Proposed Models of Including Non-formal Sector ... · Horacy Dębowski Dr. Stanisław Sławiński...

Developing organisational and �nancialmodels for including non-formal sectorquali�cations in National Quali�cationsFrameworks

Proposed Models of Including Non-formalSector Qualifications in National

Qualifications Frameworks

Report prepared within the NQF-in Project based on an analysis and discussions of the experiences of seven European countries

Warsaw, August 2018

Proposed Models of Including Non-formal Sector Qualifications in National Qualifications Frameworks

2

Title:


Authors:

Horacy Dębowski

Dr. Stanisław Sławiński

Sylwia Walicka

Agata Poczmańska

Barbara Przybylska

Design and Layout:

Wojciech Maciejczyk

Graphics:

Beata Czapska

Publisher:

Instytut Badań Edukacyjnych / Educational Research Institute

ul. Górczewska 8, 01-180 Warsaw, Poland

+48 (22) 241 71 00; www.ibe.edu.pl

Please cite this publication as:

Dębowski, H., Sławiński, S., Walicka, S., Poczmańska, A. & Przybylska, B. (2018), Proposed Models of Including Non-formal Sector Qualifications in National Qualifications Frameworks, Warsaw: Instytut Badań Edukacyjnych.

© Instytut Badań Edukacyjnych, 2018

ISBN: 978-83-95-23-95-3-3

This publication is financed by the European Union through the Erasmus+ Programme as part of the project entitled Developing organisational and financial models for including non-formal sector qualifications in National Qualifications Frameworks – NQF-in. It may be downloaded from the NQF-in Project website at www.nqf-in.eu.

Free copy

http://www.ibe.edu.pl


3

Table of Contents

Introduction 4

1. Defining the concepts and terms relating to models of including non-formal sector qualifications in NQFs 6

2. Different types of qualifications frameworks reported in the literature 13

3. Proposed typology of qualifications that may be included in NQF-based qualifications systems – prepared within the NQF-in Project 21

4. Characteristics of a qualifications system important in the context of including qualifications 27

5. Proposed models of including non-formal sector qualifications in NQFs 47

References 76

ANNEXES 80

Annex 1. Types of qualifications in the literature and EU documents/materials 80

Annex 2. Examples of qualifications awarded in different EU countries categorised according to the proposed typology 85


4

IntroductionThe main aim of the NQF-in Project is to provide support to national governments, EU agencies and key stakeholders in developing policies for including qualifications in national qualifications frameworks, with a particular focus on qualifications awarded outside the formal education system (non-formal sector qualifications).

National Qualifications Frameworks (NQF) referenced to the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) are important policy instruments to promote mobility and lifelong learning at the national as well as the European level. The NQF can play a decisive role not only to improve the transparency of a national qualifications system, but also as a policy reform driver to increase the quality and accessibility of qualifications and, as a result, participation in lifelong learning (LLL).

The EQF Recommendation and other EU strategic documents on VET and LLL policies recommend that Member States implement overarching NQFs, because as it is argued, in order to be a policy reform driver, the NQF has to be open to the various types of qualifications awarded in different educational sectors, including those outside of the traditional, formal school-based system. All of the Member States declared their willingness to implement NQFs, and most have already presented referencing reports to the EQF Advisory Group. According to Cedefop (2015), the first stage of EQF implementation is reaching its final stage. However, in most EU countries that have implemented an NQF, only formal qualifications can be referenced to it, while very few countries have introduced systemic solutions for the inclusion of non-formal sector qualifications (e.g. France, Ireland, Scotland, Poland). Europe is just now beginning to face the stage of implementing solutions to include non-formal sector qualifications in NQFs. It is envisaged that in the coming years, the inclusion of non-formal sector qualifications will constitute one of the most important topics in discussions on NQF implementation at the EU and national levels. Central issues in these discussions will consist of model solutions, the quality assurance of this process and its financial aspects.

The analysis of the solutions for including qualifications also provides us with information about the characteristics of the qualifications framework and its place and actual role in the national qualifications system. The analysis of the inclusion of qualifications focuses on the types of qualifications that can be included in NQF-based qualifications systems, and which of them are explicitly excluded, as well as the solutions and procedures that have been introduced. Finally, by analysing the solutions and procedures of including qualifications, we can examine the actual significance of a given qualifications framework for the functioning of the system, and to what extent it is a non-functioning entity in practice, as noted by Allais (2017).

The NQF-in Project corresponds with policy learning and policy transfer initiatives advocated in the EU, which focus on the exchange of ideas, policies and policy instruments among different national qualifications systems. The main rationale for this project is the assumption that knowledge about policies in one national system may be used for the benefit of developing policies in another system (Dolowitz, Marsch 2000; Chakroun 2010).


5

Within the NQF-in Project, we collected the experiences of seven European countries that are at different stages of NQF implementation: Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Ireland, Poland and Scotland. Each NQF-in Project partner prepared a country report that describes the systemic solutions used to include non-formal sector qualifications in the NQF. The reports and their annexes are available in a two-volume set from the project website at www.nqf-in.eu.

Based on the information in the country reports, joint discussions within the NQF-in partnership, analyses of solutions in other countries, literature review and deductive reasoning, we developed the organisational and financial models of including qualifications presented in this publication.

The authors of this report would like to express their gratitude to members of the NQF-in Project, in particular to: Anne Murphy, Matteo Sgarzi, Sheila Dunn, Jan Brůha, Ivana Carev, Mile Dželalija, Ellen Hazelkorn, Viola Horská, Miroslav Kadlec, Snježana Knezić, Zoltán Loboda, Alexandre Meliva, Anthony O’Reilly, Josiane Paddeu, Erzsébet Szlamka, Éva Tót, and Patrick Veneau as well as to Professor Christopher Winch and Maciej Lasota who provided external reviews.


6

1. Defining the concepts and terms relating to models of including non-formal sector qualifications in NQFs

1.1. Why we decided to use the model approach in the NQF-in Project

Within the NQF-in Project, we took the approach that developing models of including non-formal sector qualification will be a relevant and useful way to support stakeholders involved in designing policies on the inclusion of non-formal sector qualifications. This approach is in line with public policy theorists and practitioners working not only in the education field.

As indicated among others by Heemskerk, Wilson, Pavao-Zuckerman (2003), Exworthy (2008), Raffe (2009), conceptual models can be useful in policy design. Using models not only fosters understanding of the system being studied (Mayer 1989, Greca, Moreira, 2000), but also supports policy learning between countries. As indicated by Exworthy (2008):

Exporting policies within or between countries is often discounted on the basis that the ‘context’ is different and hence lessons from host countries cannot be learnt. However, a focus on conceptual models can obviate some of these problems by focusing on the key elements of the system that is being studied. By applying concepts related to the functioning of the system, it is thus possible to discern similarities and differences in patterns and practices across contexts.

Raffe (2009) indicates the importance of developing models in designing public policy, directly referring to national qualifications frameworks:

A model (…) may serve at least three purposes. First, it can encourage greater national self-awareness among policy analysts and policy-makers by helping them to see their own system in comparative context; it can ‘make the familiar strange’ (Broadfoot 2000, p. 357) by drawing attention to features of one’s own system that would otherwise be taken for granted. Second, it can encourage reflection on how the purposes of NQFs, their design and the strategies for implementing them are connected. Third, the model can be used to compare the implementation and impact of NQFs and it can provide the starting point for an exploration of why some frameworks appear to be more successful than others.

Allais, Young, Raffe (2009) also supported the idea of developing general models and typologies of NQFs:

The idea of a typology of NQFs is important conceptually as it enables researchers to explore the links between a general model of NQF structure and development and the case of their particular country. The typology is also important because it enables policy-makers to move beyond what the American sociologist C. Wright Mills, described as ‘personal troubles’ (‘why is my country having so many difficulties in implementing


7

its NQF?’) and see such problems as ‘public issues’ that are common to all NQFs, and therefore explicable even if not immediately soluble.

Although it should be mentioned that recently Allais (2017b) expressed a critical opinion on using models. Allais warns that:

…when there are so few real examples in the world to consider, it seems as if developing a complex typology, complemented by a model of development and change, seems to be running the risk of being theory-heavy (…).

1.2. How do we understand the term “inclusion in the NQF”?

The term “inclusion of a qualification in the NQF” defines a certain relationship between the individual qualification and the national qualifications framework of a given country.

However, in various European countries, the relationship between the qualifications functioning in a qualifications system and the national qualifications framework is not shaped in quite the same way. Following this, for different countries, the phrase “inclusion of a qualification in the NQF” may mean, more or less, different formal procedures. In Scotland and Ireland, the terms “inclusion in the NQF” (Ireland) or “inclusion on the framework” (Scotland) are used. In Poland, the Act on the Integrated Qualifications System (IQS) of December 2015 established a system in which some groups of qualification were incorporated by statutory provision (by law), while other qualifications can be included in the system based on the decision of the minister with jurisdiction over a given qualification. The Act precisely defines the procedure of inclusion in the IQS, which has to be performed for any qualification awarded outside the formal education system (see the Polish country report). Pursuant to the IQS Act, including a qualification in the NQF in Poland means that it is included in the Integrated Qualifications System. France has a similar solution, wherein qualifications can be included in their system in two ways: inclusion by entitlement (by law) and inclusion by request. However, in France, this is not called “inclusion in the system”, but “inclusion in the qualifications register”. The same applies in the Czech Republic, where the term used is “including qualifications in the register”. In Hungary, the phrase “linking qualifications to the qualifications framework” is used.

In this project, we understand inclusion to be the solutions and procedures leading to the assignment of an NQF level to a qualification and its entry in a register. The term “inclusion of qualifications in the NQF” is important to us in relation to the national qualifications systems, in which qualifications are described by an assigned level and there is a publicly available register of qualifications. Qualifications systems in these countries can be called “NQF-based qualifications systems”. Thus, including qualifications in the NQF means the introduction of qualifications into a system based on the qualifications framework.


8

1.3. How do we understand the term “non-formal sector qualifications”?

There are different approaches and terms used across Europe to define qualifications awarded outside the traditional school system (general, VET, HE). In the application for the NQF-in Project, we decided to use the term “non-formal sector qualifications” (after Cedefop 2014) to indicate that we want to focus our analysis on the inclusion in the NQF of qualifications awarded outside traditional formal education systems, i.e. those awarded in the non-formal sector of the education system (for further information, see section 3.1. of this report).

It should also be indicated that there is a substantial difference between the concepts “non-formal sector qualifications” and “validation of non-formal and informal learning” (VNFIL) and they should not be confused. VNFIL refers to the process where an authorised body confirms that an individual has achieved learning outcomes in order to attain a qualification1, whereas the term “non-formal sector qualifications” refers to the types of qualifications functioning outside the school education system. Non-formal sector qualifications can also be awarded through a VNFIL procedure.

1.4. How do we think about models in the NQF-in Project?

The term “model” has many different uses and meanings. As Turner et al. (2001) state:

Models can be formulated in many different ways. Physical models are material replicas of the object or system under study, but at a reduced size (...). In contrast, abstract models use symbols rather than physical devices to represent the system being studied. For example, verbal models are constructed out of words, graphical models are pictorial representations, and mathematical models use symbolic notation to define relationships describing the system of interest.

Similarly Hamarat, Kwakkel, Pruyt (2013) define a model as “a representation of the most crucial aspects of a system of interest for extracting usable information.” Conceptual or qualitative models are typically drawn as diagrams with boxes and arrows that show the main elements and flows of material, information, and causation that define a system (Heemskerk, Wilson, Pavao-Zuckerman 2003).

From the perspective of designing public policy, Collins Dictionary provides an especially useful definition of model: “a model of a system or process is a theoretical description that can help you understand how the system or process works, or how it might work” (Collins Dictionary, nd).

Following the Collins Dictionary definition, in the work of the NQF-in Project, we understand the model of including qualifications in a qualifications system as a configuration of complementary legal, financial and organisational solutions.

1 The Council of the European Union, Council Recommendation of 20 December 2012 on the validation of non-formal and informal learning (OJ C 398, 22.12.2012, pp. 1–5).

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/theoretical

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/help

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/understand


9

It should be noted that various models will have different consequences, significant from the point of view of national policy. The configuration of legal, financial and organisational solutions creates a multi-dimensional picture that takes into account several characteristics of the qualifications system.

The term characteristics of a qualifications system is used by us in the same sense as it is by Raffe (2003), Coles (2006) and Allais (2017b). In our work, the characteristics refer to several particular features/qualities of the qualifications system that influence the solutions used to include non-formal sector qualifications in NQF-based qualifications systems. The subject of the analyses in our work were the following characteristics of qualifications systems:

■■ types of qualifications that may be included in an NQF-based qualifications system, according to the typology of qualifications proposed by the NQF-in Project,

■■ ownership of a qualification included in an NQF-based qualifications system,

■■ allowable level of similarity of the qualifications included in an NQF-based qualifications system,

■■ character of the legal regulations on including qualifications in an NQF-based qualifications system,

■■ scope of the regulations on including qualifications in an NQF-based qualifications system,

■■ degree of centralisation of the decisions taken on including qualifications in an NQF-based qualifications system,

■■ role of different stakeholder groups in activities relating to the inclusion of qualifications in an NQF-based qualifications system,

■■ fees for including qualifications in an NQF-based qualifications system,

■■ the formal, legal and financial benefits of having a qualification included in an NQF-based qualifications system.

For each of the characteristics listed above, two or more basic variants can be distinguished that could occur in particular NQF-based qualifications system. The selected characteristics along with their identified variants are presented in Table 1.


10

Table 1. Selected characteristics of a qualifications system and their basic variants

Characteristics of a qualifications system Basic variants

Types of qualifications that may be included in an NQF-based qualifications system, according to the typology of qualifications proposed by the NQF-in Project

■■ All types of qualification may be included in the qualifications system

■■ Only some types of qualifications may be included in the qualifications system

Ownership of a qualification in an NQF-based qualifications system

■■ Qualifications included in the system remain the property of the submitting entity

■■ Qualifications included in the system become a public good

Allowable level of similarity of the qualifications included in an NQF-based qualifications system

■■ Similarity to qualifications included earlier in the qualifications system precludes the ability to include the submitted qualification in the system

■■ Similarity to qualifications included earlier in the qualifications system does not preclude the ability to include the new qualification

Character of the legal regulations on including qualifications in an NQF-based qualifications system

■■ Specific regulations on inclusion have the character of required legal norms

■■ Specific regulations on inclusion do not have the character of required legal norms

Scope of the regulations on including qualifications in an NQF-based qualifications system

■■ Specific regulations govern all significant elements in the process of including qualifications

■■ Only general guidelines are provided, leaving a wide margin of discretion for specific stakeholders

Degree of centralisation of the decisions taken on including qualifications in an NQF-based qualifications system

■■ One institution decides on including qualifications (as well as determines their level)

■■ Many institutions can decide on including qualifications (as well as determine their level)

Role of different stakeholder groups in activities relating to the inclusion of qualifications in an NQF-based qualifications system

■■ The roles of public authorities and social partners are balanced in the process of including non-formal sector qualifications in NQF-based qualifications systems. Social partners have a strong role

■■ Social partners have a weak role in the process of including non-formal sector qualifications in NQF-based qualifications systems

■■ Social partners play no role in the process of including qualifications


11

Fees for including qualifications in an NQF-based qualifications system

■■ Fees are incurred when including a qualification in the system

■■ No fees are incurred when including a qualification in the system

The formal, legal and financial benefits of having a qualification included in an NQF-based qualifications system

■■ Including qualifications in the system provides various types of formal and financial benefits to learners, training institutions and awarding bodies (scholarships, discounts, the right to seek financing or refunds)

■■ Including qualifications in the system provides no practical formal or financial benefits for various stakeholder groups

For the needs of other analyses, it is also possible to distinguish additional characteristics of qualifications systems, such as the scope of the functioning of qualifications registers, the significance of occupational standards, or the role of credit systems (for more, see Coles 2006, Allais 2017). The way of distinguishing the characteristics should always be in line with the aims of a particular analysis.

1.5. How we created the models in the NQF-in Project

The models of including qualifications in NQF-based qualifications systems referred to in our report were created by appropriately combining selected variants identified for each of the presented characteristics.

It should be noted that it is theoretically possible to propose very many combina-tions of the variants included in Table 1. Some of the variant solutions for the individual characteristics may complement and “strengthen” each other. But, they can also be mutually exclusive or “conflict” to the extent that their combined use in the same system would in practice be very disadvantageous from the point of view of the system’s functioning.

An example of such conflicting options would be a system in which a qualification can only be awarded by its owner, while at the same time, similar qualifications would not be able to be included in the system. Such a system could quickly lead to a high level of monopolisation of qualifications. If the purpose of a national qualifications policy is to promote pluralism, then some of the solutions should not be used together in the country’s qualifications system.

An example of a pair of variants that complement each other and do not weaken coherence is a qualifications system, in which the inclusion of qualifications takes place according to uniform rules and procedures defined in a universally binding law, while at the same time, inclusion activities can be conducted by various entities.

The aim of our project is to show that the specific way of shaping the solutions used to include qualifications in an NQF-based qualifications system, particularly non-formal sector qualifications, has certain consequences that have to be taken


12

into account by policy makers. As a result of analysing the systems functioning in the seven countries participating in the project and discussions, four theoretical models for incorporating qualifications into NQF-based qualifications systems were proposed.

In proposing these theoretical models, the impact of a given variant or configuration of variants on the following properties of a qualifications system was adopted as the starting point:

■■ the coherence of the qualifications system (strengthens or weakens),

■■ incentives for stakeholders to include qualifications (encourages or discourages),

■■ proliferation in the qualifications system (monopolisation or de-concentration),

■■ absorption capacity of the national qualifications system (increases or decreases),

■■ dominance of resourceful institutions (strengthens or weakens)

Each of the proposed models described in section 5 of this report will be analysed in terms of the above-mentioned impacts.


13

2. Different types of qualifications frameworks reported in the literature

A review of the literature on the types of qualifications frameworks existing in the world offers a more in-depth understanding of the content of this report. The information contained in the literature provides important contexts enabling the solutions functioning in the countries participating in the project to be diagnosed and interpreted. Certain approaches and definitions were helpful in thinking about and developing the characteristics, solutions and models relating to the inclusion of qualifications in NQF-based qualifications systems.

A number of models or typologies of NQFs have been developed so far: Young (2003), Raffe (2005), Young (2005), Coles (2006), Tuck (2007), Allais (2007), Raffe (2009), Allais (2010), Allais (2016), see also Allais (2017b) for a useful synthesis.

Young (2003 and later 2005) proposed a number of types of qualifications frameworks:

(a) communication and regulatory frameworks

This distinction refers to the different goals or purposes that an NQF is designed to achieve rather than its strength (or its capacity to achieve these goals). All NQFs have a “communication” role, in the sense that they provide a map of qualifications; they give some indication of progression routes between levels and, at least in principle, across sectors. The “communication” potential of an NQF means that at a minimum it can assist both learners and those involved in career and training guidance in making choices. For this reason frameworks with this more limited role can be described as “enabling frameworks” to distinguish them from frameworks with a more overt regulatory role.

(b) weak and strong frameworks

This distinction refers to the “strength” or the capacity of a framework to achieve the goals set out by government (…). In strong frameworks strict requirements are laid down for including a qualification on the framework, whereas in weak frameworks the requirements are less demanding.

(c) partial and comprehensive frameworks

This distinction refers to the scope of an NQF and is a recognition that only in some countries does the NQF include all qualifications that are available. Scope may refer to:

− qualification type – e.g. academic or vocational or those that are publicly or privately owned.

− qualification level – many NQFs exclude university qualifications, and there are countries like England which have specific frameworks limited to higher education qualifications;


14

− qualification sector – a framework could be specific to one occupational sector (for example, engineering), as in many cases in Latin American countries.”

(d) unit-based and qualification-based frameworks

This distinction refers to whether in the qualifications frameworks units are registered as separate entities or whether qualifications frameworks allows only the whole qualifications to be included.

(e) institution-led as opposed to outcomes-led qualifications frameworks

This distinction refers to the process of implementation rather than to different framework structures. It is exemplified by the contrast between the sub-Saharan countries which are establishing NQFs on the lines adopted by South Africa, and the approach recently adopted by Singapore. Singapore has a high level of institutional provision for both general and vocational education, the NQF is being introduced to further coordinate this provision and to link it to the accreditation of work-based learning. The sub-Saharan countries, on the other hand, are attempting to introduce an NQF with relatively low levels of institutional provision. They presumably hope that an NQF will either act as a substitute for the lack of institutional provision by encouraging the accreditation of informal learning, or that it will act as a catalyst to motivate new provision, especially from the private sector.

Tuck, Hart, Keevy (2004) and later Tuck (2007) proposed to name loose versus tight frameworks instead of weak and strong as proposed by Young (2005). Tuck (2007) wrote:

…the terms tight and loose are preferred because of the possibly derogatory conations of ‘weak’. It is also connected to Bouder’s distinction between frame works as instruments of regulation and communication. Tight frameworks emphasise the regulatory or controlling function, while loose frameworks have a more communicative and enabling purpose…

Tight approaches are more appropriate where the aim is to regulate more closely or to achieve a consistent pattern of change. Loose approaches may be preferred where the aim is mainly to information about qualifications. Again, the approach should fit the purpose to be served by the NQF.

Table 2. Conceptual distinction between tight and loose frameworks, according to Tuck (2007)

Tight qualifications frameworks Loose qualifications frameworks

Prescriptive about qualification design and quality assurance

Based on general principles

Regulatory purpose Communicating and enabling role

Aim to achieve wider social goals Regulate to some extent

Tend to apply common rules and procedures across all qualifications

Accept differences in approach where thought to be necessary


15

Raffe (2005) combines the concepts of tightness and scope of the framework to distinguish four types/models of NQFs, see Table 3 below:

Table 3. A typology of National Qualifications Frameworks, as proposed by Raffe (2005)

Tightness:

Scope:

Loose Tight

Partial A B

Comprehensive C D

In commenting the typology presented above, Raffe (2005) noted that all frameworks experience a tension between two dimensions, i.e. scope and tightness:

Many integrated frameworks are designed as frameworks of type D and later they tend to move in direction either of B (by becoming less comprehensive) or C (by becoming looser) or a combination of both.

Raffe (2005) also introduced the concept of an integrated qualifications framework and explains the difference between comprehensive and integrated qualifications frameworks.

An integrated qualifications framework is more than just a comprehensive one. A comprehensive framework, as distinct from a partial framework, includes all types of learning: academic and vocational, formal and informal, education and training. Being comprehensive is a necessary condition of an integrated framework, but it is not a sufficient condition (p.21)

An integrated qualifications framework is one that recognises and celebrates a wide range of purposes, epistemologies, modes and contexts of learning, but which also recognises the need to build these into a coherent and coordinated system. In order to do this, it has to impose some aspects of uniformity. Some design rules have to be tight, in order to promote coherence; other design rules should be loose, in order to encourage diversity. The trick, of course, is deciding which should be tight and which should be loose. This is the tension, which Young (2005) has described, between the principle of difference and the principle of equivalence. To manage this tension effectively we need to be clear about the purposes of integration (p.22).

Coles (2006) proposed an extended list of dimensions that should be taken into consideration in the NQF architecture. In his paper Coles argues that it is possible to locate existing NQFs at a point on the continuum of each dimension, as shown in the table below.


16

Table 4. The design characteristics of NQFs as proposed by Coles (2006).

Main

advantages

Design characteristic

from………............……………………..to

Main

advantages

Coherence across qualifications

Genuine national system

inclusive of all qualifications

partial coverage of qualifications

Implementation easier

Piloting possible

Staged development strategy

System wide reform possible

Linkage with other national policies

designed and managed by

central agency

organic development by

stakeholders

Encourages harmonisation

Stakeholder buy-in

Allows regional development

Policy coordination

Quality assurance

regulatory framework for

assuring quality

classification of all qualifications

Communication with stakeholders

Powerful authority for framework

Sanctions for non-compliance

legal basis voluntary basis

Ownership secured

Stakeholders work together

Builds on existing learning infrastructure

descriptors composed of

learning inputs

descriptors composed of

learning outputs

Independent of institutional structure

Linkage with external frameworks

Relevance across all parts of education and training possible

Linkage with external frameworks

level defined by descriptor

level defined by national reference

qualifications

Builds on existing infrastructure

Confidence in new framework higher

Close relationship to labour market

Linkage better between education and work

qualifications based on

competency standards

qualifications based on units of learning or achievement

Continues traditions of skills supply

Builds on existing infrastructure


17

Coles points out that the national context influences the selection of the position on each dimension, with some choices being untenable and others being automatic:

For example, in federal states the buy-in from regions is essential and development of a legal basis through negotiation and consensus building can be a fundamental requirement. States where social partners have a strong role in qualification design, management and evaluation will be guided towards voluntary arrangements rather than centralist imposition.

Based on her studies of the South African NQF and insights from Young and Raffe (for more, see Allais 2017), Allais (2007) proposed to extend Young and Raffe’s typology, as presented in the table below. In this typology, Allais proposed a set of primary characteristics of qualifications frameworks, which are likely to cluster together, and a set of secondary characteristics, which have no necessary relationship to any of the primary characteristics.

Table 5. Ideal types combining primary and implied characteristics, followed by secondary character-istics as proposed by Allais (2007).

Characteristics Framework of communication Outcomes-led framework

Purpose Rationalization of qualifications

Reform, transformation or overhaul of the education system

Assumptions about knowledge

Knowledge as ‘given’. (Some attempt to create transparency)

Implicit social constructionist; outcomes are primary

Role of institutions

Institutions lead the process of comparing qualifications, making judgements about programmes, and so on.

Outcomes are defined separately from institutions, which then design learning programmes against the outcomes.

Speed of development and approach of implementation

Incremental, bottom-up

Break with the past — fast, top-down

Definition of levels Qualification defined Level descriptors

Prescriptiveness Loose Tight

Raffe (2009) proposed a simplified version of the Allais (2007) typology and with some differences in the terms used and emphasis. Raffe distinguished three types of frameworks: (a) communications framework, (b) reforming framework; (c) transformational framework, described below:


18

ū A communications framework takes the existing education and training system as its starting point and aims to make it more transparent and easier to understand, typically in order to rationalize it, to improve its coherence, to encourage access and to highlight opportunities for transfer and progression between programmes.

ū A reforming framework takes the existing system as its starting point but aims to improve it in specific ways, for example, by enhancing quality, increasing consistency, filling gaps in provision or increasing accountability. It is typically statutory and has a regulatory role.

ū A transformational framework takes a proposed future system as its starting point and defines the qualifications it would like to see in a transformed system, without explicit reference to existing provision. It typically uses learning outcomes for this purpose because they allow qualifications to be specified independently of existing standards, institutions and programmes.

Raffe states that the three types can be represented as a continuum, summarised in the table below.

Table 6. Typology of NQFs as proposed by Raffe (2011)

Type of NQF: Communications Reforming Transformational

Starting point Existing ET system Existing ET system Future ET system

Purpose:

To increase transparency; To provide tool for

rationalising system, increasing coherence,

facilitating access transfer and progression

To achieve specific reforms eg fill gaps,

enhance quality, extend access transfer and

progression; To provide tool for

rationalising system, increasing coherence

To transform ET and lead development of new

system

Design

Loose, varies across sub-frameworks; outcomes

used as common reference point

Tighter, but varies across sub-frameworks;

outcomes used as common reference point

Tight, central specification imposed more uniformly; outcomes used to drive

change

Leadership and control

Voluntary ‘Bottom up’

ET institutions share leadership

Substantial decision-making at level of sub-

framework

Compulsory ‘Top-down’: led by central

agency/govt ET institutions as key

partners Control may vary across

sub-framworks

Compulsory ‘Top down’: led by central

agency/govt ET institutions among

partners Centralised control

Expected role in change

Tool for change: requires complementary drivers to

ensure tool is used

Drives specific changes; requires complementary drivers for other impacts

Expected to drive transformation of system

Raffe argued that of the early comprehensive NQFs, those in Australia, France, Scotland and Wales are examples of communications frameworks; those in New


19

Zealand and South Africa started out as transformational frameworks; and that Ireland has an intermediate or reforming framework.

In the literature, we can find two further NQF models developed by Allais (2010 and 2016).

Allais (2010) distinguished three key objectives of qualifications frameworks, leading to three suggested types of frameworks. “Frameworks might be seen as predominantly one of the following:

… an attempt to make the relationships between existing qualifications more explicit,

… an attempt to make the relationships between occupational entry regulations and qualifications more explicit,

… an attempt to use independently specified outcomes or competency statements to drive a range of different educational reforms.”

In Allais (2016) the above typology was modified by the introduction of three types of frameworks:

ū descriptive frameworks,

ū occupational frameworks,

ū ‘employer led’ outcomes based frameworks2.

Concluding remarks from the analysis of the literature review from the perspective of designing models

As has already been mentioned, the information contained in the literature on this subject provides us with an important context in developing the model solutions. However, the models described in the literature are formulated on a very general level and do not refer explicitly to the process of including qualifications in NQF-based qualifications systems.

Raffe (2009) noted that most of the NQF models found in the literature were formulated in reference to Anglophone countries and the systems of organising a country according to Anglophone traditions. This is an important observation from the perspective of the NQF-in Project, as some possible solutions that could be relevant for continental European countries may not have been addressed in these models. Examples of such solutions could relate to the inclusion of qualifications in NQF-based systems that are under ministerial jurisdiction. In many European countries, ministries are responsible for developing qualifications and for regulating the process of their certification. Therefore, qualifications that are regulated by laws or ministerial regulations could constitute a significant part of national qualifications systems. At the same time, the solutions and procedures

2 Allais places ‘employer-led’ in inverted commas to indicate that it is more of an aspiration than a practice real-ity.


20

developed for their inclusion may differ from private market qualifications and should be analysed separately. Another example relates to the issue of the ownership of qualifications. In the reviewed literature, it is tacitly assumed that the qualifications included in an NQF rest in the hands of their owners. However, in some countries, the ownership rights of qualifications included in the NQF-based system could be transferred to the public, as occurs, for example, in Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic or Croatia.

The NQF models developed to date often treat the NQF as a homogenous entity, despite the fact that, as noted by Young (2007), written models of an NQF often mask substantial differences in the reality of frameworks even categorised to the same type. Raffe (2011) indicated that most comprehensive frameworks encompass distinct sub-frameworks, which may have different characteristics from the nature of a general model. Raffe (2009) gave the example of Scotland, where the NQF is described as loose and voluntary, but includes sub-frameworks that are rather tight and obligatory, such as the Scottish Vocational Qualifications and some sets of Scottish Qualifications Authority qualifications.

Finally, as we can see, the material presented in this chapter is not consistent. The terminology used to describe these or analogous elements varies. The functioning of qualifications frameworks is interpreted from different perspectives. Descriptions are formulated with a high level of generality and are more theoretical in nature. The above considerations do not indicate, for example, which types of qualifications can be included in qualifications systems, how the system should be financed, how issues of the ownership of qualifications, stakeholder engagement or the functioning of the qualifications register should be resolved.

Thus, we see how much there still is to be done to design solutions for the function-ing of qualifications systems. Our report is an attempt to go one step further towards addressing specific, real problems that policymakers have to solve in developing a process of including qualifications awarded outside the formal education system in national qualifications systems.


21

3. Proposed typology of qualifications that may be included in NQF-based qualifications systems – prepared within the NQF-in Project

National Qualifications Frameworks (NQF) referenced to the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) are important policy instruments to promote mobility and lifelong learning at the national as well as the European level. In order to be a policy driver, national qualifications frameworks have to be comprehensive, i.e. open to different types of qualifications. European documents and reports indicate that not only school qualifications (general, VET, HE) should be referenced to the NQF, but also qualifications awarded outside the formal system of education. According to the joint report of UNESCO Institute of Lifelong Learning, ETF and Cedefop, 34 European countries are working towards comprehensive NQFs covering all types and levels of qualifications (UIL, ETF, Cedefop 2015, p. 10).

With respect to the implementation of comprehensive NQFs, the definition structure of types of qualifications awarded in qualifications systems has still not been developed in the literature and European policy documents3. As a result, various documents, reports and scientific papers name qualifications differently, rarely providing definitions of the terms they are using (see Annex 1). However, from the perspective of the NQF-in Project, it was of crucial importance to define the qualifications that are being awarded outside the formal education sector, i.e. non-formal sector qualifications.

In the literature, Young (2005) proposed a distinction between academic versus vocational qualifications or qualifications that are publicly or privately owned. In the policy papers and reports produced by such international agencies as Cedefop, ETF, ILO or UNESCO, the most frequently used terms regarding types of qualifications are “formal qualifications” and “non-formal qualifications”. “Formal qualifications” are usually treated as those qualifications awarded within the formal school system, whereas “non-formal qualifications” are those awarded by private training providers. Sometimes, instead of the term “non-formal qualification”, the terms “private qualifications” or “non-governmental qualifications” are used, but definitions are not provided.

The term “formal qualification” is vague, as it does not indicate explicitly whether it is referring to a qualification awarded only within the formal school system (general, VET, HE) or whether this definition includes qualifications awarded by public institutions that are not educational institutions. Also, different authors take different approaches in this matter. The term “formal qualification” may also signal that it refers to qualifications that are included in the NQF, as opposed to non-formal qualifications that are not included in the framework.

3 In Europe and the scientific communities, a thorough discussion has been conducted about the different types of learning, and a common understanding of terms has been established, reflected, among others, in Eurostat and Cedefop definitions (Eurostat 2006, Cedefop 2014, see also Werquin 2007).


22

Using the term “formal qualification” is also problematic from another perspective. The phrase “formal qualification” is tautological. If the qualification is the “formal outcome of an assessment and validation process which is obtained when a competent body determines that an individual has achieved learning outcomes to given standards” (EQF Recommendation 2008), then a qualification is formal by definition, and therefore it cannot be “non-formal”.

Below we present a synopsis of different approaches to defining “formal” and “non-formal” qualifications in different documents and reports.

Table 7. Different approaches to defining “formal” and “non-formal” qualifications

Awarded within the

formal education

system (general, VET,

HE)

Awarded by public

institutions (outside

the formal education

sector) or bodies

accredited by these

institutions

Awarded by industries,

sectoral organisations,

crafts chambers

Awarded by private

training institutions (including

international organisations)

Included in the NQF

Formal qualifications (also called state/government qualifications)

Yes Yes or No Yes or No No Yes or No

Non-formal qualifications (also called private market qualifications)

Yes or No Yes or No Yes or No No Yes or No

As indicated in Table 7, the terms “formal qualification” and “non-formal qualification” can overlap and may include different types of qualifications. Based on the discussions within the NQF-in Project and analysis of national solutions in different countries, we proposed that the main criterion to distinguish different types of qualifications is the legal basis of the functioning of the qualification in the national qualifications system.

If the process of awarding a qualification is regulated by legal acts, then this qualification will fall into the category of state regulated qualifications. Qualifi-cations whose awarding process is not regulated by legal acts would be classified as non-regulated qualifications.

The education sector has traditionally well-established and well-recognised qualifications, awarding bodies, as well as institutions and procedures for quality assurance. This sector provides the foundation for NQF implementation. Therefore,


23

we propose to divide state regulated qualifications into two categories: state regulated qualifications awarded in the education system and state regulated qualifications awarded outside the education system. Another argument for this differentiation is that there might be different procedures of inclusion for these two types of qualifications in the NQF. In some national qualifications systems, state regulated qualifications awarded outside education systems may not even be included at all.

In this proposed classification, the type of awarding body (e.g. school, university, chamber of crafts, ministry) is not taken into account. It may occur that a university or chamber of crafts awards two or three types of qualifications (see Table 8).

It should also be emphasised that the proposal presented in Table 8 is not intended to compete with the terminology used within national qualifications systems, but to serve as a point of reference for discussion at the European level when comparing solutions adopted in different countries.

Table 8. Proposed generic types of qualifications

Type A:

State regulated qualifications awarded in the education system

Qualifications awarded in the formal, state supervised education system either by public or private providers.

The key characteristic of this type of qualification is that the process of awarding qualifications is governed by national education laws and regulations.

For example, the matura certificate or Master’s degree would fall into this category because the awarding process of these qualifications is governed by educational legal acts. But if, for example, higher education institutions award other certificates that are not regulated by the legal acts governing higher education, these qualifications would fall under the category of non-state regulated qualifications.

Formal education qualifications are usually included in the NQF by law automatically at the moment of their creation. In order to be included in the NQF, neither submission forms nor fees are required of this type of qualification. The process of quality assurance is well organised and defined by laws/regulations.

This type of qualification could be named a “formal education qualification”4. Occ0asionally, it may be beneficial to distinguish subtypes of type A qualifications by education sector:

ū state regulated qualifications awarded in the general education sector,

ū state regulated qualifications awarded in the vocational education and training (VET) sector,

ū state regulated qualifications awarded in the higher education sector (HE).

4 The term “formal education qualification” is not tautological and it clearly indicates that this category includes only qualifications that are awarded within the formal education system.


24

Type B:

State regulated qualifications awarded outside the education system

Qualifications that are regulated by legal acts or directly by ministries or government agencies but are not qualifications awarded in the formal education (school) system.

In different countries, different qualifications would fall into this category. In Poland, examples of qualifications in this category would be: class one/two/three diver, tax advisor, nuclear regulatory inspector, tourist guide or mushroom classifier – since the process of awarding these qualifications in Poland is governed by legal acts.

If the process of awarding a particular qualification is governed by legal acts, then the awarding body usually cannot submit its qualification to the NQF itself – it may have to seek a ministerial decision or, in some cases, even parliamentary approval.

Very often, changes to learning outcomes, quality assurance procedures and other elements of state regulated qualifications have to be approved by political decision makers.

It should be noted that the concept of a state regulated qualification is not the same as the concept of a regulated profession (according to EU Directive 2005/36/C).

Type C:

Non-state regulated qualifications

Qualifications whose awarding process is not regulated by legal acts. These qualifications are usually awarded according to the principle of “the freedom of economic activities”. With respect to non-state regulated qualifications, an awarding body usually decides to submit a qualification for inclusion in the NQF and if any changes are required (modification of learning outcomes, assessment procedures or changes in quality assurance procedures) before it can be included, the particular awarding body has the authority to make the changes. In some reports and EU documents this type of qualification is called a “private (market) qualification”. However, this category of qualifications could distinguish not only private/market qualifications, but also qualifications awarded by non-profit organisations: community groups, voluntary organisations, trade unions, qualifications regulated by branches/sectors, i.e. qualifications awarded by a chamber of commerce or other sectoral organisations (if they are not regulated by legal acts).

Types B and C could both be treated as non-formal sector qualifications, though type B is rarely described in the literature or in inventories of practice (Cedefop, ETF, UNESCO 2015, p 10).

NQF-in partners were asked to classify qualifications in their countries according to the proposed typology in Table 8. This task turned out to be feasible and gave us confidence regarding the usefulness of this typology. This typology also helped to clarify that different types of qualifications might follow different procedures of inclusion and have a different status within NQF-based qualifications systems. In Table 9, we provide examples of different types of qualifications within the NQF-in partner countries, whereas in Annex 2, we present the full tables filled in by representatives of the NQF-in partner countries.


25

Table 9. Examples of different types of qualification in the NQF-in Project partner countries

Type A qualifications Type B qualifications Type C qualifications

Croatia

Certificate of completion of eighth grade (compulsory primary school)

Certificate of completion of two-year VET programmes

Certificate of completion of the State Matura

Certificate of Stručni Pristupnik (short-cycle)

Certificate of driving instructor

Certificate of professional vehicle driver for the transport of dangerous goods

Certificate of tourist guide

Certificate of breastfeeding advisor for midwives

Certificate of make-up artist

Certificate of hiking guide practitioner

Czech Republic

Graduation maturita certificate (maturitní vysvědčení)

Diploma certifying the Bachelor’s degree (title of bakalář − Bc., bakalář umění − BcA.; both titles are used in front of the name)

Real Estate Agent (Obchodník s realitami)

Tax Adviser (Daňový poradce)

Autodesk − AutoCAD 2012 Certified Associate

ECDL Advanced Certificate

France

CAP (certificate of professional competence)

Vocational baccalauréat

DUT (University technological diploma)

Homecare and educational assistant state diploma (DEAES)

Deck watch deputy officer

Universal catering agent

Building and public works supervisor

Manager of a social unit and service provider for elderly dependents

Heavy equipment operator used in construction and rural engineering

Hungary

Certificate of secondary school leaving examination (Maturity)

NVQR Vocational qualification

Higher education diploma (Master degree + higher education qualification, MA, MSc)

Other vocational training certificates5

Master craftsman title

Qualification of authority regulated training and specialised professional trainings6

Certificates after completion of competence development training programmes

5 „Other vocational trainings” are those registered by the Hungarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (HCCI), whose vocational programme requirements (VPRs) must be accepted in a special procedure.

6 Regulated sectoral qualifications refer to certain jobs in legal and medical professional positions requiring specialised additional professional training.


26

Type A qualifications Type B qualifications Type C qualifications

Ireland

Leaving Certificate Applied (for completion of secondary school)

Bachelor Degree

Master’s Degree

Tax consultant

Building Energy Regulator

Gas Installer

Approved Driving Instructor

Air Traffic Controller

Pesticide Advisor

Poland

Matura certificate

Vocational diploma

Diploma certifying the title of magister

Diver – class one/two/three

Tax advisor

Nuclear regulatory inspector

Certificate of Risk Management of the Warsaw Institute of Banking

Real estate management

Providing group fitness classes

Scotland

National Awards 1 – 5

Higher and Advanced Higher Awards

Higher National Diploma

Dangerous Goods Safety Adviser

Oil and Gas Sector Survival Course

Scottish Certificate for Personal Licence Holders

Introduction to Actor Training

Diploma in Deafblind Studies

Strategic Community Safety

Walking Tour Guiding


27

4. Characteristics of a qualifications system important in the context of including qualifications

As already mentioned in Chapter 1, nine key characteristics were identified in the NQF-in Project relating to the process of including qualifications in an NQF:

■■ types of qualifications that may be included in an NQF-based qualifications system, according to the proposed typology of qualifications in the NQF-in Project,

■■ ownership of a qualification included in an NQF-based qualifications system,

■■ allowable level of similarity of the qualifications included in an NQF-based qualifications system,

■■ character of the legal regulations on including qualifications in an NQF-based qualifications system,

■■ scope of the regulations on including qualifications in an NQF-based qualifications system,

■■ degree of centralisation of the decisions taken on including qualifications in an NQF-based qualifications system,

■■ role of different stakeholder groups in activities relating to the inclusion of qualifications in an NQF-based qualifications system,

■■ fees for including qualifications in an NQF-based qualifications system,

■■ the formal, legal and financial benefits of having a qualification included in an NQF-based qualifications system.

We can distinguish two or more basic variants for each characteristic listed above that can be applied in a particular NQF-based qualifications system, as shown in Table 1 of section 1.2.

This chapter describes each of the nine characteristics together with their possible variants. In describing the variants, we strove to present examples of the relevant solutions used in NQF-in partner countries, which are more fully elaborated in the country reports prepared for the project 7.

4.1. Types of qualifications that may be included in the NQF-based qualifications system

In applying the typology of qualifications (type A, B, C) developed within the NQF-in Project (see Chapter 3), we can distinguish several variants regarding the types of qualifications that can be included in an NQF-based qualifications system − from a variant including all types of qualifications in the NQF to a variant including only one type of qualification.

7 More information is available at the project’s website: http://www.nqf-in.eu.

http://www.nqf-in.eu


28

Table 10. Variants regarding the types of qualifications that may be included in an NQF-based qualifications system

Types of qualifications that may be included in a qualifications system

Variants of solutions

Type A

State regulated qualifications

awarded in the education system

Type B

State regulated qualifications

awarded outside the education system

Type C

Non-state regulated qualifications

Variant 1 X X X

Variant 2 X X

Variant 3 X X

Variant 4 X X

Variant 5 X

Variant 6 X

Variant 7 X

It is important to note that if National Qualifications Frameworks (NQF) referenced to the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) are meant to promote mobility and lifelong learning, they have to be open to the various types of qualifications awarded in different educational sectors (type A, B, C qualifications), i.e. to be comprehensive qualifications frameworks.

Including non-formal sector qualifications in NQF-based qualifications frameworks, especially for type C qualifications, is usually organised as an application process, submitted by an awarding body. This means that inclusion is not automatic and legally-based, as is the case for type A and some type B qualifications, see Box 1.

Box. 1. Inclusion by entitlement and inclusion by request

Inclusion by entitlement means that a qualification is included in the NQF-based system by law − “automatically” − at the moment of its creation. This is usually the case with type A qualifications, but could also relate to type B qualifications, as for example in France. The design of formal education qualifications (e.g. NQF level, volume, target groups) is usually determined by educational laws and/or other regulations.

Inclusion by request refers to a situation in which a body or institution submits a qualification for inclusion to an authorised body.


29

Among the NQF-in Project countries, the Scottish framework mostly consists of type A and type C qualifications. Therefore, its solutions are closest to variant 3, although as indicated in Annex 2, some type B qualifications may be included in these frameworks

France and Poland could be classified to variant 1, as three types of qualifications (type A, B, C) may be included in the NQF in these two countries. France is an interesting case, as different types of qualifications go through different procedures of inclusion (see the French country report for further information). In Poland, apart from type A qualifications, type B qualifications are considered to be very important for the functioning of the whole system and the legislation requires that type B qualifications be reviewed – each minister must conduct a review of the qualifications that are within his/her jurisdiction within a five-year period after passage of the NQF legal act in order to decide which qualifications should be included in the system.

The Croatian framework could also be classified to variant 1, as it is envisaged that this framework will also be open to all three types of qualifications. However, these solutions have not been implemented yet in Croatia.

Hungary’s NQF includes all school/college qualifications – type A qualifications, and some type B qualifications. Therefore, Hungary would fall into the variant 2 category. However, as indicated in the Hungarian country report, there are plans to develop procedures to include other type B and type C qualifications.

Currently, it could be argued that only type A qualifications are included in the NQF in Ireland, thus variant 5 might best apply.

It should be noted that according to the Global Inventory of Regional and National Qualifications Frameworks (Cedefop, ETF, UNESCO, UIL 2017), variant 5, in which only type A qualification can be included in the NQF-based qualifications system, is the dominant model across the countries implementing NQFs.

4.2. Ownership of qualifications in the qualifications system

The issue the ownership of a qualification included in an NQF-based system refers to answering the question of whether such a qualification is owned by the institution submitting it for inclusion or does it become a public good. In the context of the NQF-in Project, the crucial aspect of ownership is whether a qualification included in an NQF-based system is “available” to other awarding bodies. In other words, can other institutions apply to be awarding bodies for a qualification that is listed in an NQF register? How this issue is addressed in a national qualifications system will determine to a very significant extent the logic of the whole system, as well as the incentives and disincentives to include qualifications. The issue of ownership in the context of this project relates mostly to type C qualifications – i.e. qualifications that are not regulated by the state.


30

With regards to the ownership of a qualification included in an NQF-based system, two variants can be distinguished:

ū A qualification included in an NQF-based qualifications system is a private good (private status of a qualification included in NQF)

ū A qualification included in an NQF-based qualifications system becomes a public good (public status of a qualification included in NQF)

In the private variant, an awarding body which submits a qualification for inclusion in the system is the owner of the qualification. No other institution can award the qualification without the consent of this awarding body. However, the awarding body could enter into an agreement with another awarding body that wants to award its qualification, and therefore there could be more than one awarding body for one qualification as depicted on the left side of Figure 1.

In the public variant, qualifications in an NQF-based qualifications system are in the public domain, meaning that another awarding body, not related to the awarding body that submitted the qualification, can become an awarding body for this qualification after fulfilling the required criteria.

Figure 1. Ownership of qualifications − private and public status of qualifications included in NQF-based qualifications systems

Private status of qualificationsincluded in the NQF system

NQF Register type C qualifications

Q1 Q2 Q... Qn

AB11 AB2 AB... ABn AB2 AB... ABn

AB12

AB12AB11

NQF Register type C qualifications

Q1 Q2 Q... Qn

Public status of qualificationsincluded in the NQF system

Q1, Q2,..QN – denotes qualification 1, qualification 2, …, qualification N in the system

AB1, AB2, …AN – denotes the awarding body of qualification 1, awarding body of qualification 2,… awarding body of qualification n.

AB11 – denotes awarding body no.1 of qualification 1

AB12 – denotes awarding body no. 2 of qualification 1


31

The main rationale for implementing the public variant may be the protection of the NQF system against either monopolisation by a limited number of awarding bodies or fragmentation of the system. The main argument against implementing a public model is that some institutions may not be willing to share their know-how and ideas with other institutions and the public. Therefore, it is assumed that the public variant may have disincentives for some awarding bodies. Keating (2008), for example, argues that taking away ownership from institutions to governments may have a strong negative impact on trust in the system:

The governance of qualifications continues to and needs to reside with their owner institutions and user communities. The alternative to these arrangements is to locate their ownership and management in a central agency. The consequences of this approach are likely to be the weakening of the ‘communities of trust’ (Young, 2007) upon which qualifications depend for their currency.

Scotland, France, and Ireland (except for the CAS system) are countries in which the private variant has been implemented, whereas Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic and Croatia are representatives of countries with the public variant.

To illustrate the distinction between private and public within the NQF-in Project, we prepared a mini case, which each NQF-in Project partner was asked to address:

Qualification X was included in the NQF upon the request of a branch/sectoral organisation operating in region Y. After a year, another branch/sectoral institution would like to become an awarding body for qualification X. Is it possible for this institution to become an awarding body? If yes, under which conditions? Who makes the relevant decisions?

Below we present the relevant fragment of the texts of the NQF-in country reports on the issue of ownership:

Scotland:

The decision as to whether institution B is allowed to become an awarding body for qualification X remains entirely in the remit of organisation A. If organisation A decides that institution B can award qualification X they must have the necessary quality assurance in place to monitor this and institution B would normally have to go through an approval process before being allowed to award the qualification (…)

Ownership of non-formal qualifications on the framework remains with the original owner of the qualification or learning programme. The qualification or learning programme does not become a “public” qualification and the owner of the programme has no obligation to allow other organisations to deliver the qualifications or programmes. Those that do are required to have the necessary quality assurance in place to monitor this delivery. However these quality assurance systems will differ from sector to sector and organisation to organisation.


32

Ireland:

Qualifications/awards on the Irish NQF are not “free” for use by any provider other than those qualifications/awards listed in the Common Awards System (CAS) at level 1 to 6. In any case, providers must be quality assured as providers and have achieved approval for each qualifications/award programme through the validation process and have paid the appropriate fees for these services. All approved qualifications/awards on the NQF are coded in relation to the provider which developed them. These codes are generally used for applications and monitoring purposes. So, it is not possible for a different provider to “snatch” a qualification developed by another provider and to replicate it for themselves, beyond the specifications standards published by QQI in the CAS data-base. Provision of major state-funded qualifications/awards in the state at higher education level is monitored by the Higher Education Authority (HEA) in relation to supply and demand from learners and the labour market.

France:

In the French system, all qualifications (formal or informal) belong to the “organisations and bodies which created them” (Art L 335-6 of the Education Code). The qualification is, therefore, considered “an intangible asset” (Rapporteur from the CNCP). In other words, a qualification can remain “private”, even though it is included in the RNCP. This has far reaching consequences. If a training provider wishes to issue a qualification which is included in the RNCP, it must have the consent of the body which created it (and, therefore, owns the qualification). It can only issue the qualification in accordance with any restrictions imposed by the body. The body which owns the qualification may, if it so chooses, offer this organisation the chance to enter into agreements or other contracts with it. From the moment it enters into an agreement, it must ensure that whatever is done by the provider, whatever is done in the organisation it has entered into an agreement with, fully complies with its own terms and conditions, and must provide the means to monitor this. (Rapporteur from the CNCP) When it receives an application for inclusion, the CNCP scrutinises any agreements which have been set up and entered into by a central body which owns the qualification in question and any other bodies which issue it. To enable it to do this, it asks the applicant for detailed information on the organisations which issue the qualification and also the contractual relationships which exist between them and the body which owns the qualification.

Poland:

A specific feature of the Polish system is that in the case of market qualifications, an awarding body can be appointed for those qualifications already existing in the Integrated Qualifications Register. Once a market qualification is entered in the Register, it becomes a public good. The institutions applying to have the qualification entered in the Register cannot reserve the exclusive right to award it. Any institution interested in awarding a qualification that already exists in the Register and is awarded by other entities may apply for the authority to award it and be included in the list of awarding bodies. This solution is designed to protect the market of the Polish qualifications system from becoming excessively monopolised.


33

Let’s use a hypothetical example: the Warsaw confectioners association introduces a qualification in the Integrated Qualifications System (IQS) called “making jelly doughnuts”. The qualification is entered in the Register and the Warsaw confectioners association receives the status of awarding body. A year later, the Kraków confectioners association wants to find out if it too can offer the “making jelly doughnuts” qualification that is in the IQS. The answer is yes. Under the IQS Act, the Kraków confectioners association can apply to the relevant minister to become an awarding body for the qualification of “making jelly doughnuts”. The minister makes the decision, and in doing so, does not need to obtain the consent of the Warsaw confectioners association, which originally applied to have this qualification entered in the IQS. The Kraków confectioners association can achieve the status of awarding body as long as it meets the requirements specified in the IQS Act.

Hungary:

Non-formal training vocational programme requirements (VPRs) are submitted by training providers (companies) to the Chamber for approval. The programmes elaborated by them after their acceptance (already without the indication of the submitting organisation, company) are published on the public web site of HCCI and so the companies lose their owner status for the concerned programme, i.e. the VPRs become “publicly owned”, and other companies have to start their training programmes under the same name according to them. This means the descriptions become texts that can be known and used by anyone the same way as the vocational examination requirements of state recognised qualifications.

4.3. Similarity of qualifications included in the NQF system

The issue of the similarity of qualifications refers to answering the question of whether the NQF-based qualifications system allows similar qualifications to be included or not.

Two basic variants may be distinguished with regards to the similarity of qualifications:

ū Similarity to qualifications included earlier in the qualifications system precludes the ability to include the submitted qualification in the system

ū Similarity does not preclude the ability to include the new qualifications

The rationale for not allowing the inclusion of similar qualifications in a qualifications system is to protect the qualifications system from becoming too fragmented – proliferated, see Box 2 below. An argument is that it may be difficult for learners and employers to navigate the qualifications system if there are many qualifications with a similar content in the NQF system. However, introducing solutions prohibiting the inclusion of qualifications in the NQF system because they are similar to already included qualifications may have significant consequences for the functioning of the system. These issues are discussed below.


34

Box 2. Proliferation in the qualifications system – the cases of France and New Zealand

The proliferation of qualifications in the NQF-based system is a very important topic addressed in the French NQF-in country report, which states:

(…) the legislation and regulations relating to the course content of qualifications and the procedure for issuing them encourage overlaps between qualifications, and this undermines the register’s objective of providing clarity.

A number of initiatives have been launched to address the problem: the creation of information sheets in the register for courses forming part of bachelor’s and master’s degrees, proposals to set up bridges between qualifications, measures to encourage joint qualifications or the setting up of networks of certification bodies (section 3). However, more is still needed (…)

A greater professional trade participation in the process of designing qualifications could allow a best governance and might also reduce overlap between qualifications Some of the major employers’ associations support this idea. This involvement would draw on the expertise and resources of sectoral observatories.

(…) the CNCP regularly encourages the creation of bridges between “neighbouring” qualifications. It also encourages applicants to get in touch with certification bodies which have already had their qualifications listed in the register.

The proliferation of qualifications has also been the subject of debate in New Zealand:

The NZQA has also announced wider changes to the NQF, following a targeted review of qualifications offered at certificate and diploma levels, which was undertaken in 2009-2010. The changes were deemed necessary because, amongst other things, a proliferation of qualifications (many of which were substantially the same) at levels 1−6 had made it difficult for learners to select courses and for employers to assess the quality of qualifications and tell if potential employees had the skills and knowledge they need… (Strathdee, 2013, p. 112).

When designing solutions regarding the similarity of qualifications, it might be worth considering whether they should pertain to all types of qualifications or to only some types of qualifications.

Usually, when type A qualifications are being included in a qualifications system, the issue of similarity is not taken into account (especially with regards to qualifications awarded in the higher education system). However, when a type C qualification is being included, the question then arises about whether it should be compared to all types of qualifications in the system or only to type A or type C qualifications. This issue was raised in Poland, and several members of the IQS Stakeholders Council recommended that when including type C qualifications in the system, they should not be compared with type A qualifications. In other words, even if a particular type C qualification submitted for inclusion has similar learning outcomes as a type A qualification, it should not be rejected from the qualifications system, as type A and type C qualifications have different characteristics.

If the inclusion of similar qualifications in the system is explicitly prohibited, then the criteria of similarity may need to be defined, i.e. what will be the criteria for determining that two or more qualifications are similar – the title of the qualification, learning outcomes, training materials − see the case of Hungary described in Box 3.


35

Box 3. The issue of the similarity of qualifications – the case of Hungary

The NQF in Hungary includes all formal education qualifications (school based, type A) and certain type B qualifications (regulated and can be attained through out-of-school adult training) that come under the Adult Training Act.

The issue of similarity may arise in the following scenarios:

1. A training provider submits a type B vocational programme requirement for assessment, and the dedicated vocational programme committee concludes that the name of the submitted type B qualification corresponds (or is akin) to either a type A qualification (such as a National Vocational Qualifications Register − NVQR qualification, a higher education qualification, an authority regulated qualification) or another already registered type B qualification. In any of these cases, the vocational programme requirement is rejected on the basis of a ministerial regulation8.

2. The majority of the learning outcomes (75%) in the submitted type B vocational programme requirement corresponds to a type A, NVQR qualification’s examination requirements. In this case the registration of the submitted type B vocational programme requirement has to be rejected due to the modification of the ministerial regulation mentioned above9. There is, however, an exemption. If the vocational programme requirements of the proposed type B qualification aims at the acquisition of higher special skills in addition to the professional competences already specified in the description of a particular NVQR vocational examination requirement, registration may be granted.

In summary, the issue of similarity occurs due to the specific Hungarian context, only when the title or the learning outcomes of a type B vocational programme requirement is submitted and has a significant overlap with an already existing, registered type A qualification’s examination requirements. Resolving the issue of similarity is the responsibility of the programme committee and is additionally addressed by ministerial regulations.

The similarity of qualifications linked with the issue of the ownership of qualifications in an NQF-based qualifications system

The issue of similarity very much relates to the issue of the ownership of a qualification.

If a qualification has the status of private property in the NQF system (see section 3.2) and at the same time, similar qualifications can be included, then the qualifications in the system may have a tendency to proliferate (be fragmented). This results from the fact that the only way for new awarding bodies to enter the qualifications system is to have them create new qualifications – awarding bodies cannot apply to award qualifications that have already been submitted. However, if

8 No. 59/2013. (XII. 13.) Regulation of the Ministry of National Economy on the registration and procedures of adult training vocational programme requirements and certification of the acquisition of other professional qualifications.

9 No. 13/2017 (VI.29) Regulation of the Ministry of National Economy on the registration of adult training voca-tional program requirements and on the modification of No. 59/2013. (XII. 13.) Regulation of the Ministry of National Economy on the certification other professional qualifications.


36

similar qualifications are not allowed to be included, then the system will become monopolised. This results from the fact that the first entity submitting a particular qualification will automatically block other awarding bodies wanting to submit similar qualifications to the qualifications system.

The public variant, in which the qualification has the status of a public good, is free, at least in theory, of the threats mentioned above. However, as has already been signalled, the public status of a qualification may be a disincentive for institutions to submit their qualifications for inclusion to the system, as they will then have to waive their ownership rights.

If we consider the issues of similarity and ownership further, we can conclude that if barriers are intended to be imposed on the similarity of qualifications, then adopting a private ownership variant will not be feasible. This is because if similar qualifications cannot be included in the system and institutions cannot apply to be awarding bodies for already included qualifications, the system will then be monopolised to an extent that will not be acceptable in most countries (such a situation may even be in disagreement with national regulations on competition and consumer protection laws). This is due to the fact that if an awarding body’s application is rejected because of the similarity of the submittal to other qualifications that are already functioning in the system, this institution is in fact excluded from the system. Therefore, in this case, the only solution would be to apply to be an awarding body for a qualification that is already in the system, hence the public variant.

4.4. Character of the legal regulations on including qualifications in an NQF-based qualifications system

Two basic variants can be distinguished for this characteristic:

ū Specific regulations on inclusion have the character of required legal norms

ū Specific regulations on inclusion do not have the character of required legal norms

Allais (2011) indicates that formal legislation and regulations might be important tools to create, manage, and govern NQFs. The existence of legislation may also be seen to serve as a signal to key stakeholders of the value attached by government and its commitment to the NQF.

Young (2005) discusses the significance of complementarity between the aims of implementing qualifications frameworks and the character of the regulations and their scope, providing the example of implementing the National Vocational Qualifications (NVQ) in England. According to Young (2005), implementing tight frameworks might be problematic if they are not supported by an adequate legal framework:

The extent to which an outcomes-based framework leads to a complete replacement of the old system depends on how prescriptive the criteria of the new framework are,


37

and whether the framework criteria are made a legal requirement by government. The case of the NVQ framework in the UK is arguably an example of the worst of both worlds. A highly prescriptive framework in terms of how qualifications and assessment requirements are defined and a government unwilling to legislate. The original assumption of the national vocational qualifications review (RVQ) that led to the new framework was that it would be an instrument for accrediting existing qualifications. However, in practice this proved to be impossible and either existing qualifications continued to be provided independently of the framework, or completely new qualifications were developed that complied with the framework criteria.

Raffe (2012) also points to the significance of the character of the regulations and their scope:

Many NQFs are regulatory, and some include regulatory sub-frameworks (typically for VET) within voluntary over-arching frameworks. In such cases the regulatory powers of the framework may be the most important lever of change: for example, the Irish framework has required all qualifications in its further education and training sub-framework to meet the specifications of a new Common Awards System, and required all qualifications to satisfy guidelines for quality assurance and for access, transfer and progression. These requirements have, at least so far, been more important change processes than (for example) the transparency of qualifications or cultural change (Collins et al. 2009). The same is true of several other frameworks; for example the high uptake of recognition of prior learning (RPL) procedures in France is partly due to the regulations which require and enforce these procedures, although it also reflects the availability of resources and a strong infrastructure for supporting the process.” (Dif, Heraud and Nkeng 2009; Coles, Oates and Leney 2011)

4.5. Scope of the regulations on including qualifications in an NQF- based qualifications system

This characteristic refers to what is called in the literature tight versus loose qualifications frameworks by Raffe (2005), Young (2007), and Tuck (2007). Tight frameworks have detailed regulations governing all important elements of the qualifications inclusion process, such as, among others, the manner of describing qualifications, assigning levels to qualifications, and the quality assurance of qualifications. The regulations pertain to all the actors. Loose frameworks contain only general guidelines that allow a wide margin of discretion for specific stakeholders and the requirements are less demanding.

With regards to type B and type C qualifications, the Irish, French and Polish NQFs could be classified as tight frameworks, whereas the Scottish is more reflective of a loose framework.


38

4.6. Degree of centralisation of the decisions taken on including qualifications in an NQF-based qualifications system

For this characteristic, two basic variants can be distinguished:

ū One institution decides on including qualifications

ū Many institutions can decide on including qualifications

The nature of the regulations on including qualifications in NQF-based qualifications systems (section 4.4), their scope (section 4.5) and the degree of centralisation are very important for achieving the objectives of an NQF-based qualifications system and in particular for the coherence of the system.

One institution (this can be a new institution or one that has been given new powers) equipped with the appropriate legal authority (prerogatives) may be able to impose the use of similar approaches in the qualifications inclusion process (including the manner of describing qualifications, determining the level of qualifications, and ensuring the quality of qualifications), taking into account the specificity of individual education sub-sectors. Therefore, creating one central institution may contribute significantly to the coherence of the system.

However, it should be noted that if it is not adequately equipped (financially and organisationally), it may bottleneck the system. A central institution with limited resources may not be able to absorb a large number of qualifications in a given period of time. On the other hand, setting up a large institution when the system is just beginning to function may require substantial financial resources from the state, as the fixed costs of one institution may not be covered by fees from submitting bodies (the model in which there are many existing institutions additionally tasked with making decisions about including non-formal sector qualification may alleviate this problem).

International experience also indicates that transferring responsibility for the process of including qualifications awarded by various education sub-sectors (formal, VET, HE, non-formal education) to one institution in an existing institutional and legal order can be difficult and lead to conflicts of competence between the new institution and existing ones (see Allais 2011). There may also be other reasons for not centralising decisions on including qualifications in an NQF-based qualifications system − financial considerations, institutional conditions, legal traditions and others.

In Ireland and France, one central institution is responsible for accepting applications, analysing them, and making the decision on whether to include a submitted qualification in the NQF or not. In Ireland, Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI) is a state agency responsible for including qualifications in the NQF-based system. Similarly, the Commission Nationale de la Certification Professionnelle (CNCP), a central institution, operates in France.

CNCP analyses requests for including qualifications in the French register of qualifications and makes recommendations to the relevant ministry, which then

http://www.cncp.gouv.fr/


39

makes the final decision. It should be noted, however, that French solutions envisage situations in which providers operating at the regional level submit the request for inclusion to regional institutions, which conduct the initial assessment. Even if the request was submitted regionally, the procedure moves to CNCP, which submits the formal recommendation to the ministry.

In Scotland and Poland, several institutions are indicated that are able to decide on the inclusion of qualifications in the system. In Scotland, these are called “credit rating bodies”, and include, for example, the Scottish Qualifications Authority, Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland, City&Guilds, colleges, and universities. Submitting bodies in Scotland can approach different credit rating bodies that will assess their application in a process called “third party credit rating”. Providers there can select a credit rating body based on their preferences. The credit rating body assesses the submitted application and if the decision is positive, relevant information is sent to the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework Partnership (SCQFP), which manages the Scottish Register and is responsible for coordinating the functioning of the NQF in Scotland. It is important to stress that not all credit rating in Scotland is third party credit rating, as there are a number institutions there that can credit rate their own qualifications.

In Poland, submitting bodies approach an intermediary institution, which delegates submission requests to different institutions – the ministries responsible for analysing the applications based on their area of expertise. All requests in Poland to include market qualifications (type C) are submitted to the institution operating the NQF register. Originally, this body was the Polish Enterprise Development Agency (PARP), but as of 2018, it is the Educational Research Institute (IBE). IBE assesses the formal aspects of the application and then electronically transmits a completed application to the relevant ministry. The relevant ministry reviews the submitted application and determines whether to include the qualification or not. It should be noted, however, that the functioning of the qualifications system is coordinated by the Minister Coordinator of the IQS with the support of the IQS Stakeholders Council.

The degree of centralisation of the quality assurance of non-formal sector qualifications

There are a diverse number of institutional arrangements among the NQF-in Project countries with different institutions involved in the quality assurance of non-formal sector qualifications included in the NQF

In Scotland, the SCQF Partnership together with credit rating bodies are responsible for ensuring the quality and integrity of the SCQF. The principles for the quality assurance of all qualifications (including non-formal education qualifications) in Scotland are defined in the SCQF Handbook developed by the SCQF Partnership. The method of applying these principles varies from sector to sector, but all credit rating bodies are required to operate quality assurance systems that include robust checks performed by an independent body or someone who is not employed by or part of the institution or organisation. As the system of credit rating is a


40

devolved one, it is important that there is a quality assurance system to monitor this process. This is carried out by a number of agencies: Education Scotland for further education colleges; Quality Assurance Authority (QAA) Scotland for higher education institutions and universities; SCQFP for other approved CRBs; Scottish Government and an independent auditor in the case of Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA). All of these quality assurance arrangements include regular evaluations of the organisations, their learning programmes and their quality assurance systems.

In Ireland, Quality & Qualifications Ireland (QQI) is the national agency responsible for assuring the quality of qualifications included in the NQF. Under the 2012 Qualifications and Quality (Education and Training) Act, QQI had become both an awarding body and a quality assurance regulator across the ten levels without a demarcation between further education and higher education. Quality assurance requirements are intended initially for approval of a provider’s competence and capacity to meet those requirements. If a provider successfully proves its compe-tence and capacity, then the provider is free to apply for approval to offer programmes leading to QQI qualifications/awards. All providers of QQI qualifications/awards must apply for access/permission to provide such programmes. Guidance is available on the process and how to apply for permission to submit programmes for validation. Feedback from stakeholders indicated strongly that a single, unitary set of quality assurance guidelines across all ten levels would favour higher education providers unfairly. Consequently, there are now four kinds of quality assurance guidelines in Ireland: statutory quality assurance guideline; core guidelines for all providers; sector-specific guidelines; topic-specific guidelines.

In France, quality assurance is located at the provider level. The Ministry of Education along with CNCP is responsible only for the coordination of this process and assurance of general guidance. Organisations that own and award qualifications are responsible for their quality. The CNCP’s remit does not include performing rigorous quality control checks. CNCP ensures that when the application for the inclusion of a qualification is submitted, it contains all documents relating to the charters, conventions and regulations regarding quality assurance, together with the conditions for issue of the qualifications in question. In this way, and only in this way, CNCP can act as a quality assurance body for qualifications that are not yet included in the register. So the procedure for inclusion in the register is akin to a quality assurance check and there is no “external” dedicated quality assurance procedure covering the issuing of diplomas, degrees or other qualifications. It might be said that the functioning of the French qualifications system is based on a firm assumption that all those institutions and bodies, including assessors, fully comply with expectations, standards and regulations. So, it is a kind of “contractual” quality assurance based on a priori commitments. It should be added, however, that the procedure of including qualifications in the French register is rather demanding – an awarding body, among others, must prove that a qualification is in demand in the labour market by providing details of employment obtained by learners from the groups of graduates for the last three years. This criterion provides a means of determining the relevance of the qualifications in the labour market and serves as an ex-ante quality check: if there is no demand on the market for this qualification


41

(either because of lack of labour market relevance or the poor quality of the provider) it cannot be submitted to the register.

In Poland, the system of quality assurance for non-formal sector qualifications included in the NQF had to be developed from scratch. New systemic solutions for ensuring the quality of qualifications came into force with the Act of 22 December 2015 on the Integrated Qualification Systems. The Act does not affect the principles or mechanisms of quality assurance in the formal general, vocational and higher education systems.

The quality assurance of non-formal sector qualifications consists of overseeing the validation and awarding processes, which are the responsibility of the relevant ministry. Awarding bodies are obliged to submit activity reports to the relevant ministries at least once every two years. Each awarding body functioning outside the formal general, vocational and higher education systems that wants to award qualifications to be included in the NQF must have internal and external quality assurance systems for their validation and awarding activities. The Minister Coordinator of the IQS maintains a list of institutions authorised to provide external quality assurance and announces a call for institutions to join this list at least once every three years. The relevant ministry for a given qualification appoints an external quality assurance entity by entering into a contract with that entity.

External quality assurance consists essentially of conducting regular external evaluations of the awarding body’s validation and awarding processes, as well as its internal quality assurance system.

In the Czech Republic, the main coordinating role in the process of assuring the quality of qualifications included in the National Register of Qualifications (NSK) is the Ministry of Education, with other ministries responsible for particular fields of activity.

The Ministry of Education coordinates the activities of central administrative bureaux (ministries) in accordance with the law, and approves the content and form of all NSK qualifications. Other Ministries and authorising bodies participate in the development of qualifications standards, and decide on granting, extending the validity, or revoking the authorisation to award qualifications. Ministries are responsible for the supervision of the authorised bodies, and the maintenance of a register of the examination results of the authorised bodies, including the register of granted certificates. An authorised body can be any individual or organisation that fulfils the criteria set by law. These entities are authorised by the respective ministries according to their field of activity, e.g. the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs provides authorisation in the areas of labour law relations, work safety, employment, pension security, and social care.

Sectoral councils, which bring together employer and employee representatives, play an important role in quality assurance in the Czech Republic. Sectoral councils develop occupational standards, which are the basis for developing qualifications, and are expected to be proactive in suggesting what new standards are needed and where standards should be updated.


42

In Hungary, all qualifications in the NQF are included in a quality assurance system developed at the ministerial level and regulated by relevant legal acts. Non-formal sector providers operating in the adult education sector can have their programmes accredited (known as the vocational programme requirement – VPR) and included in the NQF through a dedicated procedure managed by the Hungarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry – a public body functioning under the supervision of the Ministry of Economy. Each institution licensed to award VPR qualifications needs to perform a self-assessment according to the processes and indicators in the internal quality assurance plan, which is subject to an external assessment at least once every four years. The VPR system is a new element of the regulation of adult training in Hungary introduced only about a year ago. The aim of introducing VPRs was to establish uniform requirements and recognition for non-state vocational training to increase the transparency and “prestige” of non-formal sector qualifications in the labour market. Currently, there are discussions among stakeholders and experts in Hungary on whether this new system is too regulated and whether it poses too much of a burden on training institutions.

In Croatia, the qualifications framework was designed in a way that would allow all types and classes of qualifications to be included, following a process of accreditation. However, with regard to non-formal sector qualifications, the procedures of inclusion and quality assurance have not yet been finalised. In the Croatian qualifications system, all labour market oriented qualifications should be based on occupational standards, indicating the relevant skills and competences needed to perform specific occupations. As in the Czech Republic, the Croatian system provides sectoral councils with an important role. They are responsible for developing occupational and qualification standards and for the general harmonisation of Croatian qualifications with labour market needs. The operations of the sectoral councils are coordinated by the Ministry of Education.

4.7. Role of different stakeholder groups in activities relating to the inclusion of qualifications in an NQF-based qualifications system

Three basic variants can be distinguished for this characteristic:

■■ The roles of public authorities and social partners are balanced in the process of including non-formal sector qualifications in NQF-based qualifications systems. Stakeholders have a strong role.

■■ Stakeholders have a weak role in the process of including non-formal sector qualifications in NQF-based qualifications systems.

■■ Public authorities have a dominant role in the process of including non-formal sector qualifications in NQF-based qualifications systems. Stakeholders play almost no role in the process of including qualifications.

In the balanced variant, stakeholders are involved in determining whether to include qualifications in the qualifications system and participate in determining the level of qualifications. Stakeholders play a significant role and their involvement


43

in the process of including qualifications is institutionalised. Stakeholders may even have veto power, i.e. the lack of their consent prevents a qualification from being included in the system. The institution representing stakeholders gathers a broad base of participants, including representatives of the formal education system (general, VET, HE), non-formal education, research institutions, and labour market institutions (employers’ organisations, trade unions).

Stakeholders having a strong role in the qualifications system can influence the design of the system, especially regarding the procedures of inclusion, in such a way that includes the interest and needs of different groups, not only those who have the strongest voice and impact on policy.

It has to be taken into account, however, that involving stakeholders in deciding on the inclusion of qualifications may slow down the dynamics of including successive qualifications in the system. The submitted qualification will be required to go through more steps in the decision making process. But involving stakeholders may significantly contribute to the coherence and quality of the system as well as the relevance of the qualifications system to the needs of wider groups of stakeholders.

In the variant where social partners play a small role in the process of including non-formal sector qualifications in the system, they may participate in the inclusion process by acting as consultants to government decisions on inclusion or the assignment of NQF levels to qualifications, but their opinions are not binding on the government.

In the variant in which the role of public authorities is dominant, social partners are practically not involved at all in the process of including qualifications in the qualifications system.

4.8. Fees for including non-formal sector qualifications in the NQF

The fees for including non-formal sector qualifications can play an important role in the qualifications system. Revenues from fees may be used to finance the development of the system. Fees, however, will affect the incentives to include qualifications in the system. If the fees are too high, stakeholders may be prohibited from submitting significant qualifications, from the perspective of society, especially those institutions developing qualifications that are not looking to profit from them (e.g. qualifications developed in the voluntary sector). On the other hand, fees can be seen as means of enhancing efficiency by providing appropriate price signals – a consumer who pays a portion of the cost of a good or service is unlikely to use it unless it corresponds to a real need. Therefore, deciding to set fees for including qualifications in NQF-based systems may prevent the system from being used by institutions lacking good quality offers but having the time to prepare and submit applications. Fees could therefore limit this kind of “frivolous” use of the system.

Another decision to be taken is whether fees should be imposed for the inclusion of all types of qualifications or only some types. Usually, fees are set to cover the


44

costs of the inclusion process (costs of assessors, analysis, procedures), but they may be set below or above the actual cost of providing the service.

Two variants can be distinguished with respect to the issue of who pays for the submission of a qualifications in the system.

In the first approach, the state finances the whole process of including non-formal sector qualifications. This is the case in France. CNCP’s activities, like those of the ministry responsible for vocational training, are classified as public services and, in France, anything classified as a public service is free. Applications and inclusions do, however, involve a cost to the state. The Ministry of Labour primarily covers these costs, and the budget for handling applications and entering qualifications in the register is from the budget allocated to the Ministry of Labour, and cannot be separated from it. According to the country report for Croatia, it is envisaged that the process of including non-formal sector qualifications will be free of charge there as well.

In the second approach, submitting bodies pay for the inclusion of a qualification and for being in the NQF-based qualifications system. This is the case in Ireland, Scotland, Poland, and Hungary. In Ireland, Poland, and Hungary, fees are determined by a centralised decision of public authorities, whereas in Scotland, the fees for inclusion are determined by the credit rating bodies (CRB) themselves. This results from the fact that a provider is able to choose the CRB to approach.

Although fees vary (see Table 11), the main rationale in all these countries for introducing fees is to cover the administrative costs of analysing the submissions of qualifications, and not to earn profits for the state or CRB, in the case of Scotland.

It should also be noted that in some systems, fees are also paid by the institutions applying to become awarding bodies recognised by the system. This is the case in Ireland and Poland. In these two countries, if an institution is a first-time applicant to become an awarding body for a given qualification, it pays an extra fee for the assessment of its capacity. As mentioned previously, Ireland is an interesting case, as the QQI charges fees to include type A qualifications awarded in the higher education sector.


45

Table 11. Fees for including non-formal sector qualifications in the NQF

Croatia It is envisaged that there will be no fees. Including non-formal sector qualifications will be financed from the state budget.

Czech Republic In the Czech Republic, the development of NSK and including qualifications in its register was accomplished with ESF Funds.

However, the approved government document stipulates that the Ministry of Education will cover roughly 70% of total annual costs to maintain and further develop the NSK. Within multi-source financing, 30% of the set annual costs will be covered by employers to finance the operation of sector councils.

France No fees in the system.

Hungary Costs of the inclusion process for type B vocational training: a basic fee of EUR 322 + EUR 219 per training programme.

Official external inspection every two years is performed by a regional government office, which is paid for by the state budget.

Ireland 5 000–10 000 EUR for the submission of quality assurance procedures to be approved for new providers.

1 000–10 000 EUR for an application for the validation of a programme (qualification).

Poland Any entity applying to include a market qualification to the NQF is charged a fee of 2 000 PLN (approx. 500 EUR).

Any entity applying to become an awarding body is charged a fee of 10 000 PLN (approx. 2 500 EUR).

Scotland Costs of becoming a CRB: 4 600–8 000 EUR.

Each credit rating body sets its own fee rate scheme.

Source: Own elaboration based on the NQF-in country reports.

Fees may be charged not only for submitting a qualification to the system, but also for various activities relating to the qualification after it has been entered in the system. Examples of other possible funding mechanisms include:

■■ Fees imposed on each issued certificate/qualification. The fee may the same for all qualifications or differentiated by the type of qualification or type of awarding body

■■ Fees imposed on the income earned by the awarding body resulting from the profits gained from the qualification

■■ Fees for quality assurance checks – audits by external bodies or institutions

The fees relating to a qualification in the system usually serve to finance its operation. Sometimes they may be used to finance the external quality assurance mechanism (if there are no separate charges for this).


46

4.9. The formal, legal and financial benefits of having a qualification included in an NQF-based qualifications system

NQF-based qualifications systems are built in such a way as to create natural positive incentives for the inclusion of qualifications either in a short or longer period of time.

However, in some systems, having qualifications included in the qualifications system may be linked to certain benefits for persons wanting to attain a given qualification, for example, in the form of scholarships or the co-financing of education costs. Solutions can also include direct benefits for awarding bodies, such as tax exemptions, subsidies for didactic facilities, or others. The aim of providing formal and legal benefits is generally to encourage the inclusion of qualifications in the system to an even greater extent. See the solutions utilised in France:

Box 4. Benefits of including qualifications in the NQF system – the case of France

To ensure that the list of existing qualifications is as comprehensive and clear as possible, the French government introduced measures to encourage entities to have their qualifications listed in the register. Inclusion affords the qualifications, and hence the organisations that apply for their inclusion, certain rights:

to award the qualifications as part of apprenticeships

to receive funding for some continuing training initiatives

to receive funding to cover VAE leave

to work in regulated professions

Source: NQF-in French Country Report.

In Poland, discussions are underway about the issue of incentives and benefits, for example, at Stakeholders Council meetings and in the office of the Minister Coordinator, which are seen as crucial to encourage the inclusion of non-formal sector qualifications in the system. Several changes are being considered to the IQS Act (most likely to be amended at the end of 2018/beginning of 2019). The amendments will include a number of solutions to encourage involvement in the further development of the system.


47

5. Proposed models of including non-formal sector qualifications in NQFs

As presented in Chapter 1, the models of including qualifications in NQF-based qualifications systems discussed in this report are developed by appropriately configuring selected variants distinguished for each of the listed characteristics.

As a reminder, we present these characteristics below:

1. Types of qualifications that may be included in an NQF-based qualifications system, according to the proposed typology of qualifications in the NQF-in Project,

2. Ownership of the qualifications included in an NQF-based qualifications system,

3. Allowable level of similarity of the qualifications included in an NQF-based qualifications system,

4. Character of the legal regulations on including qualifications in an NQF-based qualifications system,

5. Scope of the regulations on including qualifications in an NQF-based qualifications system,

6. Degree of centralisation of the decisions taken on including qualifications in an NQF-based qualifications system,

7. Role of different stakeholder groups in activities relating to the inclusion of qualifications in an NQF-based qualifications system,

8. Fees for including qualifications in an NQF-based qualifications system,

9. The formal, legal and financial benefits of having a qualification included in an NQF-based qualifications system.

In this report, we assumed an understanding of the term “model” as a configuration of complementary legal, financial and organisational solutions on the inclusion of qualifications in a national qualifications system.

5.1. Properties of a qualifications system

In proposing theoretical models for the process of including qualifications in a qualifications system, the starting point is the impact of a given variant or configuration of variants on the properties of qualifications systems, which are presented in the table below.


48

Table 12. Properties of a qualifications system

Properties Commentary

Coherence of the national qualifications system

Coherence of the qualifications system means that a coherent approach is used for all qualifications in the system − particularly in terms of the way qualifications are described, the assignment of NQF levels, the quality of validation and certification, credit transfer and accumulation, and the role of the recognition of prior learning.

In this report, coherence of the system means that its basic assumptions apply to all included qualifications, but take into account the specificity of each sub-sector of the qualifications system. Therefore, coherence does not mean a “mechanical” unification across the whole national qualifications system.

Incentives for stakeholders to include qualifications in the national qualifications system

Incentives are understood as solutions (procedures, benefits) that influence the motivation of different stakeholders to submit qualifications for inclusion in the qualifications system.

Solutions in the national qualifications system may provide positive or negative incentives to stakeholders for submitting qualifications to be included in the system.

Proliferation in the national qualifications system

First, for the purposes of this report, proliferation means that there are many similar qualifications in the qualifications system.

In another perspective, proliferation also means that many bodies are able to fulfil similar roles within the national qualifications system (developing, submitting, assigning NQF levels, awarding).

Absorption capacity of the national qualifications system

In this report, absorption capacity means the ability of the qualifications system to include a determined number of qualifications in the system in a given period of time.

It may occur that an NQF-based qualifications system provides strong incentives to submit qualifications, but that the system is not able to include them in an appropriate period of time.

Dominance of resourceful awarding bodies in the national qualifications system

An NQF based qualifications system might be designed in a way that promotes resourceful bodies (organisational, financial resources).

This may be the result of policy aims or an unintentional consequence.


49

5.2. The relationships between the variants of characteristics and the properties of qualifications system

Each given variant (or configuration of variants) distinguished for the characteristics of the qualifications system presented in this report can influence the properties presented above. It should be underlined that these variants can influence the properties of the system in various ways. Decision-makers designing systemic solutions for the inclusion of non-formal sector qualifications should take into account the impact of different variants on the various properties of the qualification system.

For example, variants strengthening the coherence of a qualifications system may weaken incentives to submit qualifications for inclusion in the system. Variants providing incentives to submit qualifications can lead to excessive proliferation in the qualifications system.

Below we present our hypotheses regarding the impact of each presented variant on the properties of a qualifications system. These hypotheses were formulated based on the analysis of seven country reports prepared within the project and discussions with the experts participating in the NQF-in Project, as well as based on the outcomes of the literature review.


50

Tabl

e 13

. Rel

atio

nshi

ps b

etw

een

the

varia

nts

of th

e ch

arac

teris

tics

and

prop

ertie

s of

a q

ualifi

catio

ns s

yste

m

Sym

bols

indi

cati

ng th

e im

pact

of t

he v

aria

nts

on th

e pr

oper

ties

of a

qua

lifica

tion

s sy

stem

use

d in

the

tabl

e

Cohe

renc

e of

an

NQ

F-ba

sed

qual

ifica

tions

sys

tem

In

cent

ives

for t

he in

clus

ion

of q

ualifi

catio

ns-

Prol

ifera

tion

of

qual

ifica

tions

in th

e sy

stem

Abs

orpt

ion

capa

citie

s –

incl

udin

g a

larg

e nu

mbe

r of

qual

ifica

tions

in th

e sy

stem

in

a s

hort

per

iod

of ti

me

Dom

inan

ce o

f “la

rge”

and

re

sour

cefu

l aw

ardi

ng

bodi

es in

the

qual

ifica

tions

sy

stem

+ in

dica

tes

that

the

give

n va

riant

str

engt

hens

the

cohe

renc

e of

the

syst

em

+ in

dica

tes

that

the

give

n va

riant

str

engt

hens

the

ince

ntiv

es o

f sta

keho

lder

s to

sub

mit

qual

ifica

tions

to

the

syst

em

+ in

dica

tes

that

the

give

n va

riant

favo

urs

prol

ifera

tion

+ in

dica

tes

that

the

give

n va

riant

favo

urs

the

incl

usio

n of

a la

rge

num

ber

of q

ualifi

catio

ns in

the

syst

em in

a s

hort

per

iod

of

time

+ in

dica

tes

that

the

give

n va

riant

favo

urs

the

dom

inan

ce o

f lar

ge a

nd

afflue

nt a

war

ding

bod

ies

in

the

qual

ifica

tions

sys

tem

– in

dica

tes

that

the

give

n va

riant

wea

kens

the

cohe

renc

e of

the

syst

em

– in

dica

tes

that

the

give

n va

riant

dis

cour

ages

st

akeh

olde

rs to

sub

mit

qual

ifica

tions

to th

e sy

stem

– in

dica

tes

that

the

give

n va

riant

lim

its p

rolif

erat

ion

– in

dica

tes

that

the

give

n va

riant

doe

s no

t fav

our t

he

incl

usio

n of

a la

rge

num

ber

of q

ualifi

catio

ns in

the

syst

em in

a s

hort

per

iod

of

time

– in

dica

=tes

that

the

give

n va

riant

doe

s no

t fav

our t

he

dom

inan

ce o

f lar

ge a

nd

afflue

nt a

war

ding

bod

ies

in

the

qual

ifica

tions

sys

tem

N (n

eutr

al) i

ndic

ates

that

th

e gi

ven

varia

nt h

as n

o im

pact

on

this

pro

pert

y of

th

e qu

alifi

catio

ns s

yste

m

N /

+ in

dica

tes

that

th

e gi

ven

varia

nt h

as a

m

oder

ate

posi

tive

impa

ct

on th

e co

here

nce

of th

e sy

stem

N / –

indi

cate

s th

at

the

give

n va

riant

has

a

mod

erat

e ne

gativ

e im

pact

on

the

cohe

renc

e of

the

syst

em

N (n

eutr

al) i

ndic

ates

that

th

e gi

ven

varia

nt h

as n

o im

pact

on

this

pro

pert

y of

th

e qu

alifi

catio

ns s

yste

m

N /

+ in

dica

tes

that

th

e gi

ven

varia

nt h

as a

m

oder

ate

posi

tive

impa

ct

on in

cent

ives

to s

ubm

it qu

alifi

catio

ns to

the

syst

em

N / –

indi

cate

s th

at

the

give

n va

riant

has

a

mod

erat

e ne

gativ

e im

pact

on

ince

ntiv

es to

sub

mit

qual

ifica

tions

to th

e sy

stem

N (n

eutr

al) i

ndic

ates

that

th

e gi

ven

varia

nt h

as n

o im

pact

on

this

pro

pert

y of

th

e qu

alifi

catio

ns s

yste

m

N /

+ in

dica

tes

that

th

e gi

ven

varia

nt h

as

a m

oder

ate

impa

ct o

n fa

vour

ing

prol

ifera

tion

in

the

qual

ifica

tions

sys

tem

N / –

indi

cate

s th

at th

e gi

ven

varia

nt m

oder

atel

y lim

its p

rolif

erat

ion

in th

e qu

alifi

catio

ns s

yste

m

N (n

eutr

al) i

ndic

ates

that

th

e gi

ven

varia

nt h

as n

o im

pact

on

this

pro

pert

y of

th

e qu

alifi

catio

ns s

yste

m

N /

+ in

dica

tes

that

th

e gi

ven

varia

nt h

as a

m

oder

ate

posi

tive

impa

ct

on a

bsor

ptio

n ca

paci

ties

N / –

indi

cate

s th

at

the

give

n va

riant

has

a

mod

erat

e ne

gativ

e im

pact

on

abs

orpt

ion

capa

citie

s

N (n

eutr

al) i

ndic

ates

that

th

e gi

ven

varia

nt h

as n

o im

pact

on

this

pro

pert

y of

th

e qu

alifi

catio

ns s

yste

m

N /

+ in

dica

tes

that

the

give

n va

riant

mod

erat

ely

favo

urs

the

dom

inan

ce o

f la

rge

play

ers

in th

e sy

stem

N / –

indi

cate

s th

at th

e gi

ven

varia

nt m

oder

atel

y lim

its th

e do

min

ance

of

larg

e pl

ayer

s in

the

syst

em


51

Prop

erti

es o

f a q

ualifi

cati

ons

syst

em

Cohe

renc

e of

an

NQ

F-ba

sed

qual

ifica

tions

sys

tem

In

cent

ives

for s

take

hold

ers

to in

clud

e qu

alifi

catio

ns

Prol

ifera

tion

Abs

orpt

ion

capa

citie

sD

omin

ance

of r

esou

rcef

ul

inst

itutio

ns

1. C

hara

cter

istic

: Typ

es o

f qua

lifica

tion

s th

at m

ay b

e in

clud

ed in

the

syst

em

Varia

nt 1

.1

All

type

s of

qu

alifi

catio

ns m

ay

be in

clud

ed in

the

syst

em

N

NN

NN

Varia

nt 1

.2

Onl

y so

me

type

s of

qua

lifica

tions

m

ay b

e in

clud

ed

in th

e sy

stem

NN

NN

N

2. C

hara

cter

istic

: Ow

ners

hip

of q

ualifi

cati

ons

in a

n N

QF-

base

d qu

alifi

cati

ons

syst

em

Varia

nt 2

.1

Qua

lifica

tions

in

clud

ed in

the

syst

em re

mai

n th

e pr

oper

ty o

f th

e su

bmitt

ing

inst

itutio

n

N

This

var

iant

is ra

ther

neu

tral

re

gard

ing

the

cohe

renc

e of

th

e sy

stem

.

N /

+

This

var

iant

has

a m

oder

ate

posi

tive

impa

ct o

n in

cent

ives

for i

nclu

ding

qu

alifi

catio

ns.

In p

rinci

ple,

aw

ardi

ng

bodi

es e

xpec

t tha

t the

y w

ill m

aint

ain

owne

rshi

p of

the

qual

ifica

tions

they

de

velo

ped.

+

This

var

iant

con

trib

utes

to

the

prol

ifera

tion

of

qual

ifica

tions

in th

e sy

stem

.

This

var

iant

is in

str

ong

syne

rgy

with

var

iant

3.1

w

ith re

spec

t to

prol

ifera

tion

in th

e sy

stem

.

N

This

var

iant

is n

eutr

al

rega

rdin

g ab

sorp

tion

capa

citie

s.

N

This

var

iant

is n

eutr

al

rega

rdin

g th

e do

min

ance

of

larg

e an

d affl

uent

aw

ardi

ng b

odie

s.


52

Prop

erti

es o

f a q

ualifi

cati

ons

syst

em

Cohe

renc

e of

an

NQ

F-ba

sed

qual

ifica

tions

sys

tem

In

cent

ives

for s

take

hold

ers

to in

clud

e qu

alifi

catio

ns

Prol

ifera

tion

Abs

orpt

ion

capa

citie

sD

omin

ance

of r

esou

rcef

ul

inst

itutio

ns

Varia

nt 2

.2

Qua

lifica

tions

in

clud

ed in

the

syst

em b

ecom

e a

publ

ic g

ood

N /

+

This

var

iant

mod

erat

ely

cont

ribut

es to

the

cohe

renc

e of

the

qual

ifica

tions

sys

tem

.

Intr

oduc

ing

solu

tions

usi

ng

this

var

iant

con

trib

utes

to

lim

iting

the

num

ber

of s

imila

r qua

lifica

tions

in

the

syst

em, w

hich

may

in

dire

ctly

pos

itive

ly a

ffect

th

e co

here

nce

of th

e sy

stem

.

–

This

var

iant

neg

ativ

ely

affec

ts in

cent

ives

for

subm

ittin

g qu

alifi

catio

ns

to th

e sy

stem

as

som

e in

stitu

tions

may

not

be

will

ing

to s

hare

thei

r kno

w-

how

and

idea

s w

ith o

ther

in

stitu

tions

and

the

publ

ic.

This

may

blo

ck

inte

rnat

iona

l aw

ardi

ng

bodi

es fr

om s

ubm

ittin

g th

eir q

ualifi

catio

ns to

the

syst

em.

–

This

var

iant

con

trib

utes

to

limiti

ng th

e pr

olife

ratio

n of

qu

alifi

catio

ns in

the

syst

em.

Awar

ding

bod

ies

do

not n

eed

to c

reat

e ne

w

qual

ifica

tions

in o

rder

to

ente

r the

sys

tem

, as

they

ca

n ap

ply

to b

ecom

e aw

ardi

ng b

odie

s fo

r qu

alifi

catio

ns a

lread

y in

clud

ed in

the

syst

em.

This

var

iant

is in

str

ong

syne

rgy

with

var

iant

s 3.

1 an

d 3.

2 w

ith re

spec

t to

prol

ifera

tion

in th

e sy

stem

.

N

This

var

iant

is n

eutr

al

rega

rdin

g ab

sorp

tion

capa

citie

s.

N / –

This

var

iant

can

mod

erat

ely

cont

ribut

e to

lim

iting

the

dom

inan

ce o

f lar

ge a

nd

afflue

nt a

war

ding

bod

ies,

as th

ese

inst

itutio

ns w

ill

not b

e al

low

ed to

blo

ck

“the

ir” q

ualifi

catio

ns

from

oth

er a

war

ding

bo

dies

. The

refo

re, t

he

risk

of m

onop

olis

atio

n an

d th

e co

ncen

trat

ion

of

qual

ifica

tions

in th

e sy

stem

ar

e lo

wer

.


53

Prop

erti

es o

f a q

ualifi

cati

ons

syst

em

Cohe

renc

e of

an

NQ

F-ba

sed

qual

ifica

tions

sys

tem

In

cent

ives

for s

take

hold

ers

to in

clud

e qu

alifi

catio

ns

Prol

ifera

tion

Abs

orpt

ion

capa

citie

sD

omin

ance

of r

esou

rcef

ul

inst

itutio

ns

3. C

hara

cter

istic

: Allo

wab

le le

vel o

f sim

ilari

ty o

f the

qua

lifica

tion

s in

clud

ed in

an

NQ

F-ba

sed

qual

ifica

tion

s sy

stem

Varia

nt 3

.1

Sim

ilarit

y to

qu

alifi

catio

ns

incl

uded

ear

lier i

n th

e qu

alifi

catio

ns

syst

em p

recl

udes

th

e ab

ility

to

incl

ude

the

subm

itted

qu

alifi

catio

n in

th

e sy

stem

(The

sys

tem

do

es n

ot a

llow

qu

alifi

catio

ns

to b

e in

clud

ed

that

are

sim

ilar

to th

ose

alre

ady

ente

red)

N

This

var

iant

is ra

ther

neu

tral

re

gard

ing

the

cohe

renc

e of

th

e qu

alifi

catio

ns s

yste

m.

N

This

var

iant

is ra

ther

neu

tral

re

gard

ing

the

ince

ntiv

es fo

r in

clus

ion.

–

This

var

iant

con

trib

utes

to

limiti

ng th

e pr

olife

ratio

n of

qu

alifi

catio

ns in

the

syst

em.

This

var

iant

is in

str

ong

syne

rgy

with

var

iant

s 2.

1 an

d 2.

2.

N

This

var

iant

is n

eutr

al

rega

rdin

g ab

sorp

tion

capa

citie

s.

How

ever

, thi

s va

riant

im

plie

s th

at th

ere

will

be

a le

sser

num

ber o

f qu

alifi

catio

ns in

clud

ed

in th

e sy

stem

than

whe

n va

riant

3.1

is a

pplie

d.

N

This

var

iant

is n

eutr

al

rega

rdin

g th

e do

min

ance

of

larg

e an

d affl

uent

aw

ardi

ng b

odie

s.


54

Prop

erti

es o

f a q

ualifi

cati

ons

syst

em

Cohe

renc

e of

an

NQ

F-ba

sed

qual

ifica

tions

sys

tem

In

cent

ives

for s

take

hold

ers

to in

clud

e qu

alifi

catio

ns

Prol

ifera

tion

Abs

orpt

ion

capa

citie

sD

omin

ance

of r

esou

rcef

ul

inst

itutio

ns

Varia

nt 3

.2

Sim

ilarit

y to

qu

alifi

catio

ns

incl

uded

ear

lier i

n th

e qu

alifi

catio

ns

syst

em d

oes

not p

recl

ude

the

abili

ty to

in

clud

e th

e ne

w

qual

ifica

tions

(The

sys

tem

al

low

s si

mila

r qu

alifi

catio

ns to

be

incl

uded

)

N

This

var

iant

is n

eutr

al

rega

rdin

g co

here

nce

of th

e qu

alifi

catio

ns s

yste

m.

N

This

var

iant

is n

eutr

al

rega

rdin

g in

cent

ives

for

incl

usio

n.

+

This

var

iant

con

trib

utes

to

the

prol

ifera

tion

of

qual

ifica

tions

in th

e sy

stem

.

This

var

iant

is in

str

ong

syne

rgy

with

var

iant

2.1

. If

varia

nt 3

.2 a

nd 2

.1 a

re

impl

emen

ted,

then

the

qual

ifica

tions

sys

tem

will

te

nd to

war

ds p

rolif

erat

ion.

Th

is e

spec

ially

rega

rds

qual

ifica

tions

sys

tem

s in

la

rger

cou

ntrie

s, in

whi

ch

ther

e ar

e m

ore

awar

ding

bo

dies

offe

ring

sim

ilar

qual

ifica

tions

.

N

This

var

iant

is n

eutr

al

rega

rdin

g ab

sorp

tion

capa

citie

s.

N

This

var

iant

is n

eutr

al

rega

rdin

g th

e do

min

ance

of

larg

e an

d affl

uent

aw

ardi

ng b

odie

s.

4. C

hara

cter

istic

: Cha

ract

er o

f the

lega

l reg

ulat

ions

on

incl

udin

g qu

alifi

cati

ons

in a

n N

QF-

base

d qu

alifi

cati

ons

syst

em

Varia

nt 4

.1

Spec

ific

regu

latio

ns o

n in

clus

ion

have

th

e ch

arac

ter o

f re

quire

d le

gal

norm

s

Gen

eral

com

men

t: Im

plem

entin

g th

is v

aria

nt s

tren

gthe

ns th

e im

pact

of o

ther

var

iant

s

+

This

var

iant

has

a p

ositi

ve

impa

ct o

n th

e co

here

nce

of

the

syst

em.

This

var

iant

is in

str

ong

syne

rgy

with

var

iant

s 5.

1 an

d 6.

1.

N

This

var

iant

is n

eutr

al

rega

rdin

g in

cent

ives

for

incl

usio

n.

N

This

var

iant

is n

eutr

al

rega

rdin

g pr

olife

ratio

n of

th

e qu

alifi

catio

ns s

yste

m.

N

This

var

iant

is n

eutr

al

rega

rdin

g ab

sorp

tion

capa

citie

s.

N This

var

iant

is n

eutr

al

rega

rdin

g th

e do

min

ance

of

larg

e an

d affl

uent

aw

ardi

ng b

odie

s.


55

Prop

erti

es o

f a q

ualifi

cati

ons

syst

em

Cohe

renc

e of

an

NQ

F-ba

sed

qual

ifica

tions

sys

tem

In

cent

ives

for s

take

hold

ers

to in

clud

e qu

alifi

catio

ns

Prol

ifera

tion

Abs

orpt

ion

capa

citie

sD

omin

ance

of r

esou

rcef

ul

inst

itutio

ns

Varia

nt 4

.2

Spec

ific

regu

latio

ns o

n in

clus

ion

do

not h

ave

the

char

acte

r of

requ

ired

lega

l no

rms

– / N

In m

ost c

ount

ries,

the

lack

of l

egal

regu

latio

ns

mak

es it

impo

ssib

le to

ad

opt c

oher

ent s

olut

ions

ac

ross

diff

eren

t are

as o

f the

qu

alifi

catio

ns s

yste

ms.

This

var

iant

is in

syn

ergy

w

ith v

aria

nts

5.2

and

6.2.

N

This

var

iant

is n

eutr

al

rega

rdin

g in

cent

ives

for

incl

usio

n.

N

This

var

iant

is n

eutr

al

rega

rdin

g pr

olife

ratio

n of

th

e qu

alifi

catio

ns s

yste

m.

N

This

var

iant

is n

eutr

al

rega

rdin

g ab

sorp

tion

capa

citie

s.

N This

var

iant

is n

eutr

al

rega

rdin

g th

e do

min

ance

of

larg

e an

d affl

uent

aw

ardi

ng b

odie

s.

5. C

hara

cter

istic

: Sco

pe o

f the

regu

lati

ons

on in

clud

ing

qual

ifica

tion

s in

an

NQ

F-ba

sed

qual

ifica

tion

s sy

stem

Varia

nt 5

.1

Spec

ific

regu

latio

ns

gove

rn a

ll si

gnifi

cant

el

emen

ts in

th

e pr

oces

s of

incl

udin

g qu

alifi

catio

ns

+

This

var

iant

pos

itive

ly

affec

ts th

e co

here

nce

of

the

qual

ifica

tions

sys

tem

.

This

is in

str

ong

posi

tive

syne

rgy

with

var

iant

s 4.

1 an

d 6.

1.

N / –

This

var

iant

can

neg

ativ

ely

affec

t inc

entiv

es fo

r in

clus

ion

as th

e re

gula

tion

defin

ed a

t the

cen

tral

leve

l m

ay b

e to

o di

fficu

lt to

fo

llow

by

som

e aw

ardi

ng

bodi

es w

illin

g to

sub

mit

thei

r qua

lifica

tions

.

N

This

var

iant

is n

eutr

al

rega

rdin

g pr

olife

ratio

n of

th

e qu

alifi

catio

ns s

yste

m.

N

This

var

iant

is n

eutr

al

rega

rdin

g ab

sorp

tion

capa

citie

s.

+

This

var

iant

may

st

reng

then

reso

urce

ful

inst

itutio

ns, a

s th

ey a

re

mor

e lik

ely

to h

ave

the

capa

citie

s re

quire

d to

ad

apt q

ualifi

catio

ns to

sp

ecifi

c re

gula

tions

defi

ned

at th

e ce

ntra

l lev

el.


56

Prop

erti

es o

f a q

ualifi

cati

ons

syst

em

Cohe

renc

e of

an

NQ

F-ba

sed

qual

ifica

tions

sys

tem

In

cent

ives

for s

take

hold

ers

to in

clud

e qu

alifi

catio

ns

Prol

ifera

tion

Abs

orpt

ion

capa

citie

sD

omin

ance

of r

esou

rcef

ul

inst

itutio

ns

Varia

nt 5

.2

Onl

y ge

nera

l gu

idel

ines

are

pr

ovid

ed, l

eavi

ng

a w

ide

mar

gin

of d

iscr

etio

n fo

r spe

cific

st

akeh

olde

rs

–

This

var

iant

will

neg

ativ

ely

affec

t the

coh

eren

ce o

f the

sy

stem

.

This

var

iant

is in

syn

ergy

w

ith v

aria

nts

6.2

and

4.2.

N /

+

This

var

iant

can

pos

itive

ly

affec

t inc

entiv

es fo

r in

clus

ion.

Sub

mitt

ing

inst

itutio

ns w

ill n

ot b

e re

quire

d to

follo

w s

peci

fic

regu

latio

ns, a

nd th

eref

ore

it m

ight

not

be

requ

ired

for t

hem

to b

ear h

igh

cost

s of

ada

ptin

g th

eir

qual

ifica

tions

. Aw

ardi

ng

bodi

es w

ill h

ave

mor

e fle

xibi

lity

in o

rgan

isin

g th

e pr

oces

ses

of te

achi

ng,

valid

atin

g an

d ce

rtify

ing

com

pete

nces

.

N

This

var

iant

is n

eutr

al

rega

rdin

g pr

olife

ratio

n of

th

e qu

alifi

catio

ns s

yste

m.

N

This

var

iant

is n

eutr

al

rega

rdin

g ab

sorp

tion

capa

citie

s

–

This

var

iant

can

con

trib

ute

to p

rom

otin

g sm

all p

laye

rs

in th

e qu

alifi

catio

ns s

yste

m,

as it

doe

s no

t req

uire

all

inst

itutio

ns to

follo

w th

e sa

me

spec

ific

rule

s.

6. C

hara

cter

istic

: Deg

ree

of c

entr

alis

atio

n of

the

deci

sion

s ta

ken

on in

clud

ing

qual

ifica

tion

s in

an

NQ

F-ba

sed

qual

ifica

tion

s sy

stem

Varia

nt 6

.1

One

inst

itutio

n de

cide

s on

in

clud

ing

qual

ifica

tions

(a

s w

ell a

s de

term

ines

thei

r le

vel)

+

This

var

iant

pos

itive

ly

affec

ts th

e co

here

nce

of

the

syst

em.

This

var

iant

is in

syn

ergy

w

ith v

aria

nts

4.1

and

5.1.

N

This

var

iant

is n

eutr

al

rega

rdin

g in

cent

ives

for

incl

usio

n.

N / –

This

may

lim

it pr

olife

ratio

n in

the

syst

em. I

t is

easi

er fo

r on

e in

stitu

tion

to “n

otic

e”

that

sim

ilar q

ualifi

catio

ns

are

bein

g su

bmitt

ed fo

r in

clus

ion.

–

One

inst

itutio

n de

cidi

ng

on th

e in

clus

ion

of

qual

ifica

tions

will

nee

d si

gnifi

cant

reso

urce

s if

ther

e w

ill b

e m

any

appl

icat

ions

. If i

t doe

s no

t hav

e th

e re

quire

d re

sour

ces,

the

syst

em m

ay

beco

me

bott

lene

cked

.

In th

e sh

ort r

un, o

ne

inst

itutio

n m

ay n

ot h

ave

adeq

uate

reso

urce

s to

an

alys

e m

any

appl

ican

ts

for t

he in

clus

ion

of

qual

ifica

tions

.

N

This

var

iant

is n

eutr

al

rega

rdin

g th

e do

min

ance

of

larg

e an

d affl

uent

aw

ardi

ng b

odie

s.


57

Prop

erti

es o

f a q

ualifi

cati

ons

syst

em

Cohe

renc

e of

an

NQ

F-ba

sed

qual

ifica

tions

sys

tem

In

cent

ives

for s

take

hold

ers

to in

clud

e qu

alifi

catio

ns

Prol

ifera

tion

Abs

orpt

ion

capa

citie

sD

omin

ance

of r

esou

rcef

ul

inst

itutio

ns

Varia

nt 6

.2

Man

y in

stitu

tions

ca

n de

cide

on

incl

udin

g qu

alifi

catio

ns (a

s w

ell a

s de

term

ine

thei

r lev

el)

N / –

This

var

iant

may

neg

ativ

ely

affec

t the

coh

eren

ce o

f the

sy

stem

.

This

var

iant

is in

syn

ergy

w

ith v

aria

nts

5.2

and

4.2.

N

This

var

iant

is n

eutr

al

rega

rdin

g in

cent

ives

for

incl

usio

n.

N /

+

This

may

lim

it pr

olife

ratio

n in

the

syst

em. I

t is

easi

er fo

r on

e in

stitu

tion

to “n

otic

e”

that

sim

ilar q

ualifi

catio

ns

are

bein

g su

bmitt

ed fo

r in

clus

ion.

+

In th

e sh

ort r

un, a

gre

ater

nu

mbe

r of i

nstit

utio

ns c

an

mor

e ea

sily

abs

orb

larg

e nu

mbe

rs o

f app

licat

ions

fo

r qua

lifica

tions

to b

e in

clud

ed in

the

syst

em.

N

This

var

iant

is n

eutr

al

rega

rdin

g th

e do

min

ance

of

larg

e an

d affl

uent

aw

ardi

ng b

odie

s.

7. C

hara

cter

istic

: Rol

e of

diff

eren

t sta

keho

lder

gro

ups i

n ac

tiviti

es re

latin

g to

the

incl

usio

n of

qua

lifica

tions

in a

n N

QF-

base

d qu

alifi

catio

ns sy

stem

Varia

nt 7

.1

The

role

s of

pu

blic

aut

horit

ies

and

soci

al

part

ners

is

bala

nced

in

the

proc

ess

of

incl

udin

g no

n-fo

rmal

sec

tor

qual

ifica

tions

in

NQ

F-ba

sed

qual

ifica

tions

sy

stem

s. So

cial

pa

rtne

rs h

ave

a st

rong

role

in

the

proc

ess

of in

clud

ing

qual

ifica

tions

.

N /

+

Invo

lvem

ent o

f a

wid

e re

pres

enta

tion

of s

take

hold

ers

can

cont

ribut

e to

enh

anci

ng

the

cohe

renc

e of

the

syst

em.

N /

+

Wid

e re

pres

enta

tion

of

stak

ehol

ders

may

bet

ter

prom

ote

the

syst

em

amon

g di

ffere

nt g

roup

s/

inst

itutio

ns/b

odie

s th

at

may

wan

t to

have

thei

r qu

alifi

catio

ns in

clud

ed in

th

e sy

stem

. Sta

keho

lder

s ca

n be

tter

reac

h di

ffere

nt

grou

ps, i

nclu

ding

em

ploy

ers,

to p

rom

ote

and

com

mun

icat

e th

e ai

ms

and

bene

fits

of th

e N

QF-

base

d qu

alifi

catio

ns s

yste

m.

N

This

var

iant

is n

eutr

al

rega

rdin

g pr

olife

ratio

n of

th

e qu

alifi

catio

ns s

yste

m

–

Invo

lvin

g st

akeh

olde

rs

in th

e de

cisi

on-m

akin

g pr

oces

s on

incl

udin

g qu

alifi

catio

ns m

ay s

low

do

wn

this

pro

cess

in th

e sh

ort r

un. H

owev

er, i

t sh

ould

be

note

d th

at th

is

situ

atio

n m

ay b

e ve

ry

bene

ficia

l for

oth

er a

spec

ts

of th

e fu

nctio

ning

of t

he

qual

ifica

tions

sys

tem

(e

.g. q

ualit

y as

sura

nce,

ad

equa

cy in

mee

ting

soci

al

and

labo

ur m

arke

t nee

ds).

–

Invo

lvin

g di

ffere

nt

stak

ehol

ders

repr

esen

ting

diffe

rent

inst

itutio

ns in

the

deci

sion

-mak

ing

proc

ess

may

effe

ctiv

ely

prot

ect

the

syst

em fr

om b

eing

do

min

ated

by

larg

e an

d re

sour

cefu

l ins

titut

ions

. Th

e im

pact

of t

his

varia

nt

will

larg

ely

depe

nd

on th

e co

mpo

sitio

n of

the

stak

ehol

ders

re

pres

enta

tion.


58

Prop

erti

es o

f a q

ualifi

cati

ons

syst

em

Cohe

renc

e of

an

NQ

F-ba

sed

qual

ifica

tions

sys

tem

In

cent

ives

for s

take

hold

ers

to in

clud

e qu

alifi

catio

ns

Prol

ifera

tion

Abs

orpt

ion

capa

citie

sD

omin

ance

of r

esou

rcef

ul

inst

itutio

ns

Varia

nt 7

.2

Soci

al p

artn

ers

have

a w

eak

role

in

the

proc

ess

of in

clud

ing

qual

ifica

tions

N

This

var

iant

is n

eutr

al

rega

rdin

g co

here

nce

of th

e qu

alifi

catio

ns s

yste

m

N /

+

Stak

ehol

ders

can

bet

ter

reac

h di

ffere

nt g

roup

s, in

clud

ing

empl

oyer

s, to

pr

omot

e an

d co

mm

unic

ate

the

aim

s and

ben

efits

of t

he

NQ

F-ba

sed

qual

ifica

tions

sy

stem

.

N

This

var

iant

is n

eutr

al

rega

rdin

g pr

olife

ratio

n of

th

e qu

alifi

catio

ns s

yste

m

N

This

var

iant

is n

eutr

al

rega

rdin

g ab

sorp

tion

capa

citie

s.

N / –

Even

a w

eak

role

of

stak

ehol

ders

, but

re

pres

entin

g di

ffere

nt

inst

itutio

ns, m

ay e

ffect

ivel

y pr

otec

t the

sys

tem

from

be

ing

dom

inat

ed b

y la

rge

and

reso

urce

ful

inst

itutio

ns.

Varia

nt 7

.3

Soci

al p

artn

ers

have

no

role

in

the

proc

ess

of in

clud

ing

qual

ifica

tions

N

This

var

iant

is n

eutr

al

rega

rdin

g co

here

nce

of th

e qu

alifi

catio

ns s

yste

m

N

This

var

iant

is n

eutr

al

rega

rdin

g in

cent

ives

for

incl

usio

n.

N

This

var

iant

is n

eutr

al

rega

rdin

g pr

olife

ratio

n of

th

e qu

alifi

catio

ns s

yste

m.

N

This

var

iant

is n

eutr

al

rega

rdin

g ab

sorp

tion

capa

citie

s.

N

This

var

iant

is n

eutr

al

rega

rdin

g th

e do

min

ance

of

larg

e an

d affl

uent

aw

ardi

ng b

odie

s

8. C

hara

cter

istic

: Fee

s for

incl

udin

g qu

alifi

catio

ns in

an

NQ

F-ba

sed

qual

ifica

tions

syst

em

Varia

nt 8

.1

Fees

are

incu

rred

w

hen

incl

udin

g a

qual

ifica

tion

in

the

syst

em

N /

+

Fees

for i

nclu

ding

qu

alifi

catio

ns in

NQ

F-ba

sed

syst

ems

may

pre

vent

the

syst

em fr

om b

eing

use

d by

in

stitu

tions

lack

ing

good

qu

ality

offe

rs b

ut h

avin

g th

e tim

e to

pre

pare

and

su

bmit

appl

icat

ions

and

th

eref

ore

mig

ht c

ontr

ibut

e in

dire

ctly

to s

tren

gthe

ning

co

here

nce

of th

e sy

stem

.

–

Fees

neg

ativ

ely

affec

t in

cent

ives

to s

ubm

it qu

alifi

catio

ns to

the

syst

em.

Fees

hav

e an

esp

ecia

lly

stro

ng e

ffect

on

ince

ntiv

es

to in

clud

e qu

alifi

catio

ns if

th

ey a

re s

et a

t a h

igh

leve

l.

N / –

Fees

may

lim

it pr

olife

ratio

n.

N /

+

Reve

nues

from

fees

can

be

use

d to

enh

ance

ab

sorp

tion

capa

citie

s.

+

Fees

may

str

engt

hen

the

dom

inan

ce o

f res

ourc

eful

in

stitu

tions

, esp

ecia

lly

whe

n fe

es a

re s

et a

t a h

igh

leve

l.


59

Prop

erti

es o

f a q

ualifi

cati

ons

syst

em

Cohe

renc

e of

an

NQ

F-ba

sed

qual

ifica

tions

sys

tem

In

cent

ives

for s

take

hold

ers

to in

clud

e qu

alifi

catio

ns

Prol

ifera

tion

Abs

orpt

ion

capa

citie

sD

omin

ance

of r

esou

rcef

ul

inst

itutio

ns

Varia

nt 8

.2

No

fees

are

in

curr

ed w

hen

incl

udin

g a

qual

ifica

tion

in

the

syst

em

N / –

No

fees

may

exc

essi

vely

en

cour

age

stak

ehol

ders

to

sub

mit

qual

ifica

tions

fo

r inc

lusi

on in

the

syst

em

even

if th

ey a

re o

f poo

r qu

ality

or e

ven

if th

ere

is

no s

ocia

l nee

d fo

r the

m.

This

effe

ct m

ight

be

exac

erba

ted

if va

riant

6.2

an

d 5.

2 ar

e im

plem

ente

d.

N /

+

No

fees

may

enc

oura

ge

stak

ehol

ders

to s

ubm

it qu

alifi

catio

ns fo

r inc

lusi

on

in th

e sy

stem

.

N/ +

The

lack

of f

ees

may

co

ntrib

ute

to p

rolif

erat

ion

in th

e sy

stem

. Any

one

coul

d “f

eel e

ncou

rage

d” to

su

bmit

a qu

alifi

catio

n to

th

e sy

stem

.

N

This

var

iant

is n

eutr

al

rega

rdin

g ab

sorp

tion

capa

citie

s.

N / –

Lack

of f

ees

may

lim

it th

e do

min

ance

of r

esou

rcef

ul

inst

itutio

ns.

9. C

hara

cter

istic

: The

form

al, l

egal

and

fina

ncia

l ben

efits

of h

avin

g a

qual

ifica

tion

incl

uded

in a

n N

QF-

base

d qu

alifi

catio

ns sy

stem

Varia

nt 9

.1

Incl

udin

g qu

alifi

catio

ns

in th

e sy

stem

pr

ovid

es v

ario

us

type

s of

form

al

and

finan

cial

be

nefit

s to

le

arne

rs, t

rain

ing

inst

itutio

ns a

nd

awar

ding

bod

ies

(sch

olar

ship

s, di

scou

nts,

the

right

to s

eek

finan

cing

or

refu

nds)

N

This

var

iant

is n

eutr

al

rega

rdin

g co

here

nce

of th

e qu

alifi

catio

ns s

yste

m

+

This

var

iant

may

hav

e a

stro

ng e

ffect

on

stre

ngth

enin

g in

cent

ives

to

sub

mit

qual

ifica

tions

for

incl

usio

n in

the

syst

em.

N

This

var

iant

is n

eutr

al

rega

rdin

g pr

olife

ratio

n of

th

e qu

alifi

catio

ns s

yste

m

N

This

var

iant

is n

eutr

al

rega

rdin

g ab

sorp

tion

capa

citie

s.

N

This

var

iant

is n

eutr

al

rega

rdin

g th

e do

min

ance

of

larg

e an

d affl

uent

aw

ardi

ng b

odie

s


60

Prop

erti

es o

f a q

ualifi

cati

ons

syst

em

Cohe

renc

e of

an

NQ

F-ba

sed

qual

ifica

tions

sys

tem

In

cent

ives

for s

take

hold

ers

to in

clud

e qu

alifi

catio

ns

Prol

ifera

tion

Abs

orpt

ion

capa

citie

sD

omin

ance

of r

esou

rcef

ul

inst

itutio

ns

Varia

nt 9

.2

Incl

udin

g qu

alifi

catio

ns

in th

e sy

stem

pr

ovid

es n

o pr

actic

al fo

rmal

or

finan

cial

ben

efits

fo

r var

ious

st

akeh

olde

r gr

oups

N

This

var

iant

is n

eutr

al

rega

rdin

g co

here

nce

of th

e qu

alifi

catio

ns s

yste

m

N

This

var

iant

is n

eutr

al

rega

rdin

g in

cent

ives

for

incl

usio

n.

N

This

var

iant

is n

eutr

al

rega

rdin

g pr

olife

ratio

n of

th

e qu

alifi

catio

ns s

yste

m

N

This

var

iant

is n

eutr

al

rega

rdin

g ab

sorp

tion

capa

citie

s.

N

This

var

iant

is n

eutr

al

rega

rdin

g th

e do

min

ance

of

larg

e an

d affl

uent

aw

ardi

ng b

odie

s.


61

Having analysed Table 13, the following observations can be made:

■■ Some variants are assumed to impact more on the properties of the qualifications system than other variants. The variants of the largest assumed impact (impacting on at least three presented properties of the qualifications system) are:

ū variant 2.2: qualifications included in the system become a public good

ū variant 5.1: specific regulations govern all significant elements in the process of including qualifications

ū variant 5.2: only general guidelines are provided, leaving a wide margin of discretion for specific stakeholders

ū variant 6.1: one institution decides on including qualifications (as well as determines their level)

ū variant 6.2: many institutions can decide on including qualifications (as well as determine their level)

ū variant 7.1: the roles of public authorities and social partners are balanced in the process of including non-formal sector qualifications in NQF-based qualifications systems. Social partners have a strong role.

ū variant 8.1: fees are incurred when including a qualification in the system.

■■ Some variants are in close synergy with other variants. Variants 2.1 and 3.1 are in close synergy favouring proliferation in the system whereas variants 2.2 and 3.2 are in synergy to limit proliferation. Variants 4.1, 5.1, 6.1 are in close synergy and are assumed to strengthen the coherence of the system, whereas variant 4.2, 5.2, 6.2 are assumed to weaken coherence.

■■ Variants that have the strongest impact on strengthening the coherence of the system (5.1, 6.1) and strongest impact on limiting proliferation (2.2, 3.1) at the same time contribute most to weakening incentives for stakeholders to submit qualifications to the system.

■■ Variants assumed to have the greatest impact on strengthening the coherence of the system and to limit proliferation are assumed to strengthen the dominance of resourceful institutions.

■■ Variant 7.1, representing a balanced role of public authorities and stakeholders, is the only variant that is expected to strengthen the coherence of the system and to limit the dominance of resourceful institutions.

In the table below, we present a summary of the assumed impacts of variants on the properties of a national qualifications system.


62

Table 14. Assumed impacts of the variants on the particular properties of the national qualifications system

Assumed impact Variants

Strengthening coherence of the national qualifications system

Variant 2.2: qualifications included in the system become a public good

Variant 4.1: specific regulations on inclusion have the character of required legal norms

Variant 5.1: specific regulations govern all significant elements in the process of including qualifications

Variant 6.1: one institution decides on including qualifications (as well as determines their level)

Variant 7.1: the roles of public authorities and social partners are balanced in the process of including non-formal sector qualifications in NQF-based qualifications systems. Social partners have a strong role

Variant 8.1: fees are incurred when including a qualification in the system

Weakening coherence of the national qualifications system

Variant 4.2: specific regulations on inclusion do not have the character of required legal norms

Variant 5.2: only general guidelines are provided, leaving a wide margin of discretion for specific stakeholders

Variant 6.2: many institutions can decide on including qualifications (as well as determine their level)

Variant 8.1: no fees are incurred when including a qualification in the system

Strengthening incentives to submit qualifications to the national qualifications system

Variant 2.1: qualifications included in the system remain the property of the submitting institution




Variant 9.1: including qualifications in the system provides various types of formal and financial benefits to learners, training institutions and awarding bodies (scholarships, discounts, the right to seek financing or refunds)

Weakening incentives to include qualifications in the national qualifications system





63


Limiting proliferation


Variant 3.1: similarity to qualifications included earlier in the qualifications system precludes the ability to include the submitted qualification in the system



Favouring proliferation

Variant 2.1: qualifications included in the system remain the property of the submitting institution

Variant 3.2: similarity to qualifications included earlier in the qualifications system does not preclude the ability to include the new qualifications



Increasing absorption capacities



Decreasing absorption capacities


Variant 7.1: the roles of public authorities and social partners are balanced in the process of including non-formal sector qualifications in NQF-based qualifications systems. Social partners have a strong role.

Strengthening the dominance of resourceful institutions




64


Weakening the dominance of resourceful institutions





Variant 9.1: including qualifications in the system provides various types of formal and financial benefits to learners, training institutions and awarding bodies (scholarships, discounts, the right to seek financing or refunds)

5.3. Models

Policy documents formulated at the EU level (EQF Recommendation, New Skills Agenda for Europe, Cedefop, ETF, UNESCO, 2017) indicate that national qualifications frameworks referenced to the European Qualifications Framework should be coherent and transparent.

National qualifications frameworks referenced to the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) can be important policy instruments to promote mobility and lifelong learning at the national as well as the European level. However, in order to be a policy reform driver, an NQF has to be open to the various types of qualifications awarded in different educational sectors: type A, B, C. But being open is not enough; the system should have incentives for stakeholders to submit their qualifications and at the same time, should protect its coherence as well as prevent excessive proliferation.

In the NQF-in Project, models were constructed by configuring selected variants distinguished for each of the characteristics presented in this report. We propose four theoretical models of including qualifications in an NQF:

Model 1: Model for the coherence of an NQF-based national qualifications system

Model 2: Model for incentives to stakeholders to submit qualifications

Model 3: Model for the coherence of an NQF-based national qualifications system moderately incentivising stakeholders to submit qualifications

Model 4: Model for incentives to stakeholders to submit qualifications and the moderate coherence of an NQF-based qualifications system


65

The presented models were constructed based on an analysis of the relationships with variant 1.1. However, these models may also be useful in those systems allowing only certain types of qualifications to be included in national qualifications systems (variant 1.2).

The starting point in constructing these models was the observation that the variants with the strongest impact on the proposed properties of a qualifications system (variants: 2.2, 5.1, 5.2, 6.1, 6.2, 7.1, 8.1) are assumed to strengthen coherence, limit proliferation and weaken incentives for stakeholders to submit qualifications to the system. This observation implies that there may be a strong trade-off between the coherence of the system and incentives to submit qualifications.

Assuming that the trade-off between coherence and incentives may be significant, Model 1 and Model 2 represent configurations assumed to lead to two opposing effects: strong coherence, no proliferation, few incentives, or weak coherence, proliferation, many incentives.

Model 1 leads to the coherence of an NQF-based qualifications system in a country.

Model 2 leads to incentives for stakeholders to submit qualifications to an NQF-based system in a country.

Model 3 was developed based on Model 1. In Model 3, some variants limiting proliferation were replaced by variants strengthening incentives. As a result, Model 3 is still coherent but provides more incentives for submitting qualifications to the NQF. It is also assumed to favour proliferation more than Model 1.

Model 4 was developed based on Model 2. In Model 4, some variants strengthen-ing incentives to submit qualifications to an NQF were replaced by variants strengthening coherence. Model 4 still provides strong incentives to stakeholders to submit qualifications and is still prone to proliferation, but at the same time, it strengthens coherence.

Based on the content of Table 13, more models could be proposed and analysed. We envisage that Table 13 could be good tool for analysing the assumed impact of different configurations of variants on the basic properties of a qualifications system. We also envisage that after discussions and consultations of this report with different groups of stakeholders, we could modify the models presented here.

If our observations regarding coherence, proliferation and incentives will be proven by other analyses, a discussion should be undertaken about how to promote NQF development in a way that enables many different types of qualifications to be included in national qualifications systems.

These four theoretical models provide a starting point in thinking about the use of models in designing the principles and procedures of including non-formal sector qualifications in NQF-based qualifications systems.


66

Model 1. Model for the coherence of an NQF-based national qualifications system

Table 15. Configuration of variants in Model 1

Characteristics of a qualifications system Chosen Variants

1. Types of qualifications that may be included in an NQF-based qualifications system, according to the proposed typology of qualifications in the NQF-in project

Variant 1.1 All types of qualification may be included in the qualifications system

Variant 1.2 Only some types of qualifications may be included in the qualifications system

2. Ownership of a qualification in an NQF-based qualifications system

Variant 2.2 Qualifications included in the system become a public good

Variant 2.1 Qualifications included in the system remain the property of the submitting institution

3. Allowable level of similarity of the qualifications included in an NQF-based qualifications system

Variant 3.1 Similarity to qualifications included earlier in the qualifications system precludes the ability to include the submitted qualification in the system

Variant 3.2 Similarity to qualifications included earlier in the qualifications system does not preclude the ability to include the new qualifications

4. Character of the legal regulations on including qualifications in an NQF-based qualifications system

Variant 4.1 Specific regulations on inclusion have the character of required legal norms

Variant 4.2 Specific regulations on inclusion do not have the character of required legal norms

5. Scope of the regulations on including qualifications in an NQF-based qualifications system

Variant 5.1 Specific regulations govern all significant elements in the process of including qualifications

Variant 5.2 Only general guidelines are provided, leaving a wide margin of discretion for specific stakeholders


67


6. Degree of centralisation of the decisions taken on including qualifications in an NQF-based qualifications system

Variant 6.1 One institution decides on including qualifications (as well as determines their level)

Variant 6.2 Many institutions can decide on including qualifications (as well as determine their level)

7. Role of different stakeholder groups in activities relating to the inclusion of qualifications in an NQF-based qualifications system

Variant 7.1 The roles of public authorities and social partners are balanced in the process of including non-formal sector qualifications in NQF-based qualifications systems. Social partners have a strong role.

Variant 7.2 Social partners have a weak role in the process of including non-formal sector qualifications in NQF-based qualifications systems

Variant 7.3 Social partners play no role in the process of including qualifications.

8. Fees for including qualifications in an NQF-based qualifications system

Variant 8.1: Fees are incurred when including a qualification in the system

Variant 8.2 No fees are incurred when including a qualification in the system

9. The formal, legal and financial benefits of having a qualification included in an NQF-based qualifications system

Variant 9.2 Including qualifications in the system provides no practical formal or financial benefits for various stakeholder groups

Variant 9.1 Including qualifications in the system provides various types of formal and financial benefits to learners, training institutions and awarding bodies (scholarships, discounts, the right to seek financing or refunds)

Commentary:

In constructing Model 1, the main aim was to select the combination of variants that ensure coherence (variants 4.1, 5.1, 6.1) and limit proliferation (variants 2.2, 3.1, 8.1).

This combination of variants is assumed to weaken incentives for stakeholders to submit qualifications (variants 2.2, 5.1, 8.1) as they will need to give up their ownership rights to the submitted qualifications and to pay fees for inclusion.


68

In Model 1, institutional and organisational requirements for including qualifi-cations are set at a high institutional level. Following national rules that specifically regulate the process of including qualifications (selected variants 4.1 and 5.1) and fulfilling requirements to pay fees may be difficult conditions to meet for some stakeholders, e.g. voluntary and non-profit institutions. Resourceful institutions are more likely to have the necessary capacity required to develop new qualifications or adapt their existing ones to the requirements of the system. However, Model 1 is expected to protect the national qualifications system against monopolisation by the largest institutions functioning in this area. No institution can block other institutions from awarding qualifications that were included in the national qualifications system (selected variant 2.2).

Model 1 assumes that the inclusion of qualifications will require more effort from the state as well as stakeholders, but at the same time the national qualifications system is expected to be more coherent. Therefore inclusion of qualifications in the system will provide a strong signal to all stakeholders − especially learners and employers − that qualifications with an assigned NQF level are meeting national standards across different areas of the qualifications system. However, the number of these qualifications being included in the system will increase at a slow pace.

Model 2: Model for incentives to stakeholders to submit qualifications



1. Types of qualifications that may be included in an NQF-based qualifications system, according to the proposed typology of qualifications in the NQF-in project







69
















Variant 7.1: The roles of public authorities and social partners are balanced in the process of including non-formal sector qualifications in NQF-based qualifications systems. Social partners have a strong role.



70







Variant 9.2: Including qualifications in the system provides no practical formal or financial benefits for various stakeholder groups

Commentary:

In constructing Model 2, the main aim was to select a combination of variants that support incentives to submit qualifications to the national system (variants 2.1, 3.2, 4.2, 5.2, 6.2, 7.3, 8.2). As noted above, focusing on incentives can lead to proliferation and the lack of coherence in the qualifications system.

In Model 2, the state is not required to develop specific rules on inclusion in the form of legal regulations (variants 4.1 and 5.1) which could allow the NQF system to include non-formal sector qualifications in a shorter period of time.

The absorption capacity envisaged by this model may be high, as many institutions will be able to decide on including qualifications (e.g. ministries, state institutions, sectoral organisations, stakeholders’ councils). Stakeholders willing to submit qualifications in the system will not need to give up their ownership rights. Therefore, it is expected that including many new qualifications in the qualifications system is much easier than in Model 1.

Model 2 poses the risk that in the mid- and longer term, the system will become fragmented and unclear to learners and employers. This effect will probably differ in various countries.


71

Model 3: Model for the coherence of an NQF-based national qualifications system moderately incentivising stakeholders to submit qualifications



1. Types of qualifications that may be included in an NQF-based qualifications system, according to the proposed typology of qualifications in the NQF-in Project
















72






Variant 7.1 The roles of public authorities and social partners are balanced in the process of including non-formal sector qualifications in NQF-based qualifications systems. Social partners have a strong role.

Variant 7.2: Social partners have a weak role in the process of including non-formal sector qualifications in NQF-based qualifications systems



Variant 8.1 Fees are incurred when including a qualification in the system



Variant 9.2 Including qualifications in the system provides no practical formal or financial benefits for various stakeholder groups


Commentary:

In constructing Model 3, Model 1 was taken as the starting point. The crucial difference between Model 3 and Model 1 relates to the ownership and the similarity of qualifications.

In Model 3, stakeholders submitting qualifications will not need to give up their ownership rights (variant 2.1). Therefore, in Model 3, each awarding body that


73

included a qualification in the system is the owner of the qualification and no other institution can award the qualification without the consent of its owner.

Implementing variants 2.1 and 3.2 could result in proliferation in the qualifications system. This effect will be exacerbated if the fees are set at low levels (or if there are no fees), or if the state provides strong benefits for including qualifications in the NQF system (variant 9.2).

In Model 3, similarly as in Model 1, the institutional and organisational requirements for including qualifications are determined at a high institutional level.

Model 3 protects the coherence of the system but provides more incentives for stakeholders to submit qualifications than Model 1 in a trade-off favouring proliferation.

Model 4: Model for incentives to stakeholders to submit qualifications and the moderate coherence of an NQF-based qualifications system



1. Types of qualifications that may be included in an NQF-based qualifications system, according to the proposed typology of qualifications in the NQF-in Project







Variant 3.2 Similarity to qualifications included earlier in the qualifications system does not preclude the ability to include the new qualifications Variant 3.1 Similarity to qualifications included earlier in the qualifications system precludes the ability to include the submitted qualification in the system


74





5. Scope of the regulations on including qualifications in an NQF-based qualifications systema








Variant 7.1: The roles of public authorities and social partners are balanced in the process of including non-formal sector qualifications in NQF-based qualifications systems. Social partners have a strong role.






75




Variant 9.2: Including qualifications in the system provides no practical formal or financial benefits for various stakeholder groups

Commentary:

In constructing Model 4, Model 2 was taken as the starting point. In Model 4, variants strengthening coherence (4.1, 5.1) and limiting proliferation (8.2) were introduced. As a result, Model 4 provides incentives to stakeholders to submit qualifications and is still prone to proliferation. However, at the same time, it strengthens the coherence of the system.

In Model 4, the state is required to make the effort to develop specific regulations (variant 4.1) in the form of legal norms (variant 5.1). But in comparison to Model 2, the state will not be required to provide substantial financial contributions to finance the inclusion of non-formal sector qualifications. Stakeholders need to pay fees for inclusion.

The absorption capacity envisaged by Model 2 could be high, as many institutions will be able to decide on including qualifications. Therefore, this model anticipates that the number of new qualifications in the system can grow at a significant rate while maintaining moderate coherence of the qualifications system.


76

References

Allais, S. (2007). Why the South African NQF Failed: Lessons for Countries Wanting to Introduce National Qualifications Frameworks. European Journal of Education, 42(4).

Allais, S. (2010). The Implementation and Impact of Qualifications Frameworks: Report of a Study in 16 Countries. Geneva: International Labour Office.

Allais, S. (2011). What is a National Qualifications Framework? Considerations from a Study of National Qualifications Frameworks from 16 Countries. Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies, 5, 88–124.

Allais, S. (2012). Claims versus Practicalities: Lessons about Using Learning Outcomes. Journal of Education and Work, 25(3).

Allais, S. (2014). Selling out Education: National Qualifications Frameworks and the Neglect of Knowledge. Rotterdam: Sense.

Allais, S. (2017a). Labour market outcomes of national qualifications frameworks in six countries. Journal of Education and Work, 30(5).

Allais, S. (2017b). What does it mean to conduct research into qualifications frameworks? Journal of Education and Work, 30(7), 768–776.

Allais, S., Raffe, D., & Young, M. (2009). Researching NQFs: some conceptual issues. International Labour Organization.

Blackmur, D. (2004). A critique of the concept of a national qualifications framework. Quality in Higher Education, 10(3), 267−284.

Blackmur, D. (2015). Arguing with Stephanie Allais. Are National Qualifications Frameworks instruments of neoliberalism and social constructivism? Quality in Higher Education, 21(2), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2015.1071545

Bohlinger, S. 2012. Qualifications Frameworks and Learning Outcomes: Challenges for Europe’s Lifelong Learning Area. Journal of Education and Work, 25(3), 279–297.

Brockmann, M., L. Clarke, and C. Winch (2008). “Can Performance-related Learning Outcomes Have Standards? Journal of European Industrial Training, 32(2/3), 99–113.

Brown, A. 2011. Lessons from Policy Failure: The Demise of a National Qualifications Framework Based Solely on Learning Outcomes in England. Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies, 62(5), 36–55.

Cedefop (2013). Analysis and Overview of NQF Developments in European Countries. Annual report 2012. (Cedefop working paper; No 17). Luxembourg: Publications Office.


77

Cedefop (2015). National Qualifications Framework Developments in Europe – Anniversary Edition. Luxembourg: Publications office of the European Union.

Cedefop (2018). National qualifications framework developments in European countries: analysis and overview 2015–16. Luxembourg: Publications Office. Cedefop research paper No 65.

Cedefop, ETF and UNESCO and UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning. (2017). Global inventory of regional and national qualifications frameworks 2017. Volume I: Thematic chapters. Cedefop.

Chakroun, B. (2010). National qualification frameworks: From policy borrowing to policy learning. European Journal of Education, 45(2), 199−216.

Clarke, L., & Winch, C. (2006). A European skills framework?—but what are skills? Anglo‐Saxon versus German concepts. Journal of Education and Work, 19(3), 255−269.

Coles Mike (2006) A review of international and national developments in the use of qualifications frameworks. European Training Federation.

Coles, M., Keevy, J., Bateman, A., & Keating, J. (2014). Flying blind: policy rationales for national qualifications frameworks and how they tend to evolve. International Journal of Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning, 7(1), 17.

Danowska-Florczyk, E., Debowski, H., Lasota, M., Poczmanska, A., Przybylska, B., & Slawinski, S. (2018). The Challenge of Adapting Existing Qualifications for Inclusion in the NQF: Lessons Learned from the Twinning Project in Macedonia. Level 3, 14(1), 5.

Dębowski, H., & Stęchły, W. (2015). Implementing ECVET Principles. Reforming Poland’s Vocational Education and Training through Learning Outcomes Based Curricula and Assessment. Warsaw Forum of Economic Sociology 6:2(12).

Dolowitz, D. P., & Marsh, D. (2000). Learning from abroad: The role of policy transfer in contemporary policy‐making. Governance, 13(1), 5−23.

Earp, J., & Ennett, S. (1991). Conceptual models for health education research and practice. Health Educ Res, 6(2), 163–171.

ETF, Cedefop, and UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning. (2013). Global National Qualifications Framework Inventory (Report prepared for ASEM Education Ministers Conference, May 13–14). Kuala Lumpur: ETF, Cedefop, and UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning.

Exworthy, M. (2008). Policy to tackle the social determinants of health: using conceptual models to understand the policy process. Health Policy and Planning, 23(5), 318−327.

Greca, I. M., & Moreira, M. A. (2000). Mental models, conceptual models, and modelling. International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 1−11.

Hamarat, C., Kwakkel, J. H., & Pruyt, E. (2013). Adaptive robust design under deep uncertainty. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(3), 408−418.

Heemskerk, M., Wilson, K., & Pavao-Zuckerman, M. (2003). Conceptual models as tools for communication across disciplines. Conservation Ecology, 7(3).


78

IBE (2018a), Including Non-formal Sector Qualifications in National Qualifications Frameworks. The Experiences and Solutions of Seven European Countries. Volume I: Country Reports. Warsaw: Instytut Badań Edukacyjnych.

IBE (2018b), Including Non-formal Sector Qualifications in National Qualifications Frameworks. The Experiences and Solutions of Seven European Countries. Volume II: Annexes. Warsaw: Instytut Badań Edukacyjnych.

Johnson, J., & Henderson, A. (2002). Conceptual Models: Begin by Designing What to Design. Interactions, 9(1), 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1145/503355.503366

Keating, J. 2003. Qualifications Frameworks in Australia. Journal of Education and Work, 16(3), 271–288.

Keating, J. 2011. “The Malaysian Qualifications Framework. An Institutional Response to Intrinsic Weaknesses. Journal of Education and Work, 24(3–4), 393–407.

Keevy, J., and C. Borhene. 2015. Levelling and Recognizing Learning Outcomes. The Use of Level Descriptors in the Twenty-first Century. Paris: UNESCO.

Mayer, R. E. (1989). Models for understanding. Review of Educational Research, 59(1).

Méhaut, P., & Winch, C. (2012). The European Qualification Framework: skills, competences or knowledge? European Educational Research Journal, 11(3), 369−381.

Murphy, A., & Dębowski, H. (2018). Is Higher Education Ambivalent Towards Inclusion of Non-Formal Qualifications in National Qualifications Frameworks (NQFs)? European Higher Education Area: The Impact of Past and Future Policies (pp. 547−568). Springer, Cham.

Pilcher, N., Fernie, S., & Smith, K. (2015). The impact of National Qualifications Frameworks: by which yardstick do we measure dreams? Journal of Education and Work, 30(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2015.1122178

Raffe, D. (2003). ‘Simplicity Itself’: the creation of the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework. Journal of Education and Work, 16(3), 239−257.

Raffe, D. (2005). National Qualifications Frameworks as Integrated Qualifications Frameworks. SAQA Bulletin, 8(1), 21–31.

Raffe, D. (2009). Towards a dynamic model of National Qualifications Frameworks. Researching NQFs: Some conceptual issues, 23-42. International Labour Organization.

Raffe, D. (2011). Are ‘Communications Frameworks’ More Successful? Policy Learning from the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework. Journal of Education and Work, 24(3–4).

Raffe, D. (2012). “What is the Evidence for the Impact of National Qualifications Frameworks? Comparative Education 49(2).


79

Raffe, D. (2015). “First Count to Five: Some Principles for the Reform of Vocational Qualifications in England. Journal of Education and Work, 28(2).

Singh, M. (2017). National Qualifications Frameworks (NQF) and Support for Alternative Transition Routes for Young People. Vocational Education and Training in Times of Economic Crisis. Springer.

Tuck, R. (2007). An introductory guide to national qualifications frameworks: Conceptual and practical issues for policy makers. Geneva: ILO.

Tuck, R., Hart, J., & Keevy, J. (2004). The relevance of the national qualifications framework impact study to qualification framework development in the Southern African development community. SAQA Bulletin, 6(2), 5−29.

Walters, S. (2011). Optimism of the will, pessimism of the intellect: building communities of trust in South Africa. SAQA Bulletin: Key Readings: The South African NQF 1995-2011, 12(2), 155–168.

Turner, M. G., Gardner, R. H., & O’Neill, R. V. (2001). Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice. Pattern and Process. National Geographic.

UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning, European Training Foundation, Cedefop (2015). Global Inventory of Regional and National Qualifications Frameworks. UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning. Germany.

Wheelahan, L. (2011). From old to new: The Australian qualifications framework. Journal of Education and Work, 24(3–4), 323–342.

Young, M. F. (2003). National qualifications frameworks as a global phenomenon: A comparative perspective. Journal of Education and Work, 16(3), 223–237.

Young, M. (2005). National qualifications frameworks: Their feasibility for effective implementation in developing countries. International Labour Organization. Geneva.


80

AN

NEX

ES

Ann

ex 1

. Ty

pes

of q

ualifi

cati

ons

in th

e lit

erat

ure

and

EU d

ocum

ents

/mat

eria

ls

Quo

tati

on a

nd s

ourc

e:Co

mm

ents

:

Glo

bal I

nven

tory

of R

egio

nal a

nd N

atio

nal Q

ualifi

catio

ns F

ram

ewor

ks, C

edef

op, E

TF, U

NES

CO 2

015

“… in

mos

t Eur

opea

n co

untr

ies,

the

incl

usio

n of

form

al q

ualifi

cati

ons

in N

QFs

is b

ased

on

sect

or-b

ased

le

gisl

atio

n, n

ot o

n un

iform

rule

s co

verin

g th

e en

tire

fram

ewor

k.” p

. 9.

“The

maj

ority

of t

he n

ew N

QFs

hav

e lim

ited

thei

r cov

erag

e to

form

al q

ualifi

cati

ons

awar

ded

by n

atio

nal

auth

oriti

es o

r ind

epen

dent

bod

ies

accr

edite

d by

thes

e au

thor

ities

. Thi

s m

eans

that

fram

ewor

ks p

redo

min

antly

co

ver i

nitia

l qua

lifica

tions

offe

red

by p

ublic

edu

catio

n an

d tr

aini

ng in

stitu

tions

. Whi

le th

ere

are

exce

ptio

ns to

th

is g

ener

al p

ictu

re, m

ost N

QFs

do

not c

over

qua

lifica

tions

resu

lting

from

trai

ning

and

lear

ning

taki

ng p

lace

in

the

non-

form

al a

nd p

rivat

e se

ctor

”, p.

11

“The

re a

ppea

r to

be tw

o w

ays

of p

rovi

ding

qua

lity

assu

ranc

e in

this

con

text

. In

the

first

cas

e, n

on-f

orm

al

qual

ifica

tion

s ar

e br

ough

t int

o th

e fr

amew

ork

and

they

are

sub

mitt

ed to

a c

omm

on q

ualit

y as

sura

nce

regi

me”

, p.

22.

“and

the

open

ing

of q

ualifi

catio

ns fr

amew

orks

to a

ccom

mod

ate

non-

form

al q

ualifi

cati

ons,

suc

h as

thos

e fr

om in

dust

ry, o

n a

natio

nal l

evel

”, p.

60.

No

expl

icit

defin

ition

s ar

e pr

ovid

ed in

the

repo

rt

for d

iffer

ent t

ypes

of

qual

ifica

tions

.

The

repo

rt u

ses

diffe

rent

na

mes

to d

enot

e qu

alifi

catio

n ty

pes,

mos

t fre

quen

tly:

form

al q

ualifi

catio

ns

non-

form

al q

ualifi

catio

ns,

priv

ate

sect

or q

ualifi

catio

ns


81

Ana

lysi

s an

d ov

ervi

ew o

f nat

iona

l qua

lifica

tions

fram

ewor

k de

velo

pmen

ts in

Eur

opea

n co

untr

ies.

Ann

ual R

epor

t 201

4, W

orki

ng P

aper

no

. 27,

Ced

efop

201

5.

“Som

e co

untr

ies,

such

as

Aust

ria, G

erm

any,

the

Net

herla

nds,

Nor

way

and

Sw

eden

, hav

e st

arte

d w

orki

ng o

n pr

oced

ures

for i

nclu

ding

non

-for

mal

and

pri

vate

sec

tor q

ualifi

cati

ons

and

cert

ifica

tes.

A k

ey c

halle

nge

face

d by

cou

ntrie

s w

anti

ng to

go

beyo

nd s

tric

tly

regu

late

d fo

rmal

edu

cati

on a

nd tr

aini

ng is

to e

nsur

e th

at

the

new

qua

lifica

tions

in th

e fr

amew

ork

can

be tr

uste

d an

d m

eet b

asic

qua

lity

requ

irem

ents

”, p.

40

“Sev

eral

oth

er c

ount

ries

(incl

udin

g D

enm

ark,

Lat

via,

Slo

veni

a an

d Fi

nlan

d) h

ave

indi

cate

d th

at th

is o

peni

ng u

p to

war

ds th

e no

n-fo

rmal

sec

tor w

ill b

e ad

dres

sed

in a

sec

ond

stag

e of

thei

r fra

mew

ork

deve

lopm

ents

”, p.

40.

“Som

e es

tabl

ishe

d fr

amew

orks

, for

exa

mpl

e in

Fra

nce

and

the

Uni

ted

King

dom

, hav

e pu

t in

plac

e pr

oced

ures

al

low

ing

‘non

-tra

diti

onal

’ qua

lifica

tion

s to

be

incl

uded

in th

e fr

amew

orks

”, p.

40.

“The

Fre

nch

fram

ewor

k is

als

o op

en to

qua

lifica

tion

s aw

arde

d by

non

-pub

lic b

odie

s an

d in

stit

utio

ns”,

pp.

40-4

1.

“The

Dut

ch N

QF

(NLQ

F) m

akes

it p

ossi

ble

for p

rivat

e or

non

-form

al q

ualifi

catio

n to

be

incl

uded

in a

nd le

velle

d to

the

fram

ewor

k”, p

. 41.

No

expl

icit

defin

ition

pro

vide

d in

the

repo

rt fo

r diff

eren

t ty

pes

of q

ualifi

catio

ns.

Diff

eren

t ter

ms

used

:

non-

form

al s

ecto

r qu

alifi

catio

ns

priv

ate

sect

or q

ualifi

catio

ns

regu

late

d fo

rmal

edu

catio

n an

d tr

aini

ng

non-

form

al s

ecto

r

non-

trad

ition

al q

ualifi

catio

ns

qual

ifica

tions

aw

arde

d by

non

-pu

blic

bod

ies

and

inst

itutio

ns

http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/publications-and-resources/publications/6127


82

Euro

pean

Com

mis

sion

, Pro

posa

l for

a C

OU

NCI

L RE

COM

MEN

DAT

ION

on

the

Euro

pean

Qua

lifica

tions

Fra

mew

ork

for l

ifelo

ng le

arni

ng a

nd

repe

alin

g th

e Re

com

men

datio

n of

the

Euro

pean

Par

liam

ent a

nd o

f the

Cou

ncil

of 2

3 A

pril

2008

on

the

esta

blis

hmen

t of t

he E

urop

ean

Qua

lifica

tions

Fra

mew

ork

for l

ifelo

ng le

arni

ng, 1

0 Ju

ne 2

016.

The

sam

e go

es fo

r qua

lifica

tion

s aw

arde

d ou

tsid

e th

e fo

rmal

sys

tem

and

by

inte

rnat

iona

l bod

ies

and

orga

nisa

tions

. Ins

uffici

ent t

rust

in s

uch

qual

ifica

tions

redu

ces

prof

essi

onal

dev

elop

men

t, re

crui

tmen

t and

pr

omot

ion

oppo

rtun

ities

and

furt

her l

earn

ing

oppo

rtun

ities

for t

he w

orke

rs a

nd le

arne

rs w

ho h

old

them

, cr

eatin

g ba

rrie

rs to

wor

ker a

nd le

arne

r mob

ility

in th

e EU

, with

in a

nd b

etw

een

bord

ers.

All

type

s an

d le

vels

of q

ualifi

cati

ons

are

cove

red,

incl

udin

g th

ose

resu

ltin

g fr

om fo

rmal

edu

cati

on a

nd

trai

ning

at a

ll le

vels

, but

als

o pr

ivat

e se

ctor

qua

lifica

tion

s an

d in

tern

atio

nal (

sect

oral

) qua

lifica

tion

s

Som

e co

untr

ies

have

focu

sed

thei

r ref

eren

cing

on

voca

tion

al e

duca

tion

and

trai

ning

(VET

) qua

lifica

tion

s on

ly, w

hile

oth

er c

ount

ries

have

not

incl

uded

thei

r gen

eral

edu

cati

on s

yste

m in

this

pro

cess

.

The

pict

ure

is e

ven

mor

e di

vers

e fo

r pri

vate

, non

-for

mal

and

inte

rnat

iona

l qua

lifica

tion

s, w

hich

in s

ome

coun

trie

s ar

e pa

rt o

f nat

iona

l qua

lifica

tions

fram

ewor

ks, b

ut n

ot in

oth

ers.

The

curr

ent R

ecom

men

datio

n do

es

not p

rovi

de a

ny m

eans

to g

uara

ntee

that

all

type

s of

qua

lifica

tion

s (in

clud

ing

thos

e fr

om th

e pr

ivat

e se

ctor

) are

par

t of n

atio

nal f

ram

ewor

ks. M

oreo

ver,

qual

ifica

tion

syst

ems

and

fram

ewor

ks c

hang

e ov

er ti

me

and

the

Reco

mm

enda

tion

does

not

incl

ude

an in

vita

tion

to M

embe

r Sta

tes

to k

eep

the

refe

renc

ing

of th

eir n

atio

nal

fram

ewor

k to

the

EQF

up to

dat

e.

No

expl

icit

defin

ition

pro

vide

d in

the

docu

men

t for

diff

eren

t ty

pes

of q

ualifi

catio

ns.

Dis

cuss

ion

note

on

the

poss

ible

revi

sion

of t

he E

urop

ean

Qua

lifica

tions

Fra

mew

ork

for t

he c

onsu

ltatio

n m

eetin

g of

19

Janu

ary

2016

. EU

ROPE

AN

CO

MM

ISSI

ON

DG

Em

ploy

men

t, So

cial

Affa

irs a

nd In

clus

ion.

“2. I

nsuffi

cien

t com

para

bilit

y of

nat

iona

l qua

lifica

tion

syst

ems:

the

qual

ifica

tions

fram

ewor

ks re

fere

nced

to

the

EQF

have

so

far b

een

mai

nly

targ

eted

tow

ards

refe

renc

ing

(thu

s co

mpa

ring)

nat

iona

l pub

licly

aw

arde

d qu

alifi

cati

ons

and

less

so

(alb

eit w

ith e

xcep

tions

) tow

ards

qua

lifica

tion

s fr

om th

e pr

ivat

e se

ctor

. Q

ualifi

catio

n sy

stem

s an

d he

nce

the

elem

ents

add

ress

ed in

the

EQF

refe

renc

ing

proc

ess

also

cha

nge

over

tim

e. H

owev

er th

e cu

rren

t Rec

omm

enda

tion

does

not

pro

vide

any

mea

ns to

gua

rant

ee th

at a

ll ty

pes

of

qual

ifica

tion

s (in

clud

ing

thos

e fr

om th

e pr

ivat

e se

ctor

) are

par

t of n

atio

nal q

ualifi

catio

n sy

stem

s no

r to

keep

the

refe

renc

ing

of n

atio

nal f

ram

ewor

ks to

the

EQF

upda

ted”

, p. 4

.

Euro

pean

Com

mis

sion

in th

e no

te to

the

EQF

AG m

embe

rs

dist

ingu

ishe

d be

twee

n na

tiona

lly p

ublic

ly a

war

ded

qual

ifica

tions

and

priv

ate

sect

or q

ualifi

catio

ns.


83

S. A

llais

, The

impl

emen

tatio

n an

d im

pact

of N

atio

nal Q

ualifi

catio

ns F

ram

ewor

ks: R

epor

t of a

stu

dy in

16

coun

trie

s, IL

O, 2

010

In R

ussi

a, w

hile

ther

e is

a s

tron

g em

phas

is o

n th

e re

cogn

ition

of p

rior l

earn

ing

rout

es to

qua

lifica

tions

in

theo

ry, s

o fa

r the

sec

tora

l qua

lifica

tions

fram

ewor

ks w

hich

hav

e be

en d

evel

oped

insi

st o

n fo

rmal

edu

cati

on

qual

ifica

tion

s, a

nd th

e pr

opos

ed N

QF

also

em

phas

izes

form

al e

duca

tion

and

trai

ning

rout

es.

“The

idea

of i

ntro

duci

ng a

n N

QF

can

be s

een

as a

n at

tem

pt to

dev

elop

one

uni

form

set

of l

evel

s w

hich

brin

g to

geth

er th

e re

gula

tion

of o

ccup

atio

ns a

nd p

rofe

ssio

ns o

n th

e on

e ha

nd, a

nd e

duca

tion

al q

ualifi

cati

ons

on

the

othe

r, in

ord

er to

impr

ove

how

thes

e qu

alifi

catio

ns a

re u

nder

stoo

d an

d us

ed” (

…),

p. 1

12.

No

expl

icit

defin

ition

pro

vide

d in

the

repo

rt fo

r diff

eren

t ty

pes

of q

ualifi

catio

ns.

The

repo

rt d

oes

not e

xplic

itly

refe

r to

diffe

rent

type

s of

qu

alifi

catio

ns w

hich

mig

ht b

e in

clud

ed in

the

NQ

F.

How

ever

, the

term

“for

mal

ed

ucat

ion

qual

ifica

tions

” ap

pear

s in

the

repo

rt.

R. T

uck,

An

Intr

oduc

tory

Gui

de to

Nat

iona

l Qua

lifica

tions

Fra

mew

orks

: Con

cept

ual a

nd P

ract

ical

Issu

es fo

r Pol

icy

Mak

ers,

ILO

200

7.

“The

re a

re th

ree

mai

n se

ctor

s of

edu

cati

on a

nd tr

aini

ng w

ith

inte

rest

s in

an

NQ

F: s

econ

dary

sch

ools

; vo

catio

nal e

duca

tion

and

trai

ning

(VET

) inc

ludi

ng w

ork-

base

d le

arni

ng; a

nd h

ighe

r edu

catio

n”, p

. 17.

“New

Zea

land

sho

uld

prob

ably

now

be

rega

rded

as

a hy

brid

of l

inke

d an

d tr

acke

d be

caus

e th

e N

QF

embr

aces

VET

and

sch

ool q

ualifi

cati

ons,

alth

ough

with

cle

ar d

iffer

ence

s be

twee

n th

e tw

o w

hile

uni

vers

ity

qual

ifica

tion

s ar

e ou

tsid

e th

e N

QF”

, p. 2

1.

The

New

Zea

land

NQ

F fo

r exa

mpl

e, d

istin

guis

hes

betw

een

‘nat

iona

l qua

lifica

tion

s’ w

hich

are

on

the

NQ

F an

d ‘p

rovi

der q

ualifi

cati

ons’

whi

ch a

re n

ot.

“The

re is

a n

eed

to d

ecid

e w

hich

qua

lifica

tions

are

to b

e co

nsid

ered

as ‘

nati

onal

qua

lifica

tion

s’”, p

. 27.

“In

wha

t fol

low

s, it

is a

ssum

ed th

at th

e sc

ope

of th

e fr

amew

ork

is c

ompr

ehen

sive

, i.e

. inc

ludi

ng a

ll se

ctor

s of

ed

ucat

ion

and

trai

ning

”, p.

36.

Com

preh

ensi

ve fr

amew

ork:

An

NQ

F th

at in

clud

es a

ll se

ctor

s of

edu

catio

n an

d tr

aini

ng in

whi

ch q

ualifi

catio

ns

are

offer

ed.

No

expl

icit

defin

ition

pro

vide

d in

the

repo

rt fo

r diff

eren

t ty

pes

of q

ualifi

catio

ns.

Defi

nitio

n of

a c

ompr

ehen

sive

fr

amew

ork

is p

rovi

ded

in th

e gl

ossa

ry s

ectio

n of

the

repo

rt.


84

M. Y

oung

, Nat

iona

l qua

lifica

tions

fram

ewor

ks: t

heir

feas

ibili

ty fo

r effe

ctiv

e im

plem

enta

tion

in d

evel

opin

g co

untr

ies,

Skill

s Wor

king

Pap

er

no. 2

2, IL

O, 2

005.

This

dis

tinct

ion

refe

rs to

the

scop

e of

an

NQ

F an

d is

a re

cogn

ition

that

the

NQ

F in

clud

es a

ll qu

alifi

catio

ns th

at

are

avai

labl

e on

ly in

som

e co

untr

ies.

“Sco

pe” m

ay re

fer t

o:

qual

ifica

tion

type

, e.g

. aca

dem

ic o

r voc

atio

nal o

r tho

se th

at a

re p

ublic

ly o

r priv

atel

y ow

ned.

Exa

mpl

es o

f the

la

tter

are

CIS

CO a

nd M

icro

soft

qua

lifica

tions

, whi

ch p

lay

an im

port

ant r

ole

for p

eopl

e se

ekin

g em

ploy

men

t in

thes

e co

mpa

nies

or i

n co

mpa

nies

usi

ng th

eir s

oftw

are,

but

are

rare

ly in

clud

ed in

NQ

Fs.

qual

ifica

tion

leve

l – m

any

NQ

Fs e

xclu

de u

nive

rsity

qua

lifica

tions

and

ther

e ar

e co

untr

ies

like

Engl

and,

whi

ch

have

spe

cific

fram

ewor

ks o

nly

for h

ighe

r edu

catio

n qu

alifi

catio

ns.

No

expl

icit

defin

ition

pro

vide

d in

the

repo

rt fo

r diff

eren

t ty

pes

of q

ualifi

catio

ns.

Cede

fop

(201

0), T

he d

evel

opm

ent o

f nat

iona

l qua

lifica

tions

fram

ewor

ks in

Eur

ope,

Wor

king

Pap

er n

o. 8

.

“The

role

of t

he C

NCP

as

the

‘gat

ekee

per’

of th

e Fr

ench

fram

ewor

k is

impo

rtan

t. A

ny q

ualifi

catio

n re

gist

ered

in

the

CNCP

irre

spec

tive

of in

stitu

tiona

l orig

in (p

ublic

, priv

ate,

nat

iona

l, se

ctor

al) c

an, i

n pr

inci

ple,

be

incl

uded

in

the

fram

ewor

k. R

egis

trat

ion

of p

riva

te q

ualifi

cati

ons

requ

ires,

how

ever

, tha

t the

y m

eet t

he c

riter

ia s

et b

y th

e CN

CP a

s re

gard

s ov

eral

l qua

lity”

, p. 7

1 (F

ranc

e).

“(…

) whi

le th

ere

are

in p

rinci

ple

no p

robl

ems

linke

d to

the

incl

usio

n of

sta

te-o

wne

d qu

alifi

cati

ons,

the

links

to

and

incl

usio

n of

oth

er (p

riva

te) q

ualifi

cati

ons

pose

a b

igge

r cha

lleng

e”, p

. 129

(Pol

and)

.

No

expl

icit

defin

ition

pro

vide

d in

the

repo

rt fo

r diff

eren

t ty

pes

of q

ualifi

catio

ns.


85

Ann

ex 2

. Ex

ampl

es o

f qua

lifica

tion

s aw

arde

d in

diff

eren

t EU

cou

ntri

es c

ateg

oris

ed a

ccor

ding

to th

e

prop

osed

typo

logy

Qua

lifica

tions

aw

arde

d in

NQ

F-in

Pro

ject

cou

ntrie

s re

fere

nced

to th

e pr

opos

ed c

ateg

oris

atio

n of

gen

eric

type

s of

qua

lifica

tions

:

ūst

ate

regu

late

d qu

alifi

catio

ns a

war

ded

in th

e ed

ucat

ion

syst

em (t

ype

A)

ūst

ate

regu

late

d qu

alifi

catio

ns a

war

ded

outs

ide

the

educ

atio

n sy

stem

(typ

e B)

ūno

n-st

ate

regu

late

d qu

alifi

catio

ns (t

ype

C)

CRO

ATIA

Nam

e [t

itle

] of

a qu

alifi

cati

onA

war

ding

bod

yLe

gal a

cts

that

are

the

basi

s fo

r aw

ardi

ng th

e qu

alifi

cati

on

[if a

pplic

able

]

Type

of q

ualifi

cati

on

as d

efine

d in

na

tion

al le

gisl

atio

n/re

gula

tion

s [if

app

licab

le]

Is th

e qu

alifi

cati

on

incl

uded

in th

e N

QF/

regi

stry

of q

ualifi

cati

ons

If ye

s at

wha

t lev

el o

f the

N

QF?

If no

t, ca

n th

e qu

alifi

catio

n be

incl

uded

(d

o th

e re

quire

d sy

stem

ic

solu

tions

exi

st?)

Stat

e re

gula

ted

qual

ifica

tion

s aw

arde

d in

the

educ

atio

n sy

stem

Not

e: b

elow

are

list

ed a

ll qu

alifi

catio

ns a

war

ded

in th

e na

tiona

l qua

lifica

tions

sys

tem

in C

roat

ia th

at c

ould

be

refe

rred

to th

e ca

tego

ry o

f sta

te

regu

late

d qu

alifi

catio

ns a

war

ded

in th

e ed

ucat

ion

syst

em

Cert

ifica

te o

f com

plet

ing

eigh

th g

rade

(com

puls

ory

prim

ary

scho

ol)

Publ

ic a

nd p

rivat

e pr

imar

y sc

hool

s

The

Prim

ary

and

Seco

ndar

y Sc

hool

Edu

catio

n Ac

t (O

ffici

al

Gaz

ette

(OG

),

OG

87/

08, 8

6/09

; 92/

10; 1

05/1

0,

90/1

1, 5

/12,

16/

12, w

ith la

ter

amen

dmen

ts)

Full

qual

ifica

tion

awar

ded

Yes

Leve

l 1 in

the

CRO

QF


86

Cert

ifica

te o

f com

plet

ion

of o

ne-y

ear V

ET

prog

ram

mes

Publ

ic a

nd p

rivat

e VE

T sc

hool

s an

d Ad

ult

educ

atio

n in

stitu

tions

The

Prim

ary

and

Seco

ndar

y Sc

hool

Edu

catio

n Ac

t (O

ffici

al

Gaz

ette

(OG

), O

G 8

7/08

, 86/

09;

92/1

0; 1

05/1

0, 9

0/11

, 5/1

2, 1

6/12

, w

ith la

ter a

men

dmen

ts)

VET

Act (

30/0

9, w

ith la

ter

amen

dmen

ts)

Full

qual

ifica

tion

awar

ded

Yes

Leve

l 2 in

the

CRO

QF

Cert

ifica

te o

f com

plet

ion

of tw

o-ye

ar V

ET

prog

ram

mes

Publ

ic a

nd p

rivat

e VE

T sc

hool

s an

d Ad

ult

educ

atio

n in

stitu

tions

The

Prim

ary

and

Seco

ndar

y Sc

hool

Edu

catio

n Ac

t (O

ffici

al

Gaz

ette

(OG

), O

G 8

7/08

, 86/

09;

92/1

0; 1

05/1

0, 9

0/11

, 5/1

2, 1

6/12

, w

ith la

ter a

men

dmen

ts)

VET

Act (

30/0

9, w

ith la

ter

amen

dmen

ts)

Full

qual

ifica

tion

awar

ded

Yes

Leve

l 3 in

the

CRO

QF

Cert

ifica

te o

f com

plet

ion

of th

ree-

year

VET

pr

ogra

mm

es

Publ

ic a

nd p

rivat

e VE

T sc

hool

s an

d Ad

ult

educ

atio

n in

stitu

tions

The

Prim

ary

and

Seco

ndar

y Sc

hool

Edu

catio

n Ac

t (O

ffici

al

Gaz

ette

(OG

), O

G 8

7/08

, 86/

09;

92/1

0; 1

05/1

0, 9

0/11

, 5/1

2, 1

6/12

, w

ith la

ter a

men

dmen

ts)

VET

Act (

30/0

9, w

ith la

ter

amen

dmen

ts)

Full

qual

ifica

tion

awar

ded

Yes

Leve

l 4.1

in th

e CR

OQ

F

Cert

ifica

te o

f com

plet

ion

of fi

nal w

ork

(four

-yea

r and

fiv

e-ye

ar V

ET p

rogr

amm

es)

Publ

ic a

nd p

rivat

e VE

T sc

hool

s an

d Ad

ult

educ

atio

n in

stitu

tions

The

Prim

ary

and

Seco

ndar

y Sc

hool

Edu

catio

n Ac

t (O

ffici

al

Gaz

ette

(OG

), O

G 8

7/08

, 86/

09;

92/1

0; 1

05/1

0, 9

0/11

, 5/1

2, 1

6/12

, w

ith la

ter a

men

dmen

ts)

VET

Act (

30/0

9, w

ith la

ter

amen

dmen

ts)

Full

qual

ifica

tion

awar

ded

Yes

Leve

l 4.2

in th

e CR

OQ

F


87

Cert

ifica

te o

n co

mpl

etio

n of

Art

edu

catio

nPu

blic

and

priv

ate

Art

sc

hool

s

The

Prim

ary

and

Seco

ndar

y Sc

hool

Edu

catio

n Ac

t (O

ffici

al

Gaz

ette

(OG

), O

G 8

7/08

, 86/

09;

92/1

0; 1

05/1

0, 9

0/11

, 5/1

2, 1

6/12

, w

ith la

ter a

men

dmen

ts)

Art

Edu

catio

n Ac

t (13

0/11

, with

la

ter a

men

dmen

ts)

Full

qual

ifica

tion

awar

ded

Yes

Leve

l 4.2

in th

e CR

OQ

F

Cert

ifica

te o

n co

mpl

etio

n of

Sta

te M

atur

a

Publ

ic a

nd p

rivat

e se

cond

ary

scho

ols

(gym

nasi

ums)

; N

atio

nal C

entr

e fo

r Ex

tern

al E

valu

atio

n of

Ed

ucat

ion

The

Prim

ary

and

Seco

ndar

y Sc

hool

Edu

catio

n Ac

t (O

ffici

al

Gaz

ette

(OG

), O

G 8

7/08

, 86/

09;

92/1

0; 1

05/1

0, 9

0/11

, 5/1

2, 1

6/12

, w

ith la

ter a

men

dmen

ts)

Stat

e M

atur

a (1

27/1

0, w

ith la

ter

amen

dmen

ts)

Full

qual

ifica

tion

awar

ded

Yes

Leve

l 4.2

in th

e CR

OQ

F

Cert

ifica

te o

f com

plet

ion

of M

aste

r Cra

ftsm

an E

xam

Cham

ber o

f Tra

des

and

Craf

ts

Craf

ts A

ct (O

G 7

7/93

, 90/

96,

102/

98,6

4/01

, 71/

01, 4

9/03

, 68/

07,

79/0

7, w

ith la

ter a

men

dmen

ts)

Full

qual

ifica

tion

awar

ded

Yes

Leve

l 5 in

the

CRO

QF

Cert

ifica

te o

f Str

učni

Pr

istu

pnik

(Sho

rt-c

ycle

)H

ighe

r edu

catio

n in

stitu

tions

Act o

n Sc

ient

ific

Activ

ity a

nd

Hig

her E

duca

tion

(OG

123

/03,

19

8/03

, 105

/04,

174

/04,

02/

07,

46/0

7, 4

5/09

, 63/

11, 9

4/13

, 13

9/13

, 101

/14,

60/

15, w

ith la

ter

amen

dmen

ts)

Full

qual

ifica

tion

awar

ded

Yes

Leve

l 5 in

the

CRO

QF

Dip

lom

a ce

rtify

ing

the

title

of

Pro

fess

iona

l Bac

helo

rH

ighe

r edu

catio

n in

stitu

tions

Act o

n Sc

ient

ific

Activ

ity a

nd

Hig

her E

duca

tion

(OG

123

/03,

19

8/03

, 105

/04,

174

/04,

02/

07,

46/0

7, 4

5/09

, 63/

11, 9

4/13

, 13

9/13

, 101

/14,

60/

15, w

ith la

ter

amen

dmen

ts)

Full

qual

ifica

tion

awar

ded

Yes

Leve

l 6 in

the

CRO

QF


88

Dip

lom

a ce

rtify

ing

the

title

of

Uni

vers

ity B

ache

lor

Publ

ic a

nd p

rivat

e un

iver

sitie

s

Act o

n Sc

ient

ific

Activ

ity a

nd

Hig

her E

duca

tion

(OG

123

/03,

19

8/03

, 105

/04,

174

/04,

02/

07,

46/0

7, 4

5/09

, 63/

11, 9

4/13

, 13

9/13

, 101

/14,

60/

15, w

ith la

ter

amen

dmen

ts)

Full

qual

ifica

tion

awar

ded

Yes

Leve

l 6 in

the

CRO

QF

Dip

lom

a ce

rtify

ing

the

title

of

Pro

fess

iona

l Spe

cial

ist

Hig

her e

duca

tion

inst

itutio

ns

Act o

n Sc

ient

ific

Activ

ity a

nd

Hig

her E

duca

tion

(OG

123

/03,

19

8/03

, 105

/04,

174

/04,

02/

07,

46/0

7, 4

5/09

, 63/

11, 9

4/13

, 13

9/13

, 101

/14,

60/

15, w

ith la

ter

amen

dmen

ts)

Full

qual

ifica

tion

awar

ded

Yes

Leve

l 7 in

the

CRO

QF

Dip

lom

a ce

rtify

ing

the

title

of M

agis

tar (

Mas

ter o

f Sc

ienc

e/A

rts)

Publ

ic a

nd p

rivat

e un

iver

sitie

s

Act o

n Sc

ient

ific

Activ

ity a

nd

Hig

her E

duca

tion

(OG

123

/03,

19

8/03

, 105

/04,

174

/04,

02/

07,

46/0

7, 4

5/09

, 63/

11, 9

4/13

, 13

9/13

, 101

/14,

60/

15, w

ith la

ter

amen

dmen

ts)

Full

qual

ifica

tion

awar

ded

Yes

Leve

l 7 in

the

CRO

QF

Dip

lom

a ce

rtify

ing

the

title

of

Doc

tor (

for p

rogr

amm

es

in M

edic

ine)

Publ

ic a

nd p

rivat

e un

iver

sitie

s

Act o

n Sc

ient

ific

Activ

ity a

nd

Hig

her E

duca

tion

(OG

123

/03,

19

8/03

, 105

/04,

174

/04,

02/

07,

46/0

7, 4

5/09

, 63/

11, 9

4/13

, 13

9/13

, 101

/14,

60/

15, w

ith la

ter

amen

dmen

ts)

Full

qual

ifica

tion

awar

ded

Yes

Leve

l 7 in

the

CRO

QF

Dip

lom

a ce

rtify

ing

the

title

of

Spe

cial

ist

Publ

ic a

nd p

rivat

e un

iver

sitie

s

Act o

n Sc

ient

ific

Activ

ity a

nd

Hig

her E

duca

tion

(OG

123

/03,

19

8/03

, 105

/04,

174

/04,

02/

07,

46/0

7, 4

5/09

, 63/

11, 9

4/13

, 13

9/13

, 101

/14,

60/

15, w

ith la

ter

amen

dmen

ts)

Full

qual

ifica

tion

awar

ded

Yes

Leve

l 7 in

the

CRO

QF


89

Dip

lom

a ce

rtify

ing

the

title

of M

agis

tar z

nano

sti

(Mas

ter o

f Phi

loso

phy)

Publ

ic a

nd p

rivat

e un

iver

sitie

s

Act o

n Sc

ient

ific

Activ

ity a

nd

Hig

her E

duca

tion

(OG

123

/03,

19

8/03

, 105

/04,

174

/04,

02/

07,

46/0

7, 4

5/09

, 63/

11, 9

4/13

, 13

9/13

, 101

/14,

60/

15, w

ith la

ter

amen

dmen

ts)

Full

qual

ifica

tion

awar

ded

Yes

Leve

l 8.1

in th

e CR

OQ

F

Dip

lom

a ce

rtify

ing

the

title

of

Doc

tor o

f Sci

ence

/Art

s (P

hD)

Publ

ic a

nd p

rivat

e un

iver

sitie

s

Act o

n Sc

ient

ific

Activ

ity a

nd

Hig

her E

duca

tion

(OG

123

/03,

19

8/03

, 105

/04,

174

/04,

02/

07,

46/0

7, 4

5/09

, 63/

11, 9

4/13

, 13

9/13

, 101

/14,

60/

15, w

ith la

ter

amen

dmen

ts)

Full

qual

ifica

tion

awar

ded

Yes

Leve

l 8.2

in th

e CR

OQ

F

Stat

e re

gula

ted

qual

ifica

tion

s aw

arde

d ou

tsid

e th

e ed

ucat

ion

syst

em

Not

e: b

elow

are

pre

sent

ed e

xam

ples

of q

ualifi

catio

ns in

the

Croa

tian

qual

ifica

tions

sys

tem

that

cou

ld b

e cl

assi

fied

as st

ate

regu

late

d qu

alifi

catio

ns

awar

ded

outs

ide

the

educ

atio

n sy

stem

.

Cert

ifica

te o

f a d

rivin

g in

stru

ctor

Priv

ate

adul

t ed

ucat

ion

inst

itutio

ns;

Croa

tian

Auto

-clu

b A

ssoc

iatio

n; M

inis

try

of In

tern

al a

ffairs

Act o

n Cr

oatia

n Au

to-c

lub

Ass

ocia

tion

(OG

2/9

4, w

ith la

ter

amen

dmen

ts)

To b

e de

cide

d

Poss

ible

to in

clud

e to

the

CRO

QF

Leve

l – to

be

deci

ded

Cert

ifica

te o

f a

prof

essi

onal

veh

icle

driv

er

for t

rans

port

of d

ange

rous

go

ods

Priv

ate

adul

t ed

ucat

ion

inst

itutio

ns; M

inis

try

of th

e se

a, tr

ansp

ort

and

infr

astr

uctu

re

Act o

n th

e Ca

rria

ge o

f Dan

gero

us

Goo

ds (O

G 7

9/09

with

late

r am

endm

ents

)To

be

deci

ded

Poss

ible

to in

clud

e to

the

CRO

QF

Leve

l – to

be

deci

ded

Cert

ifica

te o

f a b

oat

liede

r’s li

cenc

e –

skip

per

Priv

ate

adul

t ed

ucat

ion

inst

itutio

ns; M

inis

try

of th

e se

a, tr

ansp

ort

and

infr

astr

uctu

re

Act o

n th

e M

ariti

me

Code

(OG

18

1/04

, 76/

07, 6

1/11

, 56/

13, 2

6/15

; O

rdin

ance

on

boat

s an

d ya

chts

(O

G 2

7/05

, 57/

06, 8

0/07

, 03/

08,

18/0

9, 5

6/10

, 97/

12 a

nd 1

37 /

13).

To b

e de

cide

d

Poss

ible

to in

clud

e to

the

CRO

QF

Leve

l – to

be

deci

ded


90

Cert

ifica

te o

f tra

ined

se

afar

er (s

peci

fical

ly fo

r: fo

r des

igne

d se

curit

y du

ties,

for b

ridge

hum

an

reso

urce

man

agem

ent,

etc.

)

Priv

ate

adul

t ed

ucat

ion

inst

itutio

ns;

Mar

itim

e Tr

aini

ng

Cent

re; M

inis

try

of

the

sea,

tran

spor

t and

in

fras

truc

ture

Act o

n th

e M

ariti

me

Code

(OG

18

1/04

, 76/

07, 6

1/11

, 56/

13, 2

6/15

; O

rdin

ance

on

Voca

tion

and

Rank

s fo

r Sea

fare

rs (O

G 1

30/1

3);

To b

e de

cide

d

Poss

ible

to in

clud

e to

the

CRO

QF

Leve

l – to

be

deci

ded

Cert

ifica

te o

f rea

l est

ate

selle

rPr

ivat

e ad

ult

educ

atio

n in

stitu

tions

Law

on

Inst

itutio

ns (O

G n

o. 7

6/93

, 29

/97,

47/

99 a

nd 3

5/08

) and

the

Law

on

Educ

atio

n in

Prim

ary

and

Seco

ndar

y Sc

hool

s (O

G n

o. 8

7/08

, 86

/09,

92/

10, 1

05/1

0, 9

0/11

, 16/

12,

86/1

2, 9

4/13

, 152

/14

and

7/17

)

To b

e de

cide

d

Poss

ible

to in

clud

e to

the

CRO

QF

Leve

l – to

be

deci

ded

Cert

ifica

te o

f soc

ial m

edia

m

arke

ting

prac

titio

ner

Priv

ate

adul

t ed

ucat

ion

inst

itutio

ns

Law

on

Inst

itutio

ns (O

G n

o. 7

6/93

, 29

/97,

47/

99 a

nd 3

5/08

) and

the

Law

on

Educ

atio

n in

Prim

ary

and

Seco

ndar

y Sc

hool

s (O

G n

o. 8

7/08

, 86

/09,

92/

10, 1

05/1

0, 9

0/11

, 16/

12,

86/1

2, 9

4/13

, 152

/14

and

7/17

)

To b

e de

cide

d

Poss

ible

to in

clud

e to

the

CRO

QF

Leve

l – to

be

deci

ded

Cert

ifica

te o

f a m

assa

ge

prac

titio

ner

Priv

ate

adul

t ed

ucat

ion

inst

itutio

ns

Law

on

Inst

itutio

ns (O

G n

o. 7

6/93

, 29

/97,

47/

99 a

nd 3

5/08

) and

the

Law

on

Educ

atio

n in

Prim

ary

and

Seco

ndar

y Sc

hool

s (O

G n

o. 8

7/08

, 86

/09,

92/

10, 1

05/1

0, 9

0/11

, 16/

12,

86/1

2, 9

4/13

, 152

/14

and

7/17

)

To b

e de

cide

d

Poss

ible

to in

clud

e to

the

CRO

QF

Leve

l – to

be

deci

ded

Cert

ifica

te o

f Eur

opea

n Co

mpu

ter D

rivin

g Li

cenc

e (E

CDL)

Publ

ic a

nd p

rivat

e VE

T sc

hool

s an

d Ad

ult

educ

atio

n in

stitu

tions

Law

on

Inst

itutio

ns (O

G n

o. 7

6/93

, 29

/97,

47/

99 a

nd 3

5/08

) and

the

Law

on

Educ

atio

n in

Prim

ary

and

Seco

ndar

y Sc

hool

s (O

G n

o. 8

7/08

, 86

/09,

92/

10, 1

05/1

0, 9

0/11

, 16/

12,

86/1

2, 9

4/13

, 152

/14

and

7/17

)

To b

e de

cide

d

Poss

ible

to in

clud

e to

the

CRO

QF

Leve

l – to

be

deci

ded


91

Cert

ifica

te o

f tou

rist g

uide

Min

istr

y of

Tour

ism

; To

uris

t age

ncy,

Pr

ofes

sion

al

asso

ciat

ion,

Cro

atia

n Ch

ambe

r of E

cono

my;

Cr

oatia

n Ch

ambe

r of

Tra

des

and

Craf

ts,

with

the

prio

r con

sent

of

the

min

iste

r re

spon

sibl

e fo

r to

uris

m

Law

on

the

prov

isio

n of

ser

vice

s in

tour

ism

(Offi

cial

Gaz

ette

68/

07,

88/1

0 an

d 30

/14)

; Ord

inan

ce o

n to

uris

t gui

des

regi

ster

(OG

50/

08);

Ord

inan

ce o

n to

uris

t gui

des

(OG

50

/08)

; (O

G 9

0/08

); (O

G 1

12/0

9);

(OG

33/

10);

(OG

62/

10)

Ord

inan

ce o

n th

e Pr

ofes

sion

al

Exam

inat

ion

for T

ouris

t Gui

des

and

the

Exam

inat

ion

Prog

ram

for

Tour

ist C

ompl

aint

s (O

G 5

0/08

); (O

G 1

20/0

8)

To b

e de

cide

d

Poss

ible

to in

clud

e to

the

CRO

QF

Leve

l – to

be

deci

ded

Non

-sta

te re

gula

ted

qual

ifica

tion

s

Not

e: b

elow

are

exa

mpl

es o

f qua

lifica

tions

in th

e Cr

oatia

n qu

alifi

catio

ns s

yste

m th

at c

ould

be

clas

sifie

d as

non

-sta

te re

gula

ted

qual

ifica

tions

.

Cert

ifica

te o

f a

brea

stfe

edin

g ad

viso

r for

a

mid

wife

s

Croa

tian

Cham

ber

of M

idw

ifes;

Cr

oatia

n Ch

ambe

r of

Phys

icia

ns; L

ife-lo

ng

lear

ning

pro

gram

me

for m

idw

ifes

prov

ided

by

Med

ical

Fac

ulty

(P

ublic

uni

vers

ity);

Med

ical

Law

(OG

no.

121

/03,

11

7/08

); St

atut

e of

the

Croa

tian

Cham

ber o

f Phy

sici

ans

(OG

no.

16

/16)

; The

law

on

mid

wife

s pr

actic

e (O

G 1

20/0

8, 1

45/1

0),

Stat

ute

of th

e Cr

oatia

n Ch

ambe

r of

Mid

wife

s

To b

e de

cide

d

Poss

ible

to in

clud

e to

the

CRO

QF

Leve

l – to

be

deci

ded

Cert

ifica

te o

f a h

ikin

g gu

ide

prac

titio

ner

Non

-pro

fit

orga

nisa

tions

: Hik

ing

club

sN

A

To b

e de

cide

d;

Mar

ket r

ecog

nise

d qu

alifi

catio

n

Poss

ible

to in

clud

e to

the

CRO

QF

Leve

l – to

be

deci

ded

Cert

ifica

te o

f a

brea

stfe

edin

g ad

viso

r

Non

-pro

fit

orga

nisa

tion/

volu

ntar

y or

gani

satio

n

NA

To b

e de

cide

d

Poss

ible

to in

clud

e to

the

CRO

QF

Leve

l – to

be

deci

ded


92

Cert

ifica

te o

f for

eign

la

ngua

ge s

kills

Non

-pro

fit

orga

nisa

tion/

volu

ntar

y or

gani

satio

n; P

rivat

e sc

hool

s; A

dult

educ

atio

n in

stitu

tions

NA

To b

e de

cide

d

Poss

ible

to in

clud

e to

the

CRO

QF

Leve

l – to

be

deci

ded

Cert

ifica

te o

f mak

e-up

ar

tist

Non

-pro

fit

orga

nisa

tion;

Pr

ivat

e co

mm

erci

al

com

pani

es

NA

To b

e de

cide

d

Poss

ible

to in

clud

e to

the

CRO

QF

Leve

l – to

be

deci

ded

Cert

ifica

te o

f bee

keep

er

Non

-pro

fit

orga

nisa

tion/

volu

ntar

y or

gani

satio

n; P

rivat

e sc

hool

s; A

dult

educ

atio

n in

stitu

tions

NA

To b

e de

cide

d;

Mar

ket r

ecog

nise

d qu

alifi

catio

n

Poss

ible

to in

clud

e to

the

CRO

QF

Leve

l – to

be

deci

ded


93

CZEC

H R

EPU

BLIC

Nam

e [t

itle

] of

qual

ifica

tion

Aw

ardi

ng b

ody

Lega

l act

s th

at a

re th

e ba

sis

for

awar

ding

the

qual

ifica

tion

[if

app

licab

le]

Type

of q

ualifi

cati

on

as d

efine

d in

nat

iona

l le

gisl

atio

n/re

gula

tion

s [if

app

licab

le]

Is a

qua

lifica

tion

incl

uded

in

the

NQ

F/re

gist

ry o

f qu

alifi

cati

ons

If ye

s at

wha

t lev

el o

f the

N

QF?

If no

t, ca

n th

e qu

alifi

catio

n be

incl

uded

(doe

s sy

stem

so

lutio

ns)?

Stat

e re

gula

ted

qual

ifica

tion

s aw

arde

d in

the

educ

atio

n sy

stem

Not

e: b

elow

are

list

ed a

ll qu

alifi

catio

ns a

war

ded

in th

e na

tiona

l qua

lifica

tions

sys

tem

in th

e Cz

ech

Repu

blic

that

cou

ld b

e re

ferr

ed to

the

cate

gory

of

stat

e re

gula

ted

qual

ifica

tions

aw

arde

d in

the

educ

atio

n sy

stem

a sc

hool

repo

rt o

n th

e su

cces

sful

com

plet

ion

of b

asic

edu

catio

n (t

he n

inth

gra

de o

r the

te

nth

grad

e of

bas

ic

educ

atio

n, th

e se

cond

gr

ade

of a

six

th-y

ear

seco

ndar

y ge

nera

l sc

hool

(gym

nazi

um),

the

four

th g

rade

of a

n ei

ght-

year

sec

onda

ry g

ener

al

scho

ol (g

ymna

zium

) or

the

eigh

t-ye

ar

educ

atio

nal p

rogr

amm

e of

a c

onse

rvat

oire

), or

a

scho

ol re

port

issu

ed a

fter

su

cces

sful

com

plet

ion

of

the

cour

se fo

r ach

ievi

ng

basi

c ed

ucat

ion

Scho

ol

Act N

o. 5

61 o

f 24t

h Se

ptem

ber

2004

, on

Pre-

scho

ol, B

asic

, Se

cond

ary,

Tert

iary

Pro

fess

iona

l an

d O

ther

Edu

catio

n (t

he

Educ

atio

n Ac

t), w

ith la

ter

amen

dmen

ts, S

ectio

n 54

Gov

ernm

ent R

egul

atio

n N

o. 2

11

of 3

1st M

ay 2

010,

on

field

s of

st

udie

s in

prim

ary,

sec

onda

ry a

nd

high

er v

ocat

iona

l edu

catio

n, a

s am

ende

d

Non

-qua

lifica

tion

cert

ifica

te a

war

ded

in

acco

rdan

ce w

ith th

e Ed

ucat

ion

Act

corr

espo

nds

to E

QF

2 le

vel


94

a sc

hool

repo

rt o

n th

e su

cces

sful

com

plet

ion

of

the

cour

se fo

r ach

ievi

ng

seco

ndar

y ed

ucat

ion

(for

stud

ents

with

spe

cial

ed

ucat

ion

need

s)

Scho

ol

Act N

o. 5

61 o

f 24t

h Se

ptem

ber

2004

, on

Pre-

scho

ol, B

asic

, Se

cond

ary,

Tert

iary

Pro

fess

iona

l an

d O

ther

Edu

catio

n (t

he

Educ

atio

n Ac

t), w

ith la

ter

amen

dmen

ts, S

ectio

n 72

Gov

ernm

ent R

egul

atio

n N

o. 2

11

of 3

1st M

ay 2

010,

on

field

s of

st

udie

s in

prim

ary,

sec

onda

ry a

nd

high

er v

ocat

iona

l edu

catio

n, a

s am

ende

d

Non

-qua

lifica

tion

cert

ifica

te a

war

ded

in

acco

rdan

ce w

ith th

e Ed

ucat

ion

Act

corr

espo

nds

to E

QF

2 le

vel

the

repo

rt o

n th

e fin

al

exam

inat

ion

and

an

appr

entic

eshi

p ce

rtifi

cate

(“

výuč

ní li

st”)

Scho

ol

exam

inat

ion

boar

ds

Act N

o. 5

61 o

f 24t

h Se

ptem

ber

2004

, on

Pre-

scho

ol, B

asic

, Se

cond

ary,

Tert

iary

Pro

fess

iona

l an

d O

ther

Edu

catio

n (t

he

Educ

atio

n Ac

t), w

ith la

ter

amen

dmen

ts, S

ectio

n 72

Gov

ernm

ent R

egul

atio

n N

o. 2

11

of 3

1st M

ay 2

010,

on

field

s of

st

udie

s in

prim

ary,

sec

onda

ry a

nd

high

er v

ocat

iona

l edu

catio

n, a

s am

ende

d

Full

qual

ifica

tion

awar

ded

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith th

e Ed

ucat

ion

Act

corr

espo

nds

to E

QF

3 le

vel

a gr

adua

tion

mat

urita

ce

rtifi

cate

(“m

atur

itní

vysv

ědče

ní”)

Stat

e ex

amin

atio

n bo

ards

; sch

ool

exam

inat

ion

boar

ds

Act N

o. 5

61 o

f 24t

h Se

ptem

ber

2004

, on

Pre-

scho

ol, B

asic

, Se

cond

ary,

Tert

iary

Pro

fess

iona

l an

d O

ther

Edu

catio

n (t

he

Educ

atio

n Ac

t), w

ith la

ter

amen

dmen

ts, S

ectio

n 72

Gov

ernm

ent R

egul

atio

n N

o. 2

11

of 3

1st M

ay 2

010,

on

field

s of

st

udie

s in

prim

ary,

sec

onda

ry a

nd

high

er v

ocat

iona

l edu

catio

n, a

s am

ende

d

Full

qual

ifica

tion

awar

ded

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith th

e Ed

ucat

ion

Act

corr

espo

nds

to E

QF

4 le

vel


95

cert

ifica

te o

f com

plet

ion

of a

con

serv

atoi

re

(“abs

olut

oriu

m”)

an

d a

dipl

oma

of

a co

nser

vato

ire g

radu

ate

Cons

erva

toire

s

Act N

o. 5

61 o

f 24t

h Se

ptem

ber

2004

, on

Pre-

scho

ol, B

asic

, Se

cond

ary,

Tert

iary

Pro

fess

iona

l an

d O

ther

Edu

catio

n (t

he

Educ

atio

n Ac

t), w

ith la

ter

amen

dmen

ts, S

ectio

n 89

Gov

ernm

ent R

egul

atio

n N

o. 2

11

of 3

1st M

ay 2

010,

on

field

s of

st

udie

s in

prim

ary,

sec

onda

ry a

nd

high

er v

ocat

iona

l edu

catio

n, a

s am

ende

d

Full

qual

ifica

tion

awar

ded

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith th

e Ed

ucat

ion

Act

corr

espo

nds

to E

QF

6 le

vel

grad

uatio

n re

port

(“a

bsol

utor

ium

”) a

nd th

e di

plom

a of

a g

radu

ate

of a

tert

iary

pro

fess

iona

l sc

hool

Tert

iary

pr

ofes

sion

al

scho

ols

Act N

o. 5

61 o

f 24t

h Se

ptem

ber

2004

, on

Pre-

scho

ol, B

asic

, Se

cond

ary,

Tert

iary

Pro

fess

iona

l an

d O

ther

Edu

catio

n (t

he

Educ

atio

n Ac

t), w

ith la

ter

amen

dmen

ts, S

ectio

n 10

1

Gov

ernm

ent R

egul

atio

n N

o. 2

11

of 3

1st M

ay 2

010,

on

field

s of

st

udie

s in

prim

ary,

sec

onda

ry a

nd

high

er v

ocat

iona

l edu

catio

n, a

s am

ende

d

Full

qual

ifica

tion

awar

ded

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith th

e Ed

ucat

ion

Act

corr

espo

nds

to E

QF

6 le

vel


96

cert

ifica

tes o

f com

plet

ion

of d

egre

e pr

e-gr

adua

te

stud

ies:

dipl

oma

cert

ifyin

g th

e Ba

chel

or’s

Deg

ree

(titl

e of

“bak

alář

” − B

c.,

“bak

alář

um

ění”

− Bc

A.;

both

title

s ar

e us

ed in

fr

ont o

f the

nam

e)

dipl

oma

cert

ifyin

g th

e M

aste

r’s D

egre

e (t

itle

of

“mag

istr

” − M

gr.,

“mag

istr

um

ění”

− M

gA.,

“inže

nýr”

−

Ing.

, “in

žený

r arc

hite

kt”

− In

g. a

rch.

, “do

ktor

m

edic

íny”

− M

UD

r.,

“dok

tor z

ubní

ho lé

kařs

tví”

− M

DD

r., “d

okto

r ve

terin

ární

med

icín

y” −

M

VDr.;

all

title

s ar

e us

ed

in fr

ont o

f the

nam

e)

Hig

her e

duca

tion

inst

itutio

ns

Act N

o. 1

11 o

f 22n

d A

pril

1998

(A

men

ded

and

Cons

olid

ated

), on

Hig

her E

duca

tion

Inst

itutio

ns

and

on A

men

dmen

ts a

nd

Supp

lem

ents

to s

ome

othe

r Act

s (t

he H

ighe

r Edu

catio

n Ac

t), w

ith

late

r am

endm

ents

, Sec

tion

45

Act N

o. 1

11 o

f 22n

d A

pril

1998

(A

men

ded

and

Cons

olid

ated

), on

Hig

her E

duca

tion

Inst

itutio

ns

and

on A

men

dmen

ts a

nd

Supp

lem

ents

to s

ome

othe

r Act

s (t

he H

ighe

r Edu

catio

n Ac

t), w

ith

late

r am

endm

ents

, Sec

tion

46

Full

qual

ifica

tion

awar

ded

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith th

e H

ighe

r Edu

catio

n Ac

t

Full

qual

ifica

tion

awar

ded

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith th

e H

ighe

r Edu

catio

n Ac

t

corr

espo

nds

to E

QF

6 le

vel

(Bac

helo

r’s D

egre

e)

corr

espo

nds

to E

QF

7 le

vel

(Mas

ter’s

Deg

ree)

cert

ifica

tes o

f com

plet

ion

of d

egre

e po

st-g

radu

ate

stud

ies

in a

dvan

ced

Mas

ter’s

deg

ree

prog

ram

mes

(titl

e of

“d

okto

r prá

v” −

JUD

r.,

“dok

tor fi

lozo

fie” −

PhD

r.,

“dok

tor p

řírod

ních

věd

” −

RND

r., “d

okto

r far

mac

ie”

− Ph

arm

Dr.,

“lic

enci

át

teol

ogie

” − T

hLic

.; “d

okto

r te

olog

ie” −

ThD

r.)

Hig

her e

duca

tion

inst

itutio

ns

Act N

o. 1

11 o

f 22n

d A

pril

1998

(A

men

ded

and

Cons

olid

ated

), on

Hig

her E

duca

tion

Inst

itutio

ns

and

on A

men

dmen

ts a

nd

Supp

lem

ents

to s

ome

othe

r Act

s (t

he H

ighe

r Edu

catio

n Ac

t), w

ith

late

r am

endm

ents

, Sec

tion

46

Adva

nced

qua

lifica

tion

awar

ded

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith th

e H

ighe

r Edu

catio

n Ac

t

corr

espo

nds

to E

QF

7 le

vel


97

cert

ifica

tes o

f com

plet

ion

of d

egre

e po

st-g

radu

ate

stud

ies

in D

octo

ral

degr

ee p

rogr

amm

es

(titl

e of

“dok

tor”

− P

h.D

., th

e tit

le is

use

d af

ter t

he

nam

e)

Hig

her e

duca

tion

inst

itutio

ns

Act N

o. 1

11 o

f 22n

d A

pril

1998

(A

men

ded

and

Cons

olid

ated

), on

Hig

her E

duca

tion

Inst

itutio

ns

and

on A

men

dmen

ts a

nd

Supp

lem

ents

to s

ome

othe

r Act

s (t

he H

ighe

r Edu

catio

n Ac

t), w

ith

late

r am

endm

ents

, Sec

tion

47

Scie

ntifi

c qu

alifi

catio

n aw

arde

d in

acc

orda

nce

with

the

Hig

her E

duca

tion

Act

corr

espo

nds

to E

QF

8 le

vel

Stat

e re

gula

ted

qual

ifica

tion

s aw

arde

d ou

tsid

e th

e ed

ucat

ion

syst

em

Not

e: b

elow

are

pre

sent

ed e

xam

ples

of q

ualifi

catio

ns in

the

Czec

h qu

alifi

catio

ns s

yste

m th

at c

ould

be

clas

sifie

d as

stat

e re

gula

ted

qual

ifica

tions

aw

arde

d ou

tsid

e th

e ed

ucat

ion

syst

em.

Real

Est

ate

Agen

t (O

bcho

dník

s re

alita

mi)

Auth

oris

ed

pers

ons;

au

thor

isin

g bo

dy

− th

e M

inis

try

of R

egio

nal

Dev

elop

men

t of

the

Czec

h Re

publ

ic

(Min

iste

rstv

o pr

o m

ístn

í roz

voj Č

R)

Act N

o. 1

79 o

f 30t

h M

arch

20

06, o

n th

e Ve

rifica

tion

and

Reco

gniti

on o

f Fur

ther

Edu

catio

n Re

sults

Act N

o. 4

55 o

f 2nd

Oct

ober

199

1,

on li

cens

ed tr

ade

(the

Tra

de

Lice

nsin

g Ac

t)

The

Bill

on th

e Re

al E

stat

e Br

oker

age

Serv

ices

Act

(201

6)

Regu

late

d pr

ofes

sion

Qua

lifica

tion

incl

uded

in

the

Nat

iona

l Reg

iste

r of

Qua

lifica

tions

; cor

resp

onds

to

EQ

F 4

leve

l

Det

ectiv

e / I

ntel

ligen

ce

serv

ices

(Det

ektiv

zp

ravo

dajsk

ý pr

acov

ník)

Auth

oris

ed

pers

ons;

au

thor

isin

g bo

dy

− th

e M

inis

try

of

the

Inte

rior o

f the

Cz

ech

Repu

blic

(M

inis

ters

tvo

vnitr

a Če

ské

repu

blik

y)

Act N

o. 1

79 o

f 30t

h M

arch

20

06, o

n th

e Ve

rifica

tion

and

Reco

gniti

on o

f Fur

ther

Edu

catio

n Re

sults

Regu

late

d pr

ofes

sion

Qua

lifica

tion

incl

uded

bot

h in

the

Nat

iona

l Reg

iste

r of

Qua

lifica

tions

and

the

Dat

abas

e of

Reg

ulat

ed

Prof

essi

ons;

cor

resp

onds

to

EQF

6 le

vel


98

Ord

erly

(San

itář)

Min

istr

y of

H

ealth

of t

he

Czec

h Re

publ

ic

(Min

iste

rstv

o zd

ravo

tnic

tví Č

eské

re

publ

iky)

Act N

o. 9

6 of

4th

Feb

ruar

y 20

04,

on n

on-m

edic

al h

ealth

car

e pr

ofes

sion

sRe

gula

ted

prof

essi

on

Qua

lifica

tion

incl

uded

in

the

Dat

abas

e of

Re

gula

ted

Prof

essi

ons;

no

corr

espo

ndin

g EQ

F le

vel

Tax

Advi

ser (

Daň

ový

pora

dce)

Exam

inat

ion

boar

d ap

poin

ted

by th

e Ch

ambe

r of T

ax

Advi

sers

of t

he

Czec

h Re

publ

ic

(Kom

ora

daňo

vých

po

radc

ů ČR

)

Act N

o. 5

23 o

f 20t

h O

ctob

er 1

992,

on

Tax

Adv

isor

y Se

rvic

es a

nd th

e Ch

ambe

r of T

ax A

dvis

ers

of th

e Cz

ech

Repu

blic

Regu

late

d pr

ofes

sion

Qua

lifica

tion

incl

uded

in

the

Dat

abas

e of

Reg

ulat

ed

Prof

essi

ons;

cor

resp

onds

to

EQ

F 6

leve

l (en

try

requ

irem

ents

: Bac

helo

r’s

Deg

ree)

Att

orne

y (A

dvok

át)

Exam

inat

ion

boar

d ap

poin

ted

by th

e Cz

ech

Cham

ber o

f A

ttor

neys

(Čes

ká

advo

kátn

í kom

ora)

Act N

o. 8

5 of

13t

h M

arch

199

6, o

n th

e Le

gal P

rofe

ssio

nRe

gula

ted

prof

essi

on

Qua

lifica

tion

incl

uded

in

the

Dat

abas

e of

Reg

ulat

ed

Prof

essi

ons;

cor

resp

onds

to

EQ

F 7

leve

l (en

try

requ

irem

ents

: Mas

ter’s

D

egre

e in

Law

)

Non

-sta

te re

gula

ted

qual

ifica

tion

s

Not

e: b

elow

are

exa

mpl

es o

f qua

lifica

tions

in th

e Cz

ech

qual

ifica

tions

sys

tem

that

cou

ld b

e cl

assi

fied

as n

on-s

tate

regu

late

d qu

alifi

catio

ns.

ECD

L Ad

vanc

ed

Cert

ifica

teEC

DL

Czec

h Re

publ

icN

/AM

arke

t qua

lifica

tion

Mic

roso

ft O

ffice

Sp

ecia

list E

xper

t (M

OS

Expe

rt)

Bodi

es a

utho

rised

by

Mic

roso

ftN

/AM

arke

t qua

lifica

tion

Auto

desk

− A

utoC

AD

20

12 C

ertifi

ed A

ssoc

iate

Auto

desk

Ce

rtifi

catio

n Ce

ntre

s in

the

Czec

h Re

publ

ic

N/A

Mar

ket q

ualifi

catio

n


99

IREL

AN

D

Nam

e [t

itle

] of q

ualifi

cati

onEn

tity

aw

ardi

ng th

e qu

alifi

cati

on

Lega

l act

s th

at a

re th

e ba

sis

for

awar

ding

the

qual

ifica

tion

[if

app

licab

le]

Type

of q

ualifi

cati

on a

s de

fined

in

nati

onal

legi

slat

ion/

regu

lati

ons

[if a

pplic

able

]

Stat

e re

gula

ted

qual

ifica

tion

s aw

arde

d in

the

educ

atio

n sy

stem

Not

e: b

elow

are

list

ed a

ll qu

alifi

catio

ns a

war

ded

in th

e na

tiona

l qua

lifica

tions

sys

tem

in Ir

elan

d th

at c

ould

be

refe

rred

to th

e ca

tego

ry o

f sta

te

regu

late

d qu

alifi

catio

ns a

war

ded

in th

e ed

ucat

ion

syst

em

Juni

or C

ertifi

cate

for

com

plet

ing

low

er s

econ

dary

sc

hool

Dep

artm

ent o

f Edu

catio

n &

Sk

ills

Maj

or a

war

d in

the

NQ

F at

Lev

el 3

Leav

ing

Cert

ifica

te

Esta

blis

hed

for c

ompl

etio

n of

se

cond

ary

scho

ol

Dep

artm

ent o

f Edu

catio

n &

Sk

ills

Maj

or a

war

d in

the

NQ

F at

Lev

el 5

Leav

ing

Cert

ifica

te A

pplie

d fo

r com

plet

ion

of s

econ

dary

sc

hool

Dep

artm

ent o

f Edu

catio

n &

Sk

ills

Maj

or a

war

d on

the

NQ

F at

leve

l 4

Nat

iona

l Adv

ance

d Ce

rtifi

cate

for R

egul

ated

Cra

ft

Qua

lifica

tions

QQ

I

DIT

Act

199

2

Educ

atio

n Ac

t 199

8

Qua

lifica

tions

(Edu

catio

n &

Tr

aini

ng) A

ct 1

999

Qua

lifica

tions

and

Qua

lity

Act

2012

Maj

or a

war

d on

the

NQ

F at

Lev

el 6


100

Hig

her C

ertifi

cate

for

achi

evem

ent o

f low

er s

tage

of

bach

elor

leve

l stu

dies

QQ

I and

/or h

ighe

r edu

catio

n pr

ovid

ers

DIT

Act

199

2

Uni

vers

ity A

ct 1

997

Educ

atio

n Ac

t 199

8

Qua

lifica

tions

(Edu

catio

n &

Tr

aini

ng) A

ct 1

999

Qua

lifica

tions

and

Qua

lity

Act

2012

Maj

or a

war

d on

the

NQ

F at

Lev

el 6

Bach

elor

Deg

ree

(Ord

inar

y)

QQ

I and

/or h

ighe

r edu

catio

n pr

ovid

ers

DIT

Act

199

2

Uni

vers

ity A

ct 1

997

Educ

atio

n Ac

t 199

8

Qua

lifica

tions

(Edu

catio

n &

Tr

aini

ng) A

ct 1

999

Qua

lifica

tions

and

Qua

lity

Act

2012

Maj

or a

war

d on

the

NQ

F at

Lev

el 7

Bach

elor

Deg

ree

(Hon

ours

)Q

QI a

nd/o

r hig

her e

duca

tion

prov

ider

s

DIT

Act

199

2

Uni

vers

ity A

ct 1

997

Educ

atio

n Ac

t 199

8

Qua

lifica

tions

(Edu

catio

n &

Tr

aini

ng) A

ct 1

999

Qua

lifica

tions

and

Qua

lity

Act

2012

Maj

or a

war

d on

the

NQ

F at

Lev

el 8


101

Hig

her D

iplo

ma

Hig

her e

duca

tion

inst

itutio

ns/

prov

ider

s

DIT

Act

199

2

Uni

vers

ity A

ct 1

997

Educ

atio

n Ac

t 199

8

Qua

lifica

tions

(Edu

catio

n &

Tr

aini

ng) A

ct 1

999

Qua

lifica

tions

and

Qua

lity

Act

2012

Maj

or a

war

d on

the

NQ

F at

Lev

el 8

Post

grad

uate

Dip

lom

aH

ighe

r edu

catio

n in

stitu

tions

/pr

ovid

ers

DIT

Act

199

2

Uni

vers

ity A

ct 1

997

Educ

atio

n Ac

t 199

8

Qua

lifica

tions

(Edu

catio

n &

Tr

aini

ng) A

ct 1

999

Qua

lifica

tions

and

Qua

lity

Act

2012

Maj

or a

war

d on

the

NQ

F at

Lev

el 9

Mas

ters

Hig

her e

duca

tion

inst

itutio

ns/

prov

ider

s

DIT

Act

199

2

Uni

vers

ity A

ct 1

997

Educ

atio

n Ac

t 199

8

Qua

lifica

tions

(Edu

catio

n &

Tr

aini

ng) A

ct 1

999

Qua

lifica

tions

and

Qua

lity

Act

2012

Maj

or a

war

d on

the

NQ

F at

Lev

el 9


102

Doc

tora

te/P

hDH

ighe

r edu

catio

n in

stitu

tions

/pr

ovid

ers

DIT

Act

199

2

Uni

vers

ity A

ct 1

997

Educ

atio

n Ac

t 199

8

Qua

lifica

tions

(Edu

catio

n &

Tr

aini

ng) A

ct 1

999

Qua

lifica

tions

and

Qua

lity

Act

2012

Maj

or a

war

d on

the

NQ

F at

Lev

el 1

0

Stat

e re

gula

ted

qual

ifica

tion

s aw

arde

d ou

tsid

e th

e ed

ucat

ion

syst

em

Not

e: b

elow

are

pre

sent

ed e

xam

ples

of q

ualifi

catio

ns in

the

Irish

qua

lifica

tions

sys

tem

that

cou

ld b

e cl

assi

fied

as st

ate

regu

late

d qu

alifi

catio

ns

awar

ded

outs

ide

the

educ

atio

n sy

stem

.

Secu

rity

Offi

cer

Priv

ate

Secu

rity

Auth

ority

N

/ARe

gula

ted

qual

ifica

tion

Tax

cons

ulta

ntIri

sh T

ax In

stitu

teN

/ARe

gula

ted

qual

ifica

tion

App

rove

d D

rivin

g In

stru

ctor

Road

Saf

ety

Auth

ority

N/A

Regu

late

d qu

alifi

catio

n

Build

ing

Ener

gy R

egul

ator

Sust

aina

ble

Ener

gy A

utho

rity

of

Irela

ndBu

ildin

g Co

ntro

l Act

200

7Re

gula

ted

qual

ifica

tion

Gas

Inst

alle

r Re

gist

er o

f Gas

Inst

alle

rs o

f Ire

land

N

/ARe

gula

ted

qual

ifica

tion

Psyc

hoth

erap

ist (

and

11 o

ther

pr

ofes

sion

s)D

epar

tmen

t of H

ealth

Hea

lth a

nd S

ocia

l Car

e Pr

ofes

sion

al A

ct 2

005

Regu

late

d pr

ofes

sion

s an

d oc

cupa

tions

Non

-sta

te re

gula

ted

qual

ifica

tion

s

Not

e: b

elow

are

exa

mpl

es o

f qua

lifica

tions

in th

e Iri

sh q

ualifi

catio

ns s

yste

m th

at c

ould

be

clas

sifie

d as

non

-sta

te re

gula

ted

qual

ifica

tions

.

Air

Traffi

c Co

ntro

ller

Irish

Avi

atio

n Au

thor

ity N

/ASe

ctor

qua

lifica

tion

Pest

icid

e Ad

viso

r D

epar

tmen

t of A

gric

ultu

re,

Food

and

the

Mar

ine

5.1

No

155

of 2

012

Euro

pean

Co

mm

issi

on (S

usta

inab

le U

se o

f Pe

stic

ides

) Reg

ulat

ions

Mar

ket q

ualifi

catio

n


103

10

HU

NG

ARY

Not

e: Q

ualifi

cati

on a

nd C

erti

ficat

ion

The

term

s qua

lifica

tion

and

cert

ifica

te (a

nd th

eir H

unga

rian

tran

slat

ions

) do

not s

eem

to b

e su

ffici

ently

pre

cise

for t

he a

dequ

ate

nam

ing

of th

e ce

rtify

ing

docu

men

ts. D

espi

te th

e fa

ct th

at le

gal r

egul

atio

ns a

rran

ge fo

r the

nam

es a

nd ty

pes o

f the

issu

able

cert

ifyin

g do

cum

ents

10, t

he u

se in

Hun

gary

ca

nnot

be

cons

ider

ed m

atur

e.

Base

d on

cur

rent

lega

l reg

ulat

ions

, the

type

s of d

ocum

ents

issu

ed m

ay b

e th

e fo

llow

ing:

■■Le

avin

g ce

rtifi

cate

s of p

rimar

y, se

cond

ary

and

spec

ial s

choo

ls;

■■Ce

rtifi

cate

of s

econ

dary

scho

ol le

avin

g ex

amin

atio

n (M

atur

ity)

■■H

ighe

r edu

catio

n di

plom

a is

a co

mbi

natio

n of

a d

egre

e (B

ache

lor o

r Mas

ter)

and

a p

rofe

ssio

nal q

ualifi

catio

n;

■■Vo

catio

nal Q

ualifi

catio

ns re

cogn

ised

by

the

Stat

e; th

ey c

an b

e pa

rtia

l, ad

d-on

and

full

qual

ifica

tions

and

regi

ster

ed in

the

NVQ

R, s

igni

fican

t pro

port

ion

of N

VQR

qual

ifica

tions

can

be a

cqui

red

outs

ide

of th

e ed

ucat

ion

syst

em a

s wel

l;

■■Ce

rtifi

cate

s iss

ued

in th

e no

n-fo

rmal

sect

or (w

hich

, in

Hun

garia

n m

eani

ng, c

ertifi

es th

e le

arni

ng o

utco

mes

bas

ed o

n so

me

sort

of a

sses

smen

t, ex

amin

atio

n);

■■Ce

rtifi

catio

n of

Att

enda

nce,

pro

ving

one

’s pa

rtic

ipat

ion

in th

e tr

aini

ng.

The

use

of th

e la

tter

two

is n

ot a

lway

s con

sist

ent.

10 T

he la

ws

regu

latin

g th

e in

divi

dual

sec

tors

of t

he e

duca

tion

and

trai

ning

sys

tem

cle

arly

sta

te w

hat c

losi

ng d

ocum

ent c

an b

e is

sued

for e

ach

trai

ning

.


104

Nam

e [t

itle

] of

a qu

alifi

cati

on11

Aw

ardi

ng b

ody

Lega

l act

s th

at a

re th

e ba

sis

for a

war

ding

the

qual

ifica

tion

[if

app

licab

le]

Type

of q

ualifi

cati

on

as d

efine

d in

nat

iona

l le

gisl

atio

n/re

gula

tion

s [if

app

licab

le]

Is a

qua

lifica

tion

in

clud

ed in

the

NQ

F/re

gist

ry o

f qu

alifi

cati

ons

If ye

s at

wha

t lev

el o

f the

N

QF?

If no

t, ca

n th

e qu

alifi

catio

n be

incl

uded

(d

o th

e re

quire

d sy

stem

ic

solu

tions

exi

st?)

Stat

e re

gula

ted

qual

ifica

tion

s aw

arde

d in

the

educ

atio

n sy

stem

Prim

ary

scho

ol le

avin

g ce

rtifi

cate

Publ

ic e

duca

tion

inst

itutio

ns w

hich

ca

n be

pub

lic a

nd

priv

ate

(foun

datio

n,

priv

ate

com

pany

, ch

urch

es, e

tc.)

prov

ider

s as

wel

l

The

Act o

n Pu

blic

Edu

catio

n Ce

rtifi

cate

of b

asic

ed

ucat

iona

l att

ainm

ent

Yes,

HuQ

F le

vel 2

11 A

ccor

ding

to le

gal r

egul

atio

n, d

egre

e as

an

offici

al d

ocum

ent c

an o

nly

be is

sued

by

a hi

gher

edu

catio

n in

stitu

tion,

aft

er th

e ex

amin

ee h

as s

ucce

ssfu

lly ta

ken

the

requ

ired

exam

s. A

“cer

tifica

te” c

an b

e is

sued

in g

ener

al e

duca

tion,

aft

er th

e co

mpl

etio

n of

prim

ary

and

seco

ndar

y le

vel e

duca

tion,

whe

reas

VET

inst

itutio

ns

can

issu

e qu

alifi

catio

ns. N

VQR

qual

ifica

tions

can

als

o be

obt

aine

d in

a c

ours

e ou

tsid

e th

e sc

hool

sys

tem

(bas

ed o

n a

succ

essf

ul w

ritte

n an

d pr

actic

al e

xam

inat

i-on

). In

the

case

of c

ours

es, d

iffer

ent t

rain

ings

out

side

the

NVQ

R, “o

nly”

a c

ertifi

cate

can

be

issu

ed (e

xcep

t the

aut

horit

y re

gula

ted

qual

ifica

tions

). Pr

esen

tly th

ere

is a

ser

ious

con

fusi

on in

the

trai

ning

mar

ket r

egar

ding

the

nam

es a

nd re

al s

tatu

s of

the

issu

ed c

ertifi

cate

s. Tr

aini

ng c

ompa

nies

like

usi

ng im

pres

sive

nam

es

othe

rwis

e po

sitiv

ely

acce

pted

by

trai

ning

par

ticip

ants

, whi

ch h

ave

no le

gal b

asis

. In

mos

t cas

es th

e te

rm “d

egre

e” a

nd d

iffer

ent f

orei

gn n

ames

suc

h as

“cer

tifica

-te

” are

fash

iona

ble.


105

Cert

ifica

te o

f com

plet

ing

Brid

ge I

prog

ram

me

Des

igna

ted

publ

ic e

duca

tion

inst

itutio

ns b

y a

Gov

ernm

ent

deci

sion

The

Act o

n Pu

blic

Edu

catio

n an

d Vo

catio

nal E

duca

tion

and

Trai

ning

Brid

ge I.

pro

gram

me

is s

peci

al c

atch

-up

prog

ram

me

prep

arin

g st

uden

ts fo

r fur

ther

st

udie

s w

ho d

id n

ot

finis

h pr

imar

y sc

hool

and

ge

t int

o se

cond

ary

leve

l ed

ucat

ion.

Yes,

HuQ

F le

vel 2

Cert

ifica

te o

f com

plet

ing

Brid

ge II

. pro

gram

me

Des

igna

ted

voca

tiona

l edu

catio

n in

stitu

tions

by

a G

over

nmen

t de

cisi

on

The

Act o

n Pu

blic

Edu

catio

n an

d Vo

catio

nal E

duca

tion

and

Trai

ning

Cert

ifica

te p

rove

s th

e co

mpl

etio

n of

prim

ary

scho

ol a

nd p

artia

l VET

qu

alifi

catio

n

Yes,

HuQ

F le

vel 2

Leav

ing

cert

ifica

te o

f ski

lls

deve

lopi

ng s

peci

al v

ocat

iona

l sc

hool

Spec

ial v

ocat

iona

l sc

hool

s, pu

blic

and

pr

ivat

e

The

Act o

n Vo

catio

nal

Educ

atio

n an

d Tr

aini

ng,

Gov

ernm

ent D

ecre

e on

NVQ

R Pa

rtia

l qua

lifica

tion

Yes,

HuQ

F le

vel 2

Leav

ing

cert

ifica

te a

nd

VET

qual

ifica

tion

of s

peci

al

voca

tiona

l sch

ool

Spec

ial v

ocat

iona

l sc

hool

s, pu

blic

and

pr

ivat

e

The

Act o

n Vo

catio

nal

Educ

atio

n an

d Tr

aini

ng,

Gov

ernm

ent D

ecre

e on

NVQ

R

Full

and

part

ial

qual

ifica

tions

Yes,

HuQ

F le

vel 3

Leav

ing

cert

ifica

te o

f se

cond

ary

scho

ol

Seco

ndar

y sc

hool

s w

hich

can

be

publ

ic a

nd p

rivat

e (fo

unda

tion,

priv

ate

com

pany

, chu

rche

s, et

c.) p

rovi

ders

as

wel

l

The

Act o

n Pu

blic

Edu

catio

n

Seco

ndar

y sc

hool

le

avin

g ce

rtifi

cate

is a

pr

oof o

f acc

ompl

ishm

ent

of s

econ

dary

edu

catio

n an

d it

is re

quire

d to

ta

ke a

sec

onda

ry s

choo

l le

avin

g ex

amin

atio

n.

Yes,

HuQ

F le

vel 4


106

Cert

ifica

te o

f sec

onda

ry s

choo

l le

avin

g ex

amin

atio

n (M

atur

ity)

Seco

ndar

y sc

hool

s, pu

blic

and

priv

ate

The

Act o

n Pu

blic

Edu

catio

n,

Gov

ernm

ent D

ecre

e on

the

seco

ndar

y sc

hool

leav

ing

exam

inat

ion

requ

irem

ents

.

Cert

ifica

te o

f sec

onda

ry

scho

ol le

avin

g ex

amin

atio

n is

par

tly a

pr

ereq

uisi

te fo

r ent

erin

g th

e te

rtia

ry e

duca

tion

and

for s

ome

trai

ning

pr

ogra

mm

es le

adin

g to

VE

T qu

alifi

catio

ns.

Yes,

HuQ

F le

vel 4

NVQ

R Vo

catio

nal q

ualifi

catio

nVE

T sc

hool

s, pu

blic

and

priv

ate

prov

ider

s

The

Act o

n Vo

catio

nal

Educ

atio

n an

d Tr

aini

ng,

Gov

ernm

ent D

ecre

e on

NVQ

R

NVQ

R pa

rtia

l voc

atio

nal

qual

ifica

tions

, whi

ch

qual

ify h

olde

rs fo

r filli

ng

at le

ast o

ne s

cope

of

wor

k.

Yes,

HuQ

F le

vel 2

,3,4

(NVQ

R) V

ocat

iona

l qu

alifi

catio

n

VET

scho

ols,

publ

ic a

nd p

rivat

e pr

ovid

ers

The

Act o

n Vo

catio

nal

Educ

atio

n an

d Tr

aini

ng,

Gov

ernm

ent D

ecre

e on

NVQ

R

NVQ

R ad

d-on

qu

alifi

catio

ns –

giv

e sp

ecia

l exp

ertis

e to

su

pple

men

t an

alre

ady

exis

ting

qual

ifica

tion

Yes,

HuQ

F le

vel 3

,4,5

NVQ

R Vo

catio

nal q

ualifi

catio

n VE

T sc

hool

s, pu

blic

and

priv

ate

prov

ider

s

The

Act o

n Vo

catio

nal

Educ

atio

n an

d Tr

aini

ng,

Gov

ernm

ent D

ecre

e on

NVQ

R

Full

voca

tiona

l qu

alifi

catio

ns

Yes,

HuQ

F le

vel 3

, 4, 5

, 6

Hig

her v

ocat

iona

l edu

catio

n qu

alifi

catio

nH

ighe

r edu

catio

n in

stitu

tions

, pu

blic

and

priv

ate

prov

ider

s

Act o

n hi

gher

edu

catio

n,

Gov

ernm

ent d

ecre

e on

th

e lis

t of h

ighe

r edu

catio

n co

urse

s, M

inis

teria

l dec

ree

on

the

educ

atio

n an

d tr

aini

ng

outc

omes

requ

irem

ent o

f hi

gher

edu

catio

n co

urse

s.

Full

qual

ifica

tion

afte

r fini

shin

g hi

gher

ed

ucat

ion

shor

t cyc

le

trai

ning

pro

gram

mes

bu

t do

not g

ive

high

er

educ

atio

n de

gree

and

no

t equ

ival

ent w

ith

dipl

oma.

Yes,

HuQ

F le

vel 5


107

Hig

her e

duca

tion

dipl

oma

(Bac

helo

r deg

ree

+ hi

gher

ed

ucat

ion

qual

ifica

tion,

BA

, BS

c)

Hig

her e

duca

tion

inst

itutio

ns,

publ

ic a

nd p

rivat

e pr

ovid

ers

Act o

n hi

gher

edu

catio

n,

Gov

ernm

ent d

ecre

e on

th

e lis

t of h

ighe

r edu

catio

n co

urse

s, M

inis

teria

l dec

ree

on

the

educ

atio

n an

d tr

aini

ng

outc

omes

requ

irem

ent o

f hi

gher

edu

catio

n co

urse

s.

Full

qual

ifica

tion

Yes,

HuQ

F le

vel 6

Hig

her e

duca

tion

dipl

oma

(Mas

ter d

egre

e +

high

er

educ

atio

n qu

alifi

catio

n, M

A,

MSc

)

Hig

her e

duca

tion

inst

itutio

ns,

publ

ic a

nd p

rivat

e pr

ovid

ers

Act o

n hi

gher

edu

catio

n,

Gov

ernm

ent d

ecre

e on

th

e lis

t of h

ighe

r edu

catio

n co

urse

s, M

inis

teria

l dec

ree

on

the

educ

atio

n an

d tr

aini

ng

outc

omes

requ

irem

ent o

f hi

gher

edu

catio

n co

urse

s.

Full

qual

ifica

tion

Yes,

HuQ

F le

vel 7

PhD

deg

ree

Hig

her e

duca

tion

inst

itutio

ns,

publ

ic a

nd p

rivat

e pr

ovid

ers

Act o

n hi

gher

edu

catio

n,

Gov

ernm

ent d

ecre

e on

do

ctor

al s

choo

ls, p

roce

dure

s fo

r doc

tora

l tra

inin

g an

d ha

bilit

atio

n

Scie

ntifi

c de

gree

Ye

s, H

uQF

leve

l 8


108

Post

grad

uate

spe

cial

isat

ion

trai

ning

cer

tifica

te (i

n H

E)H

ighe

r edu

catio

n in

stitu

tions

, pu

blic

and

priv

ate

prov

ider

s

Act o

n hi

gher

edu

catio

n,

Min

iste

rial d

ecre

e on

the

gene

ral c

ondi

tions

for

orga

nisa

tion

of p

ostg

radu

ate

spec

ialis

atio

n tr

aini

ng

Thes

e 2-

or 4

-yea

r-lo

ng

prog

ram

mes

that

can

be

cho

sen

afte

r the

BA

/BSc

or M

A/M

Sc

prog

ram

me

do n

ot g

ive

high

er le

vel d

egre

e.

They

are

pra

ctic

e-or

ient

ed s

peci

alis

ing

trai

ning

s, w

hich

de

epen

or b

road

en th

e pr

ofes

sion

al k

now

ledg

e ce

rtifi

ed b

y th

e BA

/BS

c or

MA

/MSc

deg

ree,

an

d th

ey m

ay b

e th

e cr

iteria

for a

noth

er jo

b in

a w

orkp

lace

. Hig

her

educ

atio

n in

stitu

tions

de

cide

on

post

grad

uate

sp

ecia

lisat

ion

trai

ning

s in

th

eir o

wn

pow

er.

Yes,

HuQ

F le

vel 6

, 7


109

Stat

e re

gula

ted

qual

ifica

tion

s aw

arde

d ou

tsid

e th

e ed

ucat

ion

syst

em

NVQ

R vo

catio

nal q

ualifi

catio

n8 Ad

ult t

rain

ing

prov

ider

s, pu

blic

or

priv

ate

Act o

n Ad

ult T

rain

ing

(typ

e A

tr

aini

ngs)

, Gov

ernm

ent D

ecre

e on

NVQ

RFu

ll qu

alifi

catio

n 3,

4, 5

, 6

Oth

er v

ocat

iona

l tra

inin

g ce

rtifi

cate

Adul

t tra

inin

g pr

ovid

ers,

publ

ic o

r pr

ivat

e

Act o

n Ad

ult T

rain

ing

(typ

e B

trai

ning

s)

So-c

alle

d “o

ther

vo

catio

nal t

rain

ings

” or

thos

e re

gist

ered

by

the

Hun

garia

n Ch

ambe

r of

Com

mer

ce a

nd

Indu

stry

(HCC

I), w

hose

vo

catio

nal p

rogr

amm

e re

quire

men

ts (V

PRs)

ha

ve to

be

acce

pted

in a

sp

ecia

l pro

cedu

re.

Any

leve

l exc

ludi

ng 1

an

d 8

depe

ndin

g on

the

entr

y re

quire

men

ts a

nd

lear

ning

out

com

es

Fore

ign

lang

uage

cer

tifica

teAc

cred

ited

lang

uage

ex

amin

atio

n ce

ntre

s

Act o

n Ad

ult T

rain

ing

(typ

e C

lang

uage

trai

ning

),

Gov

ernm

ent D

ecre

e on

pr

oced

ures

of s

tate

reco

gnis

ed

fore

ign

lang

uage

exa

min

atio

n an

d fo

reig

n la

ngua

ge

cert

ifica

tes

(137

/200

8 G

ov.

decr

ee)

Cert

ifica

te p

rovi

ng

fore

ign

lang

uage

pr

ofici

ency

N

ot in

the

HuQ

F

Cert

ifica

te o

f ‘oth

er tr

aini

ng

prog

ram

mes

’

Adul

t tra

inin

g in

stitu

tions

: pu

blic

and

pr

ivat

e pr

ovid

ers,

com

pani

es

(inte

rnal

trai

ning

in

ente

rpris

es)

Act o

n Ad

ult T

rain

ing,

Typ

e D

: (e.

g. ca

tch-

up p

rogr

amm

es,

gene

ral c

ompe

tenc

e de

velo

pmen

t tra

inin

gs,

supp

orte

d w

orkp

lace

trai

ning

s)

Cert

ifica

te o

f pa

rtic

ipat

ion

(In th

is

cate

gory

ther

e ar

e no

el

abor

ated

pro

gram

me

requ

irem

ents

)

Not

in th

e H

uQF

12 S

igni

fican

t pro

port

ion

of N

VQR

voca

tiona

l qua

lifica

tions

can

be

awar

ded

afte

r exa

min

atio

ns o

f adu

lt tr

aini

ng c

ours

es. I

n th

is c

ase

the

form

of t

rain

ing

deliv

ery

is o

utsi

de o

f edu

catio

n sy

stem

, but

the

exam

inat

ion

requ

irem

ents

are

iden

tical

.


110

Qua

lifica

tion

of a

utho

rity

regu

late

d tr

aini

ng a

nd

spec

ialis

ed p

rofe

ssio

nal

trai

ning

s

Min

istr

ies

and/

or

auth

oris

ed p

rovi

ders

Sect

oral

law

s an

d/or

diff

eren

t se

ctor

al g

over

nmen

t dec

rees

Regu

late

d se

ctor

al

qual

ifica

tions

Prac

ticin

g ce

rtai

n jo

bs

in le

gal a

nd m

edic

al

prof

essi

onal

pos

ition

s re

quire

s sp

ecia

lised

ad

ditio

nal p

rofe

ssio

nal

trai

ning

Not

in th

e H

uQF

Cert

ifica

te o

btai

nabl

e w

ithin

se

ctor

al c

ontin

uing

in-s

ervi

ce

trai

ning

Min

istr

ies

and

accr

edite

d pr

ovid

ers

Sect

oral

law

s (fo

r tea

cher

s, so

cial

wor

kers

, jur

ists

, hea

lth

sect

or, p

ublic

adm

inis

trat

ion,

et

c.)

Cert

ifica

te o

f man

dato

ry

cred

it-ba

sed

cont

inui

ng

in-s

ervi

ce tr

aini

ng

syst

em

Not

in th

e H

uQF

Mas

ter c

raft

sman

title

H

unga

rian

Cham

ber

of C

omm

erce

and

In

dust

ry, H

unga

rian

Cham

ber o

f Ag

ricul

ture

Law

of e

cono

mic

cha

mbe

rs

Act o

n Vo

catio

nal T

rain

ing

This

is n

ot a

qua

lifica

tion

but a

title

Thos

e al

read

y ha

ving

a

qual

ifica

tion

can

take

a

mas

ter c

raft

sman

ex

amin

atio

n af

ter s

ever

al

year

s of

pro

fess

iona

l pr

actic

e.

Not

in th

e H

uQF

Non

-sta

te re

gula

ted

qual

ifica

tion

s

Not

e: N

on-r

egul

ated

adu

lt tr

aini

ngs o

pera

ting

as a

so ca

lled

“fre

e m

arke

t” se

rvic

e, w

hich

usu

ally

incl

ude

non-

supp

orte

d w

orkp

lace

trai

ning

s, or

– in

a

mor

e re

stric

ted

defin

ition

– in

-com

pany

trai

ning

s.

Sect

or/C

ompa

ny/A

ssoc

iatio

n ce

rtifi

cate

s ac

cept

ed

inte

rnat

iona

lly

Lice

nsed

pro

vide

r, in

tern

atio

nal

orga

nisa

tion,

N

A

Qua

lifica

tion,

whe

re

prog

ram

mes

are

bas

ed

on li

cenc

e. IT

: Ora

cle,

Ci

sco,

Mic

roso

ft, S

port

’s Co

ach/

Trai

ner,

etc.

)

Not

in th

e H

uQF

Cert

ifica

te a

fter

com

plet

ing

com

pete

nce

deve

lopm

ent

trai

ning

pro

gram

mes

Trai

ning

pro

vide

rs in

th

e fr

ee m

arke

tN

AN

AN

ot in

the

HuQ

F


111

cert

ifyin

g do

cum

ents

13 is

sued

on

the

free

trai

ning

mar

ket

(ex:

in-c

ompa

ny tr

aini

ng)

Trai

ning

pro

vide

rLa

w o

f the

com

men

cing

, co

nduc

ting

and

gene

ral

cond

ition

s of

ser

vice

pro

visi

ons

NA

Not

in th

e H

uQF

Sect

oral

, int

erna

tiona

l ce

rtifi

cate

s (e

x.: E

CDL

cert

ifica

te)

Jano

s N

eum

ann

com

pute

r – s

cien

ce

asso

ciat

ion

NA

ECD

L ce

rtifi

cate

Not

in th

e H

uQF

13 A

lthou

gh th

ere

are

lega

l reg

ulat

ions

for p

ossi

ble

nam

es o

f the

pap

ers,

prac

tical

ly v

ario

us n

ames

are

use

d.


112

FRA

NCE

Nam

e [t

itle

] of q

ualifi

cati

onA

war

ding

bod

yLe

gal a

cts

that

are

the

basi

s fo

r aw

ardi

ng th

e qu

alifi

cati

on

[if a

pplic

able

]

Type

of q

ualifi

cati

on a

s de

fined

in

nati

onal

legi

slat

ion/

regu

lati

ons

[if a

pplic

able

]

Stat

e re

gula

ted

qual

ifica

tion

s aw

arde

d in

the

educ

atio

n sy

stem

Not

e: b

elow

are

list

ed a

ll qu

alifi

catio

ns a

war

ded

in th

e na

tiona

l qua

lifica

tions

sys

tem

in F

ranc

e th

at c

ould

be

refe

rred

to th

e ca

tego

ry o

f sta

te

regu

late

d qu

alifi

catio

ns

CAP

(cer

tifica

te o

f pro

fess

iona

l co

mpe

tenc

e)M

inis

try

of E

duca

tion

regi

onal

bo

ards

A

rtic

les

D 3

37-1

à D

337

-25

of th

e Ed

ucat

ion

code

Qua

lifica

tion

deve

lope

d on

the

reco

mm

enda

tion

of c

onsu

ltativ

e pr

ofes

sion

al c

omm

ittee

CAPA

(cer

tifica

te o

f ag

ricul

tura

l pro

fess

iona

l co

mpe

tenc

e)

Min

istr

y of

Agr

icul

ture

Reg

iona

l bo

ards

Dec

ree

n° 2

015-

555

of 1

9 m

ay

2015

rela

ting

to g

ener

al re

gula

tion

of th

e ag

ricul

tura

l CA

P

Qua

lifica

tion

deve

lope

d on

the

reco

mm

enda

tion

of c

onsu

ltativ

e pr

ofes

sion

al c

omm

ittee

Voca

tiona

l bac

cala

uréa

t an

d Vo

catio

nal a

gric

ultu

ral

bacc

alau

réat

Min

istr

y of

Edu

catio

n/Ag

ricul

ture

Reg

iona

l boa

rds

Art

icle

s D

.337

-51

à D

337-

94 o

f the

Ed

ucat

ion

Code

Qua

lifica

tion

deve

lope

d on

the

reco

mm

enda

tion

of c

onsu

ltativ

e pr

ofes

sion

al c

omm

ittee

BTS

(hig

her t

echn

icia

n ce

rtifi

cate

) M

inis

try

of E

duca

tion

Regi

onal

bo

ards

Dec

ree

n° 9

5-66

5 of

9 m

ay 1

995

on h

ighe

r tec

hnic

ian

cert

ifica

te

gene

ral r

egul

atio

n

Qua

lifica

tion

deve

lope

d on

the

reco

mm

enda

tion

of c

onsu

ltativ

e pr

ofes

sion

al c

omm

ittee

BTSA

(hig

her a

gric

ultu

ral

tech

nici

an ce

rtifi

cate

) M

inis

try

of A

gric

ultu

re R

egio

nal

boar

dsRu

ral a

nd m

ariti

me

fishe

ries

code

, ar

ticle

s D

811-

139

Qua

lifica

tion

deve

lope

d on

the

reco

mm

enda

tion

of c

onsu

ltativ

e pr

ofes

sion

al c

omm

ittee

DU

T (U

nive

rsity

tech

nolo

gica

l di

plom

a)IU

T (U

nive

rsity

tech

nolo

gica

l in

stitu

te)

Ord

er o

f 3 A

ugus

t 200

5 pu

blis

hed

in F

renc

h O

ffici

al G

azet

te (J

O) o

f 13

Aug

ust 2

005

Nat

iona

l hig

her e

duca

tion

dipl

omas

−

Qua

lifica

tion

deve

lope

d on

the

reco

mm

enda

tion

of a

nat

iona

l pe

dago

gica

l com

mis

sion


113

Bach

elor

s

Hig

her i

nstit

utio

ns a

ccre

dite

d by

the

min

istr

y of

hig

her

educ

atio

n/CN

ESER

to is

sue

bach

elor

s

(i.e.

uni

vers

ities

, CN

AM

−

Nat

iona

l Con

serv

ator

y of

Art

s an

d Cr

afts

, bus

ines

s sc

hool

s, sc

hool

s of

art

s…)

Ord

er o

f 23

Apr

il 20

02 re

latin

g to

uni

vers

ity s

tudi

es le

adin

g to

ba

chel

or d

egre

eN

atio

nal h

ighe

r edu

catio

n di

plom

as

Voca

tiona

l bac

helo

rs

Hig

her i

nstit

utio

ns a

ccre

dite

d by

the

min

istr

y of

hig

her

educ

atio

n/CN

ESER

to is

sue

voca

tiona

l bac

helo

rs

(i.e.

uni

vers

ity d

epar

tmen

t, U

nive

rsity

tech

nolo

gica

l in

stitu

te…

)

Ord

er o

f 17

Nov

embe

r 199

9 re

latin

g to

voc

atio

nal b

ache

lor

Nat

iona

l hig

her e

duca

tion

dipl

omas

Mas

ters

Hig

her i

nstit

utio

ns a

ccre

dite

d by

the

min

istr

y of

hig

her

educ

atio

n/CN

ESER

to is

sue

bach

elor

s

(i.e.

uni

vers

ities

, CN

AM

−

Nat

iona

l Con

serv

ator

y of

Art

s an

d Cr

afts

, bus

ines

s sc

hool

s, sc

hool

of a

rts

…)

Ord

er o

f 25

Apr

il 20

02 re

latin

g to

M

aste

rN

atio

nal h

ighe

r edu

catio

n di

plom

as

Mili

tary

spe

cial

sch

ool o

f Sa

int-

Cyr d

iplo

ma

Mili

tary

spe

cial

sch

ool o

f Sa

int-

Cyr (

Min

istr

y of

hig

her

educ

atio

n./M

inis

try

of D

efen

ce

Ord

er o

f 27

Febr

uary

201

4 en

ablin

g m

ilita

ry s

peci

al s

choo

l of

Sai

nt-C

yr to

aw

ard

a m

aste

r de

gree

Nat

iona

l hig

her e

duca

tion

dipl

omas

Man

ager

in b

usin

ess

adm

inis

trat

ion

degr

ee/ M

aste

r de

gree

Cham

ber o

f ind

ustr

y an

d co

mm

erce

, Par

is/ P

aris

Hig

her

scho

ol o

f Com

mer

ce

Hig

her E

duca

tion

degr

ee

appr

oved

by

the

Min

istr

y of

H

ighe

r Edu

catio

n fo

r 5 y

ears

by

orde

r of 2

4 Ju

ly 2

014

Stat

e-ap

prov

ed d

egre

e


114

Hig

her N

atio

nal s

choo

l of

deco

rativ

e A

rt d

iplo

ma/

M

aste

r deg

ree

Hig

her N

atio

nal s

choo

l of

deco

rativ

e A

rt (E

NSA

D)

Dec

ree

of 3

0 O

ctob

er 1

998

givi

ng

a sp

ecia

l sta

tus

to th

e Éc

ole

natio

nale

sup

érie

ure

des

Art

s D

écor

atifs

(EN

SAD

)

Stat

e-ap

prov

ed d

egre

e

Jour

nalis

t Jo

urna

list t

rain

ing

cent

re (C

FJ)

Ord

er o

f 5 Ju

ly 2

012

Stat

e-ap

prov

ed d

egre

e

Des

ign

Dip

lom

aSc

hool

of D

esig

n, N

ante

s

Ord

er o

f 28

June

201

6 en

ablin

g N

ante

s Sc

hool

of D

esig

n (L

’Éco

le

de d

esig

n N

ante

s A

tlant

ique

) to

awar

d a

Stat

e-ap

prov

ed d

egre

e fo

r 5 y

ears

.

Stat

e-ap

prov

ed d

egre

e

Busi

ness

eng

inee

rKe

dge

busi

ness

sch

ool,

Tale

nce

Ord

er o

f 29

Augu

st 2

013

enab

ling

Kedg

e bu

sine

ss s

choo

l to

awar

d a

Stat

e-ap

prov

ed d

egre

e fo

r 4 y

ears

.St

ate-

appr

oved

deg

ree

Engi

neer

ing

dipl

omas

of É

cole

ce

ntra

le o

f ele

ctro

nics

Écol

e ce

ntra

le o

f ele

ctro

nics

Ord

er o

f 26

Janu

ary

2017

list

ing

accr

edite

d en

gine

erin

g sc

hool

s en

able

d to

aw

ard

engi

neer

ing

dipl

omas

Engi

neer

ing

dipl

omas

Engi

neer

ing

dipl

omas

of É

ūcol

e de

l’Air

Écol

e de

l’Air

(Air

forc

e tr

aini

ng

scho

ol)

Ord

er o

f 26

Janu

ary

2017

list

ing

accr

edite

d en

gine

erin

g sc

hool

s en

able

d to

aw

ard

engi

neer

ing

dipl

omas

Engi

neer

ing

dipl

omas

Stat

e re

gula

ted

qual

ifica

tion

s aw

arde

d ou

tsid

e th

e ed

ucat

ion

syst

em

Not

e: b

elow

are

pre

sent

ed e

xam

ples

of q

ualifi

catio

ns in

the

Fren

ch q

ualifi

catio

ns s

yste

m th

at c

ould

be

clas

sifie

d as

stat

e re

gula

ted

qual

ifica

tions

aw

arde

d ou

tsid

e th

e ed

ucat

ion

syst

em.

Voca

tiona

l cer

tifica

tes

Awar

ding

bod

ies

accr

edite

d by

re

gion

al b

oard

s of

the

Min

istr

y of

Lab

our

Art

icle

s L.

335

-5, L

. 335

-6 a

nd R

. 33

5-13

, R. 3

38-1

of E

duca

tion

code

Qua

lifica

tion

deve

lope

d on

the

reco

mm

enda

tion

of c

onsu

ltativ

e pr

ofes

sion

al c

omm

ittee


115

Hom

ecar

e an

d ed

ucat

iona

l as

sist

ant s

tate

dip

lom

a (D

EAES

)

Min

istr

y of

soc

ial a

ffairs

Re

gion

al b

oard

s/ R

egio

nal

pref

ect

Dec

ree

n° 2

016-

74 o

f 29

Janu

ary

2016

rela

ting

to H

omec

are

and

educ

atio

nal a

ssis

tant

sta

te

dipl

oma

and

mod

ifyin

g so

cial

ac

tion

and

fam

ily C

ode

Qua

lifica

tion

deve

lope

d on

the

reco

mm

enda

tion

of c

onsu

ltativ

e pr

ofes

sion

al c

omm

ittee

Stat

e Yo

uth,

Pop

ular

Ed

ucat

ion

and

Spor

t Dip

lom

a (D

EJEP

S)

Min

istr

y of

You

th a

nd S

port

re

gion

al b

oard

s

Dec

ree

n° 2

015-

1527

of 2

4 N

ovem

ber 2

015

rela

ting

to

prof

essi

onal

cer

tifica

te, s

tate

di

plom

a an

d hi

gher

sta

te d

iplo

ma

of th

e M

inis

try

of Y

outh

, Pop

ular

ed

ucat

ion

and

Spor

t

Qua

lifica

tion

deve

lope

d on

the

reco

mm

enda

tion

of c

onsu

ltativ

e pr

ofes

sion

al c

omm

ittee

Dec

k w

atch

dep

uty

office

rM

ilita

ry p

erso

nnel

div

isio

n –

Nav

al S

choo

lN

/A

Qua

lifica

tion

on b

ehal

f of t

he s

tate

an

d w

ithou

t rec

omm

enda

tion

from

a

trip

artit

e ad

viso

ry b

ody

(Min

istr

y of

D

efen

ce)

Uni

vers

al c

ater

ing

agen

tÉc

ole

des

four

riers

de

Que

rque

ville

N

/A

Qua

lifica

tion

on b

ehal

f of t

he s

tate

an

d w

ithou

t rec

omm

enda

tion

from

a

trip

artit

e ad

viso

ry b

ody

(Min

istr

y of

D

efen

ce)

Actin

g sc

hool

nat

iona

l hig

her

dipl

oma

Hig

her e

duca

tion

inst

itutio

ns

accr

edite

d by

Min

istr

y of

cu

lture

in th

e fie

ld o

f mus

ic,

danc

e, th

eatr

e, c

ircus

art

s

Dec

ree

of 2

7 N

ovem

ber 2

007

rela

ting

to n

atio

nal h

ighe

r and

pr

ofes

sion

al d

egre

e aw

arde

d by

hi

gher

edu

catio

n in

stitu

tions

ac

cred

ited

by M

inis

try

of c

ultu

re

in th

e fie

ld o

f mus

ic, d

ance

, th

eatr

e, c

ircus

art

s an

d re

latin

g to

ac

cred

itatio

n pr

oced

ure

of th

ese

inst

itutio

ns

Hig

her e

duca

tion

dipl

oma

(Min

istr

y of

cu

lture

)


116

Dan

ce te

ache

r sta

te d

iplo

ma

: op

tion

cont

empo

rary

dan

ceA

list

of S

choo

ls fo

r dan

ce

teac

hing

Ord

er o

f 21

Febr

uary

201

7 re

latin

g to

pra

ctic

ing

cond

ition

s of

a d

ance

te

ache

r app

licab

le to

Eur

opea

n ci

tizen

s …

Ord

er o

f 20

Febr

uary

201

7 re

new

ing

accr

edita

tion

of a

sch

ool

lead

ing

to a

dan

ce te

ache

r sta

te

dipl

oma

Qua

lifica

tion

on b

ehal

f of t

he s

tate

an

d w

ithou

t rec

omm

enda

tion

from

a

trip

artit

e ad

viso

ry b

ody

(Min

istr

y of

Cu

lture

)

Non

-sta

te re

gula

ted

qual

ifica

tion

s

Not

e: b

elow

are

exa

mpl

es o

f qua

lifica

tions

in th

e Fr

ench

sys

tem

that

cou

ld b

e cl

assi

fied

as n

on-s

tate

regu

late

d qu

alifi

catio

ns.

Prov

ider

of S

ocia

l and

pr

ofes

sion

al s

ervi

ces

to a

dults

CNA

M −

Nat

iona

l Con

serv

ator

y of

Art

s an

d Cr

afts

(pub

lic h

ighe

r ed

ucat

ion

inst

itutio

n)N

/APr

ivat

e qu

alifi

catio

n

Build

ing

and

publ

ic W

orks

su

perv

isor

CNA

M −

Nat

iona

l Con

serv

ator

y of

Art

s an

d Cr

afts

(pub

lic h

ighe

r ed

ucat

ion

inst

itutio

n)N

/APr

ivat

e qu

alifi

catio

n

Man

ager

of a

soc

ial u

nit a

nd

serv

ices

pro

vide

r for

eld

erly

de

pend

ents

IEP

− In

stitu

te fo

r Pol

itica

l sc

ienc

es (p

ublic

hig

her

educ

atio

n in

stitu

tion)

N/A

Priv

ate

qual

ifica

tion

Uni

vers

ity d

iplo

ma,

Spo

rts

faci

litie

s m

anag

er a

war

d

Uni

vers

ity o

f Par

is N

ante

rre

(pub

lic h

ighe

r edu

catio

n in

stitu

tion)

N/A

Priv

ate

qual

ifica

tion

Hea

vy e

quip

men

t ope

rato

r us

ed in

the

cons

truc

tion

and

rura

l eng

inee

ring

CFPP

A –

voc

atio

nal t

rain

ing

and

agric

ultu

ral p

rom

otio

n Ce

ntre

of

Sem

ur-C

hâtil

lon

− La

Bar

otte

(p

ublic

trai

ning

pro

vide

r be

long

ing

to th

e M

inis

try

of

agric

ultu

re)

N/A

Priv

ate

qual

ifica

tion

Sale

s at

tach

éCC

I Fra

nce_

Fre

nch

cham

ber o

f co

mm

erce

and

indu

stry

N/A

Priv

ate

qual

ifica

tion


117

Com

mun

icat

ion

and

imag

e co

nsul

tant

Expr

essi

on c

onsu

lting

N/A

Priv

ate

qual

ifica

tion

Soci

o-ae

sthe

ticia

n Pa

ris B

eaut

y Ac

adem

y (P

BA)

N/A

Priv

ate

qual

ifica

tion

Elec

tric

ian

for p

erfo

rmin

g ar

tsPe

rfor

min

g ar

ts B

ranc

hN

/ASe

ctor

al q

ualifi

catio

n

Man

ager

for a

n ha

irdre

ssin

g sa

lon

Nat

iona

l cou

ncil

of h

aird

ress

ing

salo

nsN

/ASe

ctor

al q

ualifi

catio

n

Win

dow

cle

aner

wor

ks-a

t-he

ight

spe

cial

ised

Fede

ratio

n of

cle

anin

g co

mpa

nies

N/A

Sect

oral

qua

lifica

tion

POLA

ND

Nam

e [t

itle

] of

a qu

alifi

cati

onA

war

ding

bod

yLe

gal a

cts

that

are

the

basi

s fo

r aw

ardi

ng th

e qu

alifi

cati

on

[if a

pplic

able

]

Type

of q

ualifi

cati

on

as d

efine

d in

na

tion

al le

gisl

atio

n/re

gula

tion

s [if

app

licab

le]

Is th

e qu

alifi

cati

on

incl

uded

in th

e N

QF/

regi

stry

of q

ualifi

cati

ons

If ye

s at

wha

t lev

el o

f the

N

QF?

If no

t, ca

n th

e qu

alifi

catio

n be

incl

uded

(d

o th

e re

quire

d sy

stem

ic

solu

tions

exi

st?)

Stat

e re

gula

ted

qual

ifica

tion

s aw

arde

d in

the

educ

atio

n sy

stem

Cert

ifica

te o

f com

plet

ion

of p

rimar

y sc

hool

Publ

ic a

nd p

rivat

e pr

imar

y sc

hool

s;

Regi

onal

Exa

min

atio

n Bo

ards

The

Act o

f Sep

tem

ber 7

, 199

1 on

th

e Ed

ucat

ion

Syst

em (J

ourn

al

of L

aws

from

201

5, it

em 2

156,

as

amen

ded)

Full

qual

ifica

tion

Yes

PQF

leve

l 1

http://www.linguee.fr/anglais-francais/traduction/socio-aesthetician.html


118

Cert

ifica

te c

onfir

min

g th

e qu

alifi

catio

n “H

aird

ress

er

Ass

ista

nt”

Regi

onal

Exa

min

atio

n Bo

ards

Regu

latio

n of

the

Min

iste

r of

Nat

iona

l Edu

catio

n of

Mar

ch 3

1,

2017

on

the

core

cur

ricul

um o

f vo

catio

nal e

duca

tion

(Jou

rnal

of

Law

s fr

om 2

017,

item

860

)

Full

qual

ifica

tion

Yes

PQF

leve

l 2

Dip

lom

a co

nfirm

ing

the

qual

ifica

tion

“Gar

dene

r”

Regi

onal

Exa

min

atio

n Bo

ards

Regu

latio

n of

the

Min

iste

r of

Nat

iona

l Edu

catio

n of

Mar

ch 3

1,

2017

on

the

core

cur

ricul

um o

f vo

catio

nal e

duca

tion

(Jou

rnal

of

Law

s fr

om 2

017,

item

860

)

Full

qual

ifica

tion

Yes

PQF

leve

l 3

Cert

ifica

te c

onfir

min

g th

e qu

alifi

catio

n “P

repa

ring

mea

ls a

nd d

rinks

(T.6

.)”

Regi

onal

Exa

min

atio

n Bo

ards

Regu

latio

n of

the

Min

iste

r of

Nat

iona

l Edu

catio

n of

Mar

ch 3

1,

2017

on

the

core

cur

ricul

um o

f vo

catio

nal e

duca

tion

(Jou

rnal

of

Law

s fr

om 2

017,

item

860

)

Part

ial q

ualifi

catio

nYe

s

PQF

leve

l 3

Dip

lom

a co

nfirm

ing

the

qual

ifica

tion

“Tec

hnic

ian

trad

er (5

2230

5)”

Regi

onal

Exa

min

atio

n Bo

ards

Regu

latio

n of

the

Min

iste

r of

Nat

iona

l Edu

catio

n of

Mar

ch 3

1,

2017

on

the

core

cur

ricul

um o

f vo

catio

nal e

duca

tion

(Jou

rnal

of

Law

s fr

om 2

017,

item

860

)

Full

qual

ifica

tion

Yes

PQF

leve

l 4

Cert

ifica

te c

onfir

min

g th

e qu

alifi

catio

n “R

unni

ng a

bu

sine

ss (A

.22.

)”

Regi

onal

Exa

min

atio

n Bo

ards

Regu

latio

n of

the

Min

iste

r of

Nat

iona

l Edu

catio

n of

Mar

ch 3

1,

2017

on

the

core

cur

ricul

um o

f vo

catio

nal e

duca

tion

(Jou

rnal

of

Law

s fr

om 2

017,

item

860

)

Part

ial q

ualifi

catio

nYe

s

PQF

leve

l 4

Dip

lom

a co

nfirm

ing

the

qual

ifica

tion

“Tel

einf

orm

atic

s te

chni

cian

(351

103)

”

Regi

onal

Exa

min

atio

n Bo

ards

Regu

latio

n of

the

Min

iste

r of

Nat

iona

l Edu

catio

n of

Mar

ch 3

1,

2017

on

the

core

cur

ricul

um o

f vo

catio

nal e

duca

tion

(Jou

rnal

of

Law

s fr

om 2

017,

item

860

)

Full

qual

ifica

tion

Yes

PQF

leve

l 5


119

Cert

ifica

te c

onfir

min

g th

e qu

alifi

catio

n “O

rgan

isat

ion

and

supe

rvis

ion

of

tran

spor

t (A

.28.

)”

Regi

onal

Exa

min

atio

n Bo

ards

Regu

latio

n of

the

Min

iste

r of

Nat

iona

l Edu

catio

n of

Mar

ch 3

1,

2017

on

the

core

cur

ricul

um o

f vo

catio

nal e

duca

tion

(Jou

rnal

of

Law

s fr

om 2

017,

item

860

)

Part

ial q

ualifi

catio

nYe

s

PQF

leve

l 5

Dip

lom

a co

nfirm

ing

the

qual

ifica

tion

“Lib

raria

n (3

4330

1)”

The

stat

e ex

amin

atio

n co

mm

issi

on

appo

inte

d by

the

dire

ctor

of t

he C

entr

e fo

r Art

istic

Edu

catio

n or

the

min

iste

r co

mpe

tent

for c

ultu

re

and

prot

ectio

n of

na

tiona

l her

itage

Regu

latio

n of

the

Min

iste

r of

Nat

iona

l Edu

catio

n of

Mar

ch 3

1,

2017

on

the

core

cur

ricul

um o

f vo

catio

nal e

duca

tion

(Jou

rnal

of

Law

s fr

om 2

017,

item

860

)

Full

qual

ifica

tion

Yes

PQF

leve

l 6

Dip

lom

a of

com

plet

ion

of fi

rst-

cycl

e st

udie

s on

an

drag

ogy

– U

nive

rsity

of

War

saw

; Fac

ulty

of

Peda

gogy

Uni

vers

ity o

f War

saw

; Fa

culty

of P

edag

ogy

The

Act o

f 27

July

200

5 La

w o

n H

ighe

r Edu

catio

nFu

ll qu

alifi

catio

nYe

s

PQF

leve

l 6

Dip

lom

a of

com

plet

ing

unifo

rm m

aste

r’s

stud

ies

in th

e fie

ld o

f ad

min

istr

atio

n –

Uni

vers

ity

of W

rocł

aw; F

acul

ty o

f La

w, A

dmin

istr

atio

n an

d Ec

onom

ics

Uni

vers

ity o

f Wro

cław

; Fa

culty

of L

aw,

Adm

inis

trat

ion

and

Econ

omic

s

The

Act o

f 27

July

200

5 La

w o

n H

ighe

r Edu

catio

nFu

ll qu

alifi

catio

nYe

s

PQF

leve

l 7

Dip

lom

a of

doc

tor o

f bi

olog

ical

sci

ence

s in

th

e fie

ld o

f eco

logy

–

Uni

wer

syte

t im

. Ada

m

Mic

kiew

icz

in P

ozna

ń;

Dep

artm

ent o

f Bio

logy

Uni

wer

syte

t im

. Ad

am M

icki

ewic

z in

Po

znań

; Dep

artm

ent

of B

iolo

gy

Act o

f 14

Mar

ch 2

003

on a

cade

mic

de

gree

s an

d ac

adem

ic ti

tle, a

nd

degr

ees

and

title

in th

e fie

ld o

f art

Full

qual

ifica

tion

Yes

PQF

leve

l 8


120

Stat

e re

gula

ted

qual

ifica

tion

s aw

arde

d ou

tsid

e th

e ed

ucat

ion

syst

em

Insp

ecto

r of t

reas

ury

cont

rol

Gen

eral

Insp

ecto

r of

Fisc

al C

ontr

ol a

fter

the

exam

, whi

ch is

car

ried

out b

y a

com

mis

sion

ap

poin

ted

by th

e G

ener

al In

spec

tor o

f Fi

scal

Con

trol

Art

. 39

of th

e Ac

t of 2

8 Se

ptem

ber

1991

on

Fisc

al C

ontr

ol (J

ourn

al o

f La

ws

from

201

1 N

o. 4

1, it

em 2

14,

as a

men

ded)

Part

ial q

ualifi

catio

n

No

Poss

ible

to in

clud

e to

the

PQF;

leve

l – to

be

deci

ded

Div

er C

lass

III

Qua

lifyi

ng C

omm

ittee

fo

r Div

ers,

oper

atin

g at

the

Dire

ctor

of t

he

Mar

itim

e O

ffice

in

Gdy

nia

Act o

f 17

Oct

ober

200

3 on

un

derw

ater

wor

ks (J

ourn

al o

f La

ws

from

No.

199

, ite

m 1

936)

;

Regu

latio

n of

the

Min

iste

r of

Infr

astr

uctu

re o

f 25

June

201

0 on

the

trai

ning

and

exa

min

atio

n of

per

sons

app

lyin

g fo

r the

righ

t to

per

form

und

erw

ater

wor

ks

(Jou

rnal

of L

aws

No.

126

, ite

m 8

56)

Part

ial q

ualifi

catio

n

No

Poss

ible

to in

clud

e to

the

PQF;

leve

l – to

be

deci

ded

Judg

e

Exam

inat

ion

com

mis

sion

ap

poin

ted

by th

e M

inis

ter o

f Jus

tice

Act o

f 27

July

200

1 −

Law

on

the

syst

em o

f com

mon

cou

rts

(Jou

rnal

of

Law

s N

o. 9

8, it

em 1

070,

as

amen

ded)

;

Act o

f 23

Janu

ary

2009

on

the

Nat

iona

l Sch

ool o

f Jud

icia

ry

and

Pros

ecut

or’s

Offi

ce (J

ourn

al

of L

aws

No.

26,

item

157

, as

amen

ded)

;

Regu

latio

n of

the

Min

iste

r of

Just

ice

of M

arch

1, 2

011

on

the

cond

uct o

f the

judg

e’s

and

pros

ecut

or’s

exam

inat

ion

(Jou

rnal

of

Law

s N

o. 5

4, it

em 2

83)

Part

ial q

ualifi

catio

n

No

Poss

ible

to in

clud

e to

the

PQF;

leve

l – to

be

deci

ded


121

Lega

l Cou

nsel

Exam

inat

ion

boar

d ap

poin

ted

by th

e M

inis

ter o

f Jus

tice

Act o

f 6 Ju

ly 1

982

on le

gal a

dvis

ers

(Jou

rnal

of L

aws

from

201

0, N

o. 1

0,

item

65,

as

amen

ded)

No

Poss

ible

to in

clud

e to

the

PQF;

leve

l – to

be

deci

ded

Non

-sta

te re

gula

ted

qual

ifica

tion

s

Carp

entr

y as

sem

bly

in

cons

truc

tion

Fund

acja

VCC

Ann

ounc

emen

t of t

he M

inis

ter o

f In

fras

truc

ture

and

Con

stru

ctio

n of

7 Ju

ly 2

017

on th

e in

clus

ion

of

mar

ket q

ualifi

catio

n “C

arpe

ntry

as

sem

bly

in c

onst

ruct

ion”

to th

e In

tegr

ated

Qua

lifica

tion

Syst

em

Part

ial q

ualifi

catio

nYe

s

PQF

leve

l 3

Euro

pean

Com

pute

r D

rivin

g Li

cenc

e (E

CDL)

Pols

kie

Tow

arzy

stw

o In

form

atyc

zne

(Pol

ish

Info

rmat

ion

Soci

ety)

n/a

n/a

No

Poss

ible

to in

clud

e to

the

PQF;

leve

l – to

be

deci

ded

Cert

ified

Ani

mal

Car

etak

er

“PET

SITT

ER”

Cent

re O

f App

lied

Pet E

thol

ogy

COA

PE

Pols

kan/

an/

a

No

Poss

ible

to in

clud

e to

the

PQF;

leve

l – to

be

deci

ded

Ope

rato

r of C

NC

mac

hine

to

ols

e.g.

priv

ate

trai

ning

co

mpa

nies

n/

an/

a

No

Poss

ible

to in

clud

e to

the

PQF;

leve

l – to

be

deci

ded

Conf

ectio

ner –

Mas

ter’s

di

plom

aCh

ambe

r of C

raft

s Th

e Ac

t of 2

2 M

arch

198

9 on

Cr

afts

n/

a

No

Poss

ible

to in

clud

e to

the

PQF;

leve

l – to

be

deci

ded


122

SCO

TLA

ND

Nam

e [t

itle

] of q

ualifi

cati

onA

war

ding

bod

yLe

gal a

cts

that

are

the

basi

s fo

r aw

ardi

ng th

e qu

alifi

cati

on

[if a

pplic

able

]

Type

of q

ualifi

cati

on a

s de

fined

in

nati

onal

legi

slat

ion/

regu

lati

ons

[if a

pplic

able

]

Stat

e re

gula

ted

qual

ifica

tion

s aw

arde

d in

the

educ

atio

n sy

stem

Not

e: b

elow

are

list

ed e

xam

ples

of q

ualifi

catio

ns a

war

ded

in th

e na

tiona

l qua

lifica

tions

sys

tem

in S

cotla

nd th

at c

ould

be

refe

rred

to th

e ca

tego

ry o

f sta

te re

gula

ted

qual

ifica

tions

aw

arde

d in

the

educ

atio

n sy

stem

Nat

iona

l Aw

ards

1 –

5

Offe

red

in s

choo

ls

Scot

tish

Qua

lifica

tions

Au

thor

ity (S

QA

)

SQA

is m

anda

ted

by S

cott

ish

Gov

ernm

ent t

o de

velo

p an

d aw

ard

scho

ol q

ualifi

catio

ns

ther

efor

e it

can

be s

aid

that

sch

ool

qual

ifica

tions

are

sta

te re

gula

ted

Full

qual

ifica

tions

Hig

her a

nd A

dvan

ced

Hig

her A

war

ds

Offe

red

in s

choo

ls

Scot

tish

Qua

lifica

tions

Au

thor

ity (S

QA

)

SQA

is m

anda

ted

by S

cott

ish

Gov

ernm

ent t

o de

velo

p an

d aw

ard

scho

ol q

ualifi

catio

ns

ther

efor

e it

can

be s

aid

that

sch

ool

qual

ifica

tions

are

sta

te re

gula

ted

Full

qual

ifica

tions

Hig

her N

atio

nal C

ertifi

cate

Offe

red

in c

olle

ges

and

som

e H

ighe

r Edu

catio

n In

stitu

tions

an

d in

trai

ning

cen

tres

Scot

tish

Qua

lifica

tions

Au

thor

ity (S

QA

)

Not

e: A

lthou

gh S

QA

is s

et u

p by

sta

tuto

ry le

gisl

atio

n no

t ev

eryt

hing

SQ

A a

ccre

dits

or

awar

ds is

“sta

te re

gula

ted”

.

Full

qual

ifica

tion

Hig

her N

atio

nal D

iplo

ma

Offe

red

in c

olle

ges

and

som

e H

ighe

r Edu

catio

n in

stitu

tions

an

d in

trai

ning

cen

tres

Scot

tish

Qua

lifica

tions

Au

thor

ity (S

QA

)Fu

ll qu

alifi

catio

n


123

Stat

e re

gula

ted

qual

ifica

tion

s aw

arde

d ou

tsid

e th

e ed

ucat

ion

syst

em

Not

e: b

elow

are

pre

sent

ed e

xam

ples

of q

ualifi

catio

ns in

the

Scot

tish

qual

ifica

tions

sys

tem

that

cou

ld b

e cl

assi

fied

as a

war

ded

outs

ide

the

educ

atio

n sy

stem

. The

re w

ill a

lso

be q

ualifi

catio

ns th

at s

it ou

tsid

e th

e na

tiona

l bod

y as

wel

l as

outs

ide

the

SCQ

F w

hich

are

man

date

d by

the

Stat

e, e

.g. G

as S

afe

Regi

ster

. To

get o

nto

the

Gas

Saf

e Re

gist

er in

divi

dual

s ne

ed to

ach

ieve

the

SVQ

in D

omes

tic N

atur

al G

as In

stal

latio

n an

d M

aint

enan

ce. L

ikew

ise,

SVQ

’s in

Hea

lth a

nd S

ocia

l Car

e ar

e a

requ

irem

ent t

o be

regi

ster

ed w

ith th

e Sc

ottis

h So

cial

Ser

vice

s Co

unci

l.

Dan

gero

us G

oods

Saf

ety

Advi

ser

Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtSt

ate

requ

irem

ent t

o ho

ld th

e qu

alifi

catio

n w

ork

in th

e in

dust

ryN

on-r

egul

ated

qua

lifica

tion

Cert

ifica

te o

f Pro

fess

iona

l Co

mpe

tenc

e (H

GV

Driv

er)

Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtRe

quire

d by

Eur

opea

n le

gisl

atio

n an

d al

so a

sta

te re

quire

men

tN

on-r

egul

ated

qua

lifica

tion

Oil

and

Gas

Sec

tor S

urvi

val

Cour

sePr

ivat

e tr

aini

ng p

rovi

ders

Man

dato

ry re

quire

men

t in

the

sect

orN

on-r

egul

ated

qua

lifica

tion

Scot

tish

Cert

ifica

te fo

r Pe

rson

al L

icen

ce H

olde

rsSQ

AQ

ualifi

catio

n re

quire

d by

law

Regu

late

d qu

alifi

catio

n

Awar

d in

Em

erge

ncy

Paed

iatr

ic F

irst A

idSQ

ALe

gal r

equi

rem

ent t

o be

abl

e to

w

ork

in th

e se

ctor

Regu

late

d qu

alifi

catio

n

Non

-sta

te re

gula

ted

qual

ifica

tion

s

Not

e: b

elow

are

exa

mpl

es o

f qua

lifica

tions

in th

e Sc

ottis

h qu

alifi

catio

ns s

yste

m th

at c

ould

be

clas

sifie

d as

non

-sta

te re

gula

ted

qual

ifica

tions

.

UK

legi

slat

ion

very

rare

ly re

fers

to th

e sp

ecifi

c qu

alifi

catio

n. It

nor

mal

ly re

fers

to a

regi

ster

or a

lice

nce

to p

ract

ice.

With

a li

cenc

e to

pra

ctic

e fo

r e.g

. a D

oor S

uper

viso

r Aw

ard

enab

les

an in

divi

dual

to a

pply

for a

lice

nce.

Leg

isla

tion

then

requ

ires

the

indi

vidu

al to

und

erta

ke tr

aini

ng

spec

ified

by

the

Secu

rity

Indu

stry

Aut

horit

y (S

IA).

The

SIA

pro

duce

s tr

aini

ng s

peci

ficat

ions

but

has

dec

ided

that

to e

nsur

e th

e tr

aini

ng is

of a

n ac

cept

able

qua

lity

then

indi

vidu

als

mus

t ach

ieve

the

qual

ifica

tion.

The

qua

lifica

tion

spec

ifica

tion

is b

ased

on

the

trai

ning

spe

cific

atio

n. T

he S

IA

then

requ

ires

the

qual

ifica

tion

to b

e ac

cred

ited

by S

QA

in S

cotla

nd. T

hus,

in th

is c

ase

ther

e is

no

stat

e re

quire

men

t to

hold

the

qual

ifica

tion

but

the

regu

lato

r doe

s re

quire

the

qual

ifica

tion.

Adva

nced

ECD

LBr

itish

Com

pute

r Soc

iety

N/A

Mar

ket q

ualifi

catio

n

Intr

oduc

tion

to A

ctor

Tra

inin

gRo

yal C

onse

rvat

oire

of S

cotla

ndN

/AM

arke

t qua

lifica

tion

Dip

lom

a in

Dea

fblin

d St

udie

sD

eafb

lind

N/A

Mar

ket q

ualifi

catio

n

Stra

tegi

c Co

mm

unity

Saf

ety

Polic

e Co

llege

Sco

tland

N/A

Mar

ket q

ualifi

catio

n

Wal

king

Tour

Gui

ding

Mer

cat T

ours

Sco

tland

N/A

Mar

ket q

ualifi

catio

n

Date post:	02-Mar-2019
Category:	Documents
Upload:	trinhbao
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Proposed Models of Including Non-formal Sector ... · Horacy Dębowski Dr. Stanisław Sławiński...

Documents