International comparison of qualifications: ISCED and EQF

as converging classification frameworks?

Arthur Schneeberger (Vienna)

Contribution to the DECOWE Conference: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 24-25 September 2009

2

Contents

• Starting point Diversity of VET landscapes

• Definition problems of “Higher education”

• Semantic problems of comparison

• Lack of standards in ISCED

• Input- and outcomes-Descriptors

• ISCED (International Standard Classification of Education) and EQF (European Qualifications Framework)

– Common features

– Differences

– Correspondence

• Some reflections about future developments

3

Diversity of national qualification systems

TABLE 1. Focus on I-VET:

Educational attainment of the 25-to-64-year-old population, 2006, in %

Lower

secondary education

Upper secondary education Post-secondary, non-tertiary

Tertiary-type B

education

Tertiary-type A

education

Country (selection)

ISCED 1 or 2

ISCED 3C (short

programme)

ISCED 3B + 3C (long pro-

gramme)*

ISCED 3A

ISCED 4 ISCED 5B ISCED 5A or 6

Germany 17 49 3 7 9 14

Austria 18 2 47 6 10 7 10

Switzerland 13 2 46 6 3 10 20

France 33 - 30 11 - 11 15

Slovenia 18 - 28 32 - 10 11

UK 14 17 23 16 - 9 21

Spain 50 - 8 13 - 9 19

Italy 48 1 7 30 1 1 12

Poland 14 33 - 31 4 - 18

Finland 20 - - 44 16 18

Ireland 34 - - 25 11 11 19

Sweden 16 - - 47 6 9 22

*Core of I-VET in the German speaking countries

Source: OECD 2008, p. 42

4

Another example of classification problems: Higher education or Tertiary-type A programme (ISCED 5A)

The definition:

“Tertiary-type A programmes are largely theory-based and

designed to provide qualifications for entry into advanced research

programmes and highly skilled professions.”

(OECD: Education at a Glance, 2008, p. 57; underlined letters not in the original text)

5

Another example of classification problems: Tertiary-type A programmes (ISCED 5A): data

TABELLE 2: Net entry rates to “Tertiary-type A programmes”, 2006 by gender, in %

(ISCED 5A EQF at least level 6)

Countries (selection) Males Females Total

Poland 72 84 78

Finland 65 88 76

Sweden 65 87 76

Slovak Republic 56 80 68

Hungary 60 72 66

Denmark 47 71 59

Netherlands 54 62 58

UK 50 65 57

Italy 47 63 55

Czech Republic 45 55 50

Greece 38 61 49

Spain 36 51 43

Austria 36 44 40

Switzerland 38 38 38

Belgium 32 38 35

Germany 36 35 35

EU 19 average 48 63 55

Source: OECD 2008

6

Comparison of “Higher education” with severe semantic problems

„Comparing academic institutions in different countries can be a

complicated matter.

One obstacle is the difficulty of identifying institutions carrying out

comparable work.

Even the usage of terms such as universities, colleges, academies,

institutes and schools can vary across borders, making it hard to

perceive precisely what each of them does.

Another difficulty is to devise comparison standards that everyone can

adhere to.“

(Education and Culture GD: How good are Euope’s universities and how con you

tell?, Magazine, Nr. 20, 2008, p. 46; underlined letters not in the original text.)

7

Lack of substantial standards in ISCED

The core of ISCED is the differentiation of levels of educational programmes by the complexity

of their contents:

“The notion of ‘levels’ of education … is essentially a construct based on the assumption that

educational programmes can be grouped, both nationally and cross-nationally, into an ordered

series of categories broadly corresponding to the overall knowledge, skills and capabilities

required of participants if they are to have a reasonable expectation of successfully completing

the programmes in these categories. These categories represent broad steps of

educational progression from very elementary to more complex experiences with the

more complex the programme, the higher the level of education.”

(UNESCO 1997, § 29; underlined letters not in the original text).

The classification of levels would require an evaluation of programmes by international

standards. Quite tersely it is stated there about:

„International curricula standards that are needed to support such judgements do not

as yet exist.“ (UNESCO 1997, § 31; underlined letters not in the original text)

Therefore auxiliary criteria are used (years of schooling, type of institution and so on) to

substitute standards.

8

Descriptors: from input to outcomes

To improve international comparisons of qualifications the European Qualifications

Framework (EQF) has been recommended.

In a press release of the Commission the following question was raised:

„Why not build on existing reference levels and frameworks (for example ISCED)? (…)

Because the EQR introduces, for the first time, a set of reference levels based on

learning outcomes (defined in terms of knowledge, skills and competences). The EQR

shifts the focus from input (lengths of a learning experience, type of institution) to what

a person holding a particular qualification actually knows and is able to do.”

(EU-Commission: MEMO/06/318, 5. September 2006, S. 6; ; underlined letters not in the

original text)

9

The EQF relies on complexity of knowledge etc

“Distinguishing between the different levels of qualifications was

another big challenge. Finally, it was agreed to take the following factors

into account:

• the complexity and depth of knowledge and understanding;

• the degree of necessary support or instruction;

• the degree of integration, independence and creativity required;

• the range and complexity of application/practice;

• the degree of transparency and dynamics of situations.”

Source: EQF 2008 – the trigger year for a framework for European qualifications. In. Education and culture DG: the Magazine No. 29, p. 14; bold letters not in the original text)

10

Common features of ISCED and EQF

The two classification systems have several characteristics in common.

1. All classification systems concerning educational attainment or qualification produce vertical structures which are based on criteria like the complexity of knowledge or problems etc. The higher the complexity of problems the higher is the classifying by levels of qualification (or education).

2. Valid curricular standards are not available for both classifications systems.

3. Both frameworks or classification systems which rely on input and outcomes descriptors (e.g. occupations versus professions in ISCED; years of higher education in both frameworks)

4. The formal level-structure of both classification systems is very similar.

11

Structural correspondence between ISCED and EQF

TABLE 3. ISCED and EQF – structural correspondence

ISCED EQF

6 8

5A 7

5A 6

5B 5

4 4

Most blurred zone of qualifications

3 3

2 2

1 1

Source: Schneeberger 2009

12

Where are the differences between ISCED and EQF?

One difference refers to the spitting of the ISCED category 5A which is not

really new because the OECD tries to make internal differences since years.

ISCED and EQF differ in their strategies to reach acceptance primarily.

Whereas ISCED is based on the classifying work of statistical experts and statistical

criteria, the EQF requires a broader discussion about learning outcomes with strong

inclusion of political stakeholders:

„A qualifications framework constitutes active networking and a focal point

for the stakeholders engaged in the complex task of a sustainably reforming

major aspects of an education system.“

(CEDEFOP: The shift to learning outcomes, 2009, p. 11; underlined letters not in

the original text)

13

Some reflections about future developments

1. „Particular attention must also be paid to the impact of a learning outcomes approach as used in the EQF on classifications of knowledge, skills and competences. Future developments of existing statistical classifications and nomenclatures allowing for the measurement of education and training attainment such as the ISCED 97 should therefore take this into consideration.“ (Proposal for a Recommendation ..., 2006, p. 11f.; underlined letters not in the original text ).

2. It is not clear how the EQF would be able to improve ISCED. But in the long run it will be important that the two classification systems shall be compatible to a high degree

3. ISCED will have ongoing relevance:

• It is the globally used classification system

• The EU defines benchmarks based on ISCED (e.g. tertiary rate of at least 40 % in 2020)

• Educational policy is based internationally and nationally on ISCED

4. We have to work on clearly defined sector related projects about qualifications in Europe using ECVET, EQF and other devices to reach more realistic evidence in the future for general levels – otherwise we shall get lost in stagnancy

5. In the very long run national systems might get less diverse

14

SourcesCEDEFOP: The shift to learning outcomes. Policies and practices in Europe. (=CEDEFOP Reference series; 72), Luxembourg: Office of the Official Publications of the European Communities, 2009.

Commission Européenne, Salle de presse: Communiques de Presse: Frequently asked questions: why does the EU need a European Qualifications Framework? MEMO/06/318, Brussels, 5 September 2006.

Commission of the European Communities: Proposal for a Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning, Brussels, 5.9.2006, COM(2006)479 final.

Education and culture DG: EQF 2008 – the trigger year for a framework for European qualifications. In: The Magazine No. 29, 2008, p. 13 - 15. Internet: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/publ/pdf/mag/29/en.pdf (24.08.2009)

Education and Culture GD: How good are Euope’s universities and how con you tell?, The Magazine, No. 30, 2008, p. 46-47. Internet: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/publ/pdf/mag/30/en.pdf (24.08.2009)

European Union: Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning, Brussels, 29 January 2008, PE-CONS 3662/07. Online: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:111:0001:0007:EN:PDF (27.05.2009)

OECD: Classifying Educational Programmes. Manual for ISCED-97 Implementation in OECD Countries, 1999 Edition, Paris, 1999.

OECD: Education at a Glance 2008 - OECD Indicators, Paris, 2008.

UNESCO: International Standard Classification of Education – ISCED 1997, November 1997.