Further reading : National qualifications framework
UNESCO-UNEVOC has compiled a short selection of academic or professional articles that might help to clarify the signification and the use of the term "National qualifications framework". It goes thus beyond the definitions stored in TVETipedia while not pretending to offer an exhaustive bibliography on the topic.
Do you know about relevant resources that could be added to the list ? Please contact us or share it on our e-Forum!
An Introductory Guide to National Qualifications Frameworks By Ron Tuck, ILO (2007)
This publication is written as a guide to “assist policy makers” interested in implementing an NQF. It brings answer to a wide range of concrete questions: Why build an NQF ? How much does it cost ? Which criteria a qualification should meet before being registered in the NQF ? Should an NQF be completed by a credit system ? And, of course what are the key components of an NQF ?
The selected quotes bring some elements of answer to this last question.
Selected quotes
"The first essential element of NQF development is to develop a set of ‘levels’ of learning to be achieved (i.e. learning outcomes, competencies) and assign qualifications to the levels. The number of levels in an NQF varies; however, most frameworks today seem to have approximately eight or ten levels. …
The second essential element of an NQF is quality assurance. This is vital if stakeholders within the country and the international community are to have confidence in the NQF.Three important measures of quality assurance are: validation of qualifications and/or standards; accreditation and audit of education and training institutions; and quality assurance of assessment leading to the award of qualifications. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that systems which over-emphasise central control tend to produce bureaucratic compliance and cynicism. A culture of quality improvement is only created when there is a sense of responsibility for quality at the grassroots level. The aim of policymakers should be to encourage institutions to take responsibility for quality in collaboration with stakeholders. …
The various sectors have different traditions, interests and requirements. Trying to reconcile these differences within a comprehensive NQF in one stage can be very challenging and can lead to considerable conflict and controversy, as was the case in New Zealand. …
There is a crucial distinction to be made between designing an NQF and implementing it. Designing an NQF means creating the framework into which existing or new qualifications will be placed. Implementation – in the sense of populating the NQF with all the qualifications that it may be deemed necessary to offer – is a long term and continuing process. …
Some people would argue that by definition an NQF must display certain characteristics e.g. being standards-based.… It is unhelpful to think of the NQF as an entity with fixed or universal characteristics – other than the need to establish a set of levels and criteria for registering and allocating qualifications to these levels. The most effective approach to building an NQF is to start with clear policy aims, rather than with a set idea about the particular characteristics it should have. …
Be open minded about the nature of NQFs, because it is your policy goal that determines the nature and design of NQFs, not the other way around." pp.5;17;26; 27
Bibliographic indications
“An Introductory Guide to National Qualifications Frameworks: Conceptual and Practical Issues for Policy Makers”,
Ron Tuck, Skills and Employability Department, International Labour Office (ILO), 2007 ISBN 978-92-2-118612-0 (web pdf)
The implementation and impact of National Qualifications Frameworks By Stephanie Allais, ILO (2010)
Another ILO reference, published 3 years later, that is not a guide but a report - a “cross-country empirical study”- based on 16 national cases. The target (stakeholders) and the questioning (“Why and how investing in an NQF ?”) remains however the same.
The previous reference insisted on how policy goals define an NQF (and "not the other way around"). In the following quotes, the author provides an overview of those goals and of how they shape very diverse NQF.
Selected quotes
"
Improving the communication of qualification systems... in other words, trying to avoid duplication and overlap of qualifications while making sure all learning needs are covered. ... Many of the countries in the study have come to qualifications frameworks through a view that they are plagued by a ‘bewildering proliferation of qualification titles’, a ‘jungle of qualifications’, or poor public understanding of qualifications. They want it to be clearer how different qualifications relate to each other. This issue emerged in nearly all the case studies. ...
Improving the transparency of individual qualifications through learning outcomes ...The hope is that when each qualification has clearly specified outcomes associated with it, qualifications will be more transparent. ...
Reducing the ‘mismatch’ between education and the labour market ... National qualifications frameworks are seen as a way of ensuring that employers are involved in qualifications design, thus ensuring that qualifications are of the right standard ...
Credit accumulation and transfer ... Many of the countries were concerned about the lack of comparability of qualifications from different educational institutions, and NQFs are hoped to be the basis for developing systems of credit accumulation and transfer ...
Recognition of prior learning ... Countries hope that qualifications frameworks will provide a basis for recognizing a wide range of learning achievements, whether in education and training or informally at work or in the community. Different countries use different terms, with perhaps the most widely used being recognition of prior learning. ...
Access ... qualifications frameworks are seen as a key vehicle for increasing access firstly through recognizing skills and knowledge acquired in the workplace and outside of education and training, and secondly through removing what are seen as unnecessary legal or regulatory blockages between existing types of provision. ...
Quality assurance systems and new regulatory, assessment, and certification mechanisms ... A key hope here is that a qualifications framework can be a point of reference external to education and training institutions that provides the basis for quality assurance, for both self assessment by individual institutions and evaluation by external agencies. ...
Reforming delivery of education and training ... Increasing the flexibility of education and training, and shifting to what is described as ‘demand-led’ systems are key desires here. ...
Improving parity of esteem for TVET and skills qualifications ... the hope was that a clearer understanding of what the bearer of a qualification is competent to do (the transparency aim discussed above) will raise the status of qualifications, particularly of vocational and skills-based qualifications. ... Countries hope to ‘attract’ students to TVET (Bangladesh, the English NVQs, Lithuania, Scotland, and South Africa) by placing vocational qualifications on a framework, thus demonstrating their equivalence to other, more desired qualifications. ...
Increasing private sector financial contribution, especially for TVET and skills training ... Some of the countries (Bangladesh, New Zealand, and Russia) explicitly hope that the introduction of a qualifications framework will encourage industry to invest in education and training, thus reducing expectations of government. ...
International recognition and labour mobility... as more countries have developed frameworks, and as regional frameworks such as the EQF have come into existence, policy makers seem to feel under increasing pressure to have a framework in order for their national qualifications to fit in internationally. ...
Broader goals ... improve social cohesion ... improving the culture of training and raising standards of education and training ... reduction of unemployment and poverty ... broad statements of socioeconomic goals...
There are differences of emphasis in some of the countries. ... For example, the case study on the English NVQs suggests that a key driver for their introduction was an attempt by the government to achieve greater control over public expenditure by colleges and Awarding Bodies and to shift power over the provision of TVET towards employers, reducing power of trade unions over apprenticeships. In Botswana and Sri Lanka, a focus on provider accountability is very evident, where developing better mechanisms for controlling government expenditure in TVET institutions seems to be a driving goal of government. In Turkey, separating provision from assessment seems to be a key issue. Achieving modularization is a particular focus in Lithuania, as is attempting to develop social dialogue and strengthen the capacity and role of various stakeholders. A driving force in Malaysia has been to extend the existing higher education quality assurance model, which was implemented in the private sector, to the public sector.” Extracts from pp.49-61
Bibliographic indications
”The implementation and impact of national qualifications frameworks : report of a study in 16 countries”,
Stephanie Allais ; International Labour Office, Skills and Employability Department.- Geneva: ILO, 2010 ISBN: 9789221241195; 9789221241201 (web pdf)
Global national qualifications framework inventory and Global national qualifications framework inventory: country cases from EU and ETF partner countries By UNESCO, CEDEFOP, ETF, UIL (2013)
Both references are “intented to capture the latest trends and developments in the field of qualifications frameworks worldwide” while not seeking to “assess impacts of NQF or ague for or against them as a policy option”. The first reference is a descriptive analysis whose each chapter is written by a key-international institution (UNESCO, CEDEFOP, ETF, UIl) of the TVET field. The second reference - annexe of the first one - gathers approx. 50 " NQF country cases".
The selected quotes, extracted from the introduction, highlight the quick development of diverse NQFs all around the world.
Selected quotes
"NQF are truly global now in their coverage. Our survey shows that the following 142 countries and territories are involved in the development and implementation of qualifications frameworks to date. ...
Before 2000, only a handful of countries had NQFs. These first frameworks were developed to address specific challenges for linking, regulating or developing qualifications. A second generation of frameworks developed in the early 2000s has been able to draw upon the different national experiences, but it is really over the last five years that we have seen a huge surge in developments of QFs which aim to link qualifications within and between countries. The majority of countries developing national qualifications frameworks today are also involved in “regional” (that is, acluster of neighbouring countries) or transnational frameworks. However, it should be added that how advanced individual countries are in developing frameworks, and in their moves towards regional frameworks, varies considerably, and many are still in the early stages of conceptualisation and design." p10
Bibliographic indications
“Global National Qualifications Frameworks inventory” and “Global National Qualifications Frameworks inventory: Country cases”,
UNESCO, UIL, ETF, CEDEFOP, published by ETF, 2013
Flying blind: Policy rationales for national qualifications frameworks and how they tend to evolve By Mike Coles, James Keevy, Andrea Bateman, Jack Keating (2014)
This recent academic articles notes the massive development of NQF -highlighted in the previous reference - as well as the growing expectations, sometime "independent of national economic and social contexts”. Are we “flying blind” ? “What are NQFs expected to do and how might they fulfil these expectations? How will the future of NQFs unfold as many of the new NQFs reach maturity?”
In the selected quotes, the author explains why NQF are –technically and politically -hard to assess and how the “third generation” of NQF might look like.
Selected quotes
"Attempts to gather empirical data on the impact of first generation qualifications frameworks have had mixed success. This has been partly due to the lack of sophistication of the methodologies employed, but undoubtedly also as a result of the relational, perhaps even nebulous, nature of the construct itself (Keevy & Bolton, 2011). The many relational variables that must be taken account of, inevitably suggest the need for costly longitudinal studies that few governments have an appetite for. To date, reviews have avoided such complications, and have generally ended up being politically, rather than technically, driven. Impact analysis has been sacrificed for process (of implementation) analysis."
p37
"Can we think of a qualifications landscape without NQFs? Evidence suggests that the answer is a definite no. As education and training is increasingly influenced by international opportunities and challenges, it has become more outward looking and frameworks are proving the most popular tool to make national systems more understandable to those in other countries. Having said this, the new third generation of frameworks will probably be more benign, more of a communication tool, less reformist in the future, and more reliant on sectoral involvement. Levels are important in registers and NQFs provide this important metric. The frameworks we have experienced are now part of the national identity in all the countries. …
However NQFs are not a panacea, they will remain contested and they remain difficult to review, but nevertheless NQFs provide the best response to the increasingly complex qualifications systems and the challenges of globalisation we have now." pp.40-41
Bibliographic indications
“Flying blind: Policy rationales for national qualifications frameworks and how they tend to evolve”,
Mike Coles, James Keevy, Andrea Batement, Jack Keating, International Journal of Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning Volume 7, Issue 1 (2014)
Interactive framework,level descriptor and “qualifications database” of the Scottish NQF By SCQF (Accessed in 2015)
How does a National Qualifications framework ‘look like’ ? The 3 links provide an insight based on the Scottish example. Note that not all NQF possesses those 3 components altogether and that some aspects of NQF –like quality assurance – cannot be 'shown'.
Similar examples available online:
Bibliographic indications
“The Scottish credit and qualifications framework”, “SCQF level descriptors”, “Search the database”,
From the website of the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (Accessed in January 2015)
This article is an element of the TVETipedia Glossary.