Re-Addressing the ‘impact’ of qualifications frameworks

• In Event: New Agendas of Global Governance of Education

Proposal

Launched in 2008, the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) aims at numerous educational reforms such as promoting lifelong learning, transparency of qualifications and fostering mobility. Moreover, it was expected to reduce social stratification caused by educational systems, thus help reducing social exclusion and promote labour market participation, productivity and employability (European Parliament 2008). At that time, critical voices had questioned if qualifications frameworks in general and the EQF in particular would be able to meet the expectations that had emerged from its development under economic and political pressure (e.g. Allais et al. 2009; Young 2003).

Ten years after, the EQF spans 40 national qualifications frameworks (NQF) and the ‘Global Inventory of Regional and National Qualifications Frameworks’ identifies approx. 150 qualifications frameworks (QF) worldwide. Today, QF are interpreted as ‘evidence’ for national attempts to promote inclusive and equitable education and lifelong learning opportunities (CEDEFOP et al. 2017: 16–19). Thus, they are a phenomenon that seems highly relevant to both, international and comparative education and sustainability.

Against this background, it is time to re-address the expectations on which the EQF was built. Even more, as many NQF emerged in parallel with the EQF or were revised as a consequence of it, the question arises in which ways they support the aims that were linked with developing them. In detail, the objectives of this contribution are

- to clarify the concept, the emergence and ‘underlying philosophies’ of qualification frameworks in general and to review the emergence of the EQF in particular,
- to review previous experiences with implementing national and cross-national QFs such as the EQF―with a particular focus on the European area,
- to identify and compare the (anticipated) impacts of QFs on education and training systems with a review of the reforms that were actually initiated as a consequence of implementing the EQF and the therewith-linked national QFs,
- to critically reflect on what is known about the ‘impact’ of QF and the EQF in particular.

With respect to geo-political contexts, this paper is based on the framework of policy borrowing and policy learning whereby QF are seen as a paradigmatic case of policy diffusion (Jakobi 2011) and ‘travelling’ educational reforms around the globe (Steiner-Khamsi/Waldow 2011: 337). With respect to the European area, they are seen as softer policy tool to govern education policy in a supranational environment (Bohlinger 2015; Lange/Alexiadou 2010). Linking both approaches provides a comprehensive framework to understand policy learning and governance of education policy in the EU (and beyond) and to question the ‘impact’ of QF.

The paper builds on existing work in several ways:
- First, it builds on previous (policy) analysis of national strategies and reforms to be found in countries where QF have been in place for years (e.g. Scotland, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa; e.g. Allais 2017; Pilcher et al. 2015; Raffe 2012).
- Second, it uses policy papers provided by national, international and supranational organizations such as the European Commission, Cedefop, the ILO, the OECD or the UNESCO.
- Third, it aims at identifying the impact of QF whereby ‘impact’ is understood as any result of governing with softer policy tools used within European education research and policy (Héritier 2003).

Emphasis is placed on several analytical criteria including aims, expectations and obstacles that are linked with the implementation of QF as well as the role and mode of interaction with international stakeholders that are involved in its development. Last, not least the contribution critically reflects on the current proliferation of transnational QF such as the EQF and derives issues for future research. Its geographical scope focuses on Europe but also includes findings from other continents.

With respect to implications for future research the paper finds that ten years after launching the EQF and almost 30 years after launching the first NQF worldwide (in Scotland) QF are still seen as a panacea. However, there is (still) hardly any evidence that QF actually provide solutions for the challenges they were developed for (modernization, mobility, lifelong learning etc.). However, the missing linkage between the expectations QFs are based on and their impact also paves the way for alternative theoretical approaches to address this phenomenon and derives implications for future research on QF when linking them with the framework of policy learning.

Lessons learnt refer to considering policy learning as an alternative framework for analyzing qualifications frameworks and their impact on education and training systems. In practice, policy learning seems a relevant approach to develop tailor-made NQF and thus promote ownership and stimulate mutual learning processes across countries. This is both, relevant and innovative given that the policy learning approach has been neglected in the previous research on qualification frameworks.

References
Allais, S. (2017). What does it mean to conduct research into qualifications frameworks? Journal of Education and Work, 30(7): 768―776.
Allais, S.; Raffe, D.; Strathdee, R.; Wheelahan, L.; Young, M. (2009). Learning from the first qualifications frameworks. Employment Working Paper No. 45, Geneva.
Bohlinger, S. (2015). Governing Vocational Education and Training in Europe. In: Bohlinger, S.; Haake, U.; Jorgensen, C.H.; Toiviainen, H.; Wallo, A. (2015): Working and Learning in Times of Uncertainty. Rotterdam, Boston, Taipei, 209–222.
CEDEFOP, ETF, UNESCO, UIL (2017): Global Inventory of Regional and national Qualifications Frameworks 2017. Volume I: Thematic Chapters. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0026/002603/260363E.pdf (accessed 2018-10-14).
European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2008). Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on the establishment of the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning, PE-CONS (2008)3662/07, Brussels.
Héritier, A. (2003). New Modes of Governance in Europe: Increasing Political Capacity and Policy Effectiveness? In: Börzel, T.A.; Cichowski, R. (eds.). The State of the European Union. Oxford, 105–126.
Jakobi, A.P. (2011). International Organizations and Policy Diffusion: The Global Norm of Lifelong Learning. Journal of International Relations and Development, 15(1): 31–64.
Lange, B.; Alexiadou, N. (2010): Policy learning and governance of education policy in the EU. Journal of Education Policy, 25(4): 443–463.
Pilcher, N.; F. Scott; 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.
Raffe, D. (2012). What is the Evidence for the Impact of National Qualifications Frameworks? Comparative Education, 49(2): 143-162.
Steiner-Khamsi, G.; Waldow, F. (2011). World yearbook of education: Policy borrowing and lending. London.
Young, M. (2003). National qualifications frameworks as a global phenomenon. Journal of Education and Work, 16(3): 223−237.

Author

• Sandra Bohlinger, Dresden University (TUD)