1. Self-Certification of Compatibility
of NQFs with QF-EHEA
• Bryan Maguire
• Quality and Qualifications Ireland
•
• Conference on National Qualifications Framework
• Astana, June 8-9, 2015

2. Qualifications meta-frameworks
• Overarching framework for EHEA introduced in 2005
• European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning
(EQF) introduced in 2008
• Regional (reference) frameworks around the world (e.g.
ASEAN RQF) as well as 140+ national frameworks

3. Stages of NQF development
1. Decision to start
2. Setting the agenda: The purpose of our NQF
3. Organising the process
4. Design
5. Consultation
6. Approval
7. Administrative set-up
8. Implementation at institutional/programme level
9. Inclusion of qualifications in the NQF
10. Self-certification of compatibility with the EHEA
framework

4. Scorecard indicator n°3: Implementation of national
qualifications frameworks, 2013/14*

5. 1. Decision to start has been taken by the national
body responsible for higher education
– 2 countries
2. – no countries
3. The process of developing the NQF has been
set up, with stakeholders identified and
committee(s) established – 2 countries
4. – no countries
5. Consultation / national discussion has taken
place and the design of the NQF has been
agreed by stakeholders – 4 countries
6. The NQF has been adopted in legislation or in
other high level policy for a – 4 countries
7. Implementation of the NQF has started with
agreement on the roles and responsibilities of
higher education institutions, quality assurance
agency(ies) and other bodies – 5 countries
8. Study programmes have been re-designed on
the basis of the learning outcomes included in
the NQF – 8 countries
9. Qualifications have been included in the NQF
– 11 countries
10. The Framework has self-certified its compatibility
with the European Framework for Higher
Education – 6 countries
11. The final NQF and the self-certification report
can be consulted on a public website
l – 13 countries
Data not available – 1 country
Source: BFUG questionnaire.

6. Criteria for compatibility
1.The national framework for HE qualifications and the body or bodies
responsible for its development are designated by the national ministry with
responsibility for HE
2.There is a clear and demonstrable link between the qualifications in the
national framework and the cycle qualification descriptors of the European
framework
3.The national framework and its qualifications are demonstrably based on
learning outcomes and the qualifications are linked to ECTS or ECTS
compatible credits
4.The procedures for inclusion of qualifications in the national framework are
transparent
5.The national quality assurance system for HE refers to the NQF and is
consistent with the Berlin Communiqué and any subsequent communiqué
agreed by ministers in the Bologna Process
6.The national framework, and any alignment with the European framework, is
referenced in all Diploma Supplements
7.The responsibilities of the domestic parties to the national framework are
clearly determined and published

7. Procedures for self-certification
1. The competent national body/bodies shall certify the compatibility of
the national framework with the European framework.
2. The self-certification process shall include the stated agreement of the
quality assurance bodies in the country in question recognised
through the Bologna Process
3. The self-certification process shall involve international experts
4. The self-certification and the evidence supporting it shall be published
and shall address separately each of the criteria set out
5. The ENIC and NARIC networks shall maintain a public listing of States
that have confirmed that they have completed the self-certification
process
6. The completion of the self-certification process shall be noted on
Diploma Supplements issued subsequently by showing the link
between the national framework and the European framework

8. Countries with joint EQF/
QF-EHEA referencing reports
•
Malta
•
Estonia
•
Latvia
•
Lithuania
•
Luxembourg
•
Austria

9. Other national situations
Portugal – report published but not listed on ENIC-NARIC
website
France – EQF referencing completed without higher education
qualifications

10. Latvia
8 levels referenced/certified in one process led by NARIC
College qualifications at level 5
Binary: professional and academic bachelors and masters
National credit system 2:3 ECTS
Pre-Bologna (USSR) qualifications also referenced to NFQ

11. Lithuania
Legal/conceptual problem around definition of “qualification”
identified in self-certification led to change in law
National descriptors, not just EQF/Dublin
Binary in first cycle only: professional bachelors
“Empty shelf” at EQF level 5
Very little implementation of ECTS

12. Estonia
Joint referencing/certification report, led by ministry of
education, with no separate chapter for QF-EHEA
Occupational qualifications as well as HE qualifications at EQF
levels 5-8
Analysis of distinctive features in Estonian HE descriptors –
teamwork, language, interdisciplinarity, teaching
Misread procedure on NARIC website

13. Self-certification Processes

No two self-certification processes are identical

Diverse initiators, governance, methods, participants,
report formats, follow-up

Low level of oversight at European level

Phenomenon is not adequately studied

14. Expectations rising
•Expectations of partner countries are rising –
frameworks should be implemented, QA should be
operating, learning outcomes should be used
•Verification of QF-EHEA and referencing of EQF-LLL can
proceed as a single process but this can be quite
complex, technically and politically

15. Process challenges
International experts critical to credibility but do not seem to
limit national diversity (see Baltic criteria)
Process leadership requires technical and political
competence/authority
Engaging in (high stakes) development/ reform of
education/qualifications simultaneously with verification
challenges neutrality/objectivity of self-certification

16. Stakeholders
Stakeholder involvement varies
Relatively low in early countries with “settled” NQFs- high in
simultaneous development/verification
International dimension can throw new light on domestic
issues such as level and profile
Traditional perceived status differences may be challenged where
not justified by learning outcomes

17. Never-ending Story
Self-certification is a station on the way, it is not a terminus
Malta's revised report is an example
“empty” short cycles (EQF L5) in LT, EE & CZ. BE(fl) new short cycle
since verification
Quality assurance becomes more critical after initial technical
design of NQF
HEIs have a generational task ahead
to move to student-centred pedagogy and assessment, based on
learning outcomes

18. Is self-certification worth it?
Domestic information/reformation is (properly) the primary
purpose of NQF
Self-certification is incentive to do this well
International reputation is enhanced
Joining the green space on EHEA map
European inter-national goals
Transparency (reports used by ENIC/NARIC)
Pathfinder group on automatic recognition
Global attractiveness (e.g. EQF technical alignment project
with AUS, NZ,HK)