sectors to develop outcomes-based occupational standards followed by sectoral qualifications. National occupational standards ensure the relevance of qualifications for adult training, which was previously often unrecognised. The Vocational Qualifications Authority coordinates this new system, while sectors are in charge of developing standards and certification processes. Now, in the second stage, a Turkish qualifications framework for lifelong learning is being developed. It builds on the same principles of quality and relevance and links higher education developments, sectoral qualifications and general, vocational and teacher training qualifications issued under the responsibility of the Ministry of National Education.
Quality enhancement
In Georgia, the NQF is an instrument for establishing a new approach to quality assurance in VET based on learning outcomes. The National Centre for Educational Quality Enhancement is in charge of quality-assuring the development of qualifications and their use in provision and assessment. It works with sectoral bodies as well as public and private providers. The Centre ensures that learning outcomes drive provision and accredited providers must use participatory self-assessment methods involving staff, students and external stakeholders to improve their efficiency. The new Georgian system requires the active involvement of the sectors and local companies working with providers. The Centre has also started developing recognition of prior learning through VET providers.
ETF partner countries
The worldwide surge in NQFs is not something that the ETF is observing without concern as they require considerable resources, capacity, expertise and time for development and implementation. The ETF does not advocate establishing NQFs indiscriminately; rather its position is to assist countries in finding fit-for-purpose solutions. Partner countries and regions differ in their socio-economic and demographic characteristics and in the types of qualifications needed. For example, some former Soviet states have retained large industrial conglomerates with highly specialised jobs, but younger people are now less inclined to train in narrow industrial occupations. In the southern Mediterranean, governments struggle to find decent jobs for a growing young workforce. Many people end up in informal subsistence jobs in agriculture or services. Qualified personnel are difficult to find in growth sectors such as tourism, construction or ICT. Traditional education and training systems struggle to address these and other problems, such as an oversupply of qualifications for which there is little demand on the labour market. Weak links between VET outcomes and labour market requirements leads employers to have little trust in qualifications. Qualifications systems also focus primarily on young people and offer few opportunities to facilitate and recognise lifelong learning. There are few nationally-accepted qualifications for adults. Validation of non-formal or informal learning is limited or nonexistent. VET also has a low status and accordingly students usually prefer higher education.

INFORM - Issue 13 - National qualifications frameworks: contributing to better qualifications
What are national qualifications frameworks?
National qualifications frameworks or NQFs classify qualifications according to a hierarchy of levels in a grid structure. Each level is defined by a set of descriptors indicating the learning outcomes relevant to qualifications at that level, which vary in number according to national needs. Currently NQFs have 5, 7, 8, 10 and 12 levels.
Qualifications in an NQF can be compared by individuals, employers and institutions. When different countries’ NQFs are linked internationally, qualifications can be compared, which in turn supports mobility. But the implications of establishing and using an NQF go well beyond simply classifying and comparing qualifications.
Countries develop NQFs for many reasons. While many EU Member States use NQFs to coordinate their existing qualifications systems more efficiently, ETF partner countries use them to support wider national education and training reforms. These include bringing education and training closer to the labour market, developing relevant qualifications, creating progression routes linking vocational education and training (VET) with higher education, and working towards a greater recognition of qualifications within the country and abroad.
NQFs are not new, but the recent surge in the number of countries developing them is remarkable for its speed and geographical coverage. Before 2000, only a handful of countries had NQFs. Now 142 countries worldwide have embarked on developing NQFs, including 27 of the ETF’s 31 partner countries. NQFs are part of a wider search for international solutions in education and training. They are also an attempt to support mobility at a time when economies are increasingly integrated and interdependent, where technical specifications of products or services are becoming more unified and where labour migrates across borders.

Currently, Asia is represented by some 57 universities in the top 400 World University Rankings, published every October by Times Higher Education (THE). In order to meet ever growing interest in rankings in Asia and demand for more information about the Asian academic landscape, THE released for the first time in April 2013 a dedicated Asia rankings list, documenting on the top 100 universities in the region.
Overall, Japan has 22 institutions in the top 100, the University of Tokyo coming in first, making it the undisputed leader. But looking at the rest of the rankings, Japan might well be resting on its 25 year head-start, as China’s and Korea’s investment in higher education and push for internationalisation strategies is increasingly growing. Next to Japan’s 22 institutions, China and Taiwan also have strong showings, with 15 and 17 institutions respectively. Korea comes next, with 14 universities, alongside Hong Kong’s six, all of them in the top 50, a strong performance for such a small territory. To the general surprise and despite its booming economy, India has only three institutions in the top 100, making it the one stand-out country.
What strikes when looking at these top 100, is the diversity amongst the countries fighting for the first places. There are as many as five different countries in the top 10 (Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, China and Korea), whereas the THE World University Rankings have only two: the US and the UK. The methodology used in the Asia University Rankings is the same as the one used in the World University Rankings, very specifically looking at world-class research-oriented universities. The Asia edition covers a large region, all the way from Turkey to Japan, based on the UN definition of Asia. Although the covered region was purposefully kept broad to look at a global model of excellence that is emerging in Asia, it might be tricky to compare countries like Malaysia, Turkey and Japan. Therefore, a change of methodology might be considered should the rankings be narrowed down to specific regions, like the Middle East of South East Asia. THE Asia University Rankings.

The Europe 2020 strategy, adopted by the European Council in June 2010, is the European Union’s growth strategy for the coming decade. For the EU to become a smart, sustainable and inclusive economy, five key targets have been set, among them the EU’s performance in education. This target aims at reducing the rate of early school leavers below 10% and at increasing the proportion of 30 to 34 year-olds having completed third level education to 40% by 2020. In April 2013, the statistical office of the European Union, Eurostat, released the latest data related to these key objectives, showing that most EU member states made noticeable progress in reducing the rate of early school leaving and increasing the share of people with higher education qualifications. While in 2005, 16% of the population in the EU27 aged 18-24 had at most lower secondary education, in 2012 this number dropped to 13%. As for the tertiary education attainment, 36% of persons aged 30 to 34 had completed tertiary education in 2012, compared with 28% in 2005.
However, there are great disparities between the different countries and between males and females. In Ireland, 51% of 30 to 34 year-olds have completed tertiary education, for only 22% in Italy, Malta and Romania. Cyprus (49.9%), Luxemburg (49.6%) and Lithuania (48.7%) closely follow Ireland. As for the gender divide in the EU27, on average, more women achieved tertiary education than men. Regarding early school leavers, Slovenia takes the lead, with only 4.4% of 18 to 24 year-olds currently not in further education or training, compared with 24.9% in Spain, closely followed by Malta (22.6%) and Portugal (20.8%). Next to Slovenia, the lowest proportions were observed in Slovakia (5.3%), the Czech Republic (5.5%) and Poland (5.7%). In all member states except Bulgaria, women were less likely to become early school leavers than men (11.0% compared with 14.5%). But overall, the indicators published by Eurostat seem to suggest that the bar has been set to low. Twelve member states (Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the UK) already exceeded the 40% share of 30 to 34 year olds with a higher education degree, and twelve member states (Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden) have early school leaving rates below the 10% target. Furthermore, eight countries (Denmark, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Finland and Sweden) already met or exceeded their national-specific goals, defined country-by-country in order to meet the EU average. The easy attainment of the EU education targets, seven years early, may suggest that the bar has been set too low for many countries. But the averages of 36% and 13% show that there still is some way to go before the EU reaches the headline goals of 40% and 10% respectively. Europa - News Release. Eurostat.