Reforms in Higher Education System in Ukraine: Bologna Process, NQF, Legislative Changes

1. SEMINAR: Reforms in the higher education system in Ukraine in the context of the Bologna Process, the NQF for lifelong learning and legislative changes. Kyiv, 31 May- 1 June 2011 THE National qualifications framework (for higher education) and the higher education reform process. explore the purposes of the NQF in Ukraine (both higher and VET) Identification of the implications of the HEQF for existing educational structures, policies and processes Discussion on the new descriptors Stephen Adam stephenadam@orange.fr

2. Any questions on the Council of Europe Report on the previous draft Ukrainian HE QF dated 30 March 2011 – issues for clarification? • Introduction • Area for decision, further refinement and issues for development • Stakeholder involvement • Aims and objectives of the qualifications framework • Consequential implications of developing a Ukrainian FHEQ • Sections and information to include within a UHEQF • Developing level descriptors* • Decision about the number of levels to include in the descriptors + doctoral studies • Issues associated with the use of credits – ECTS* • Clarifying the descriptor-qualifications and the future need for subject/sectoral guidance • Implementation issues • Quality assurance issues • Conclusions and recommendations • Further documents and information sources • Annex: comparison of information headings found within different QF

3. Observations: • Be aware of the limitations of NQF and HEQF they and all the Bologna tools are just a means to an end: better qualifications (improved transparency, recognition, efficiency and mobility) • In order to effect profound higher education reform a UHEQF would need to be implemented and accompanied by many other reforms • The Bologna reforms amount to a paradigm change that is not only very challenging but also raises considerable opposition from traditionalist. • Difficult challenges include: • What is the appropriate relationship between the Ministry and higher education institutions (HEI)? • What does academic autonomy really mean? • What qualifications does Ukraine need + what existing qualifications (+HEI?) should be deleted? • What changes must take place to the structure, processes and approaches to HE – wholesale reform and rationalisation? • How can HEI be modernised (organisation, structures, curriculum development, quality assurance, etc? • What is the appropriate relationship between ministry, national quality assurance agency and institutions? • How to create an effective top-down bottom-up reform strategy for change?

4. Implications of the draft Ukrainian NQF (16/05/11) for higher education reforms: IMPLICATIONS/ISSUES: • What do you mean by quality and how will standards be created and measured? • For whom does access need widening? Is there a need for a social inclusion agenda? Who does the existing education system fail/exclude? • What are the main qualification dead-end pathways (School/VET/HE, etc.)? How can flexibility be introduced and what rules, structures and practices need to change to effect this? How can the recognition of prior learning (RPL) be made possible? • Why are not all current qualifications recognised nationally and internationally? Are the problems associated with quality, structural issues, prejudice, content/outcomes, corruption, etc? QUOTE PURPOSE: ‘The main aim of development and implementation of the National Qualifications Framework (NQF) is to ensure quality, widening access, enhancing transparency and interrelation of qualifications, and facilitating recognition of qualifications at national and international levels.’

5. Implications of the draft Ukrainian NQF (16/05/11) for higher education reforms: IMPLICATIONS/ISSUES: • What qualifications do you need? • What is the nature of the correspondence between educational and professional qualifications envisaged? • What is the basis for the identification of qualifications (typology)? • How much flexibility do you intend to build into the system? • What legitimate barriers will you create/maintain? • How will you make this flexibility a reality? • What strategies and inducements will you need to entice employers + other social partners into permanent meaningful dialogue? QUOTE AIMS: ‘establishment of a system for identification of and correspondence between educational and professional (occupational) qualifications.’ ‘providing flexibility in obtaining qualifications, possibility to plan different learning paths for career and personal growth’ ‘development of a basis for sustainable dialogue among stakeholders in the sphere of education and professional training’

6. Implications of the draft Ukrainian NQF (16/05/11) for higher education reforms: IMPLICATIONS/ISSUES: • What is the current level of understanding of learning outcomes and competences? • What managerial and staff-development will be required to inform and train educators in their use? • What is the nature of the standards (external reference points) that will need to be developed? • How can the NQF help facilitate the recognition of informal and non-formal learning? • What else will need to be done to make RPL a reality? • Are the current generic level descriptors in the NQF an adequate basis for the creation of sectoral qualifications frameworks? • Will sectoral qualifications frameworks in the form of subject benchmarks statement be developed for higher education? QUOTE AIMS: ‘laying a platform for development of educational and professional standards based on learning outcomes (competences)’ ‘facilitating validation of informal and non-formal learning’ ‘development of a basis for creation of sectoral qualification frameworks’

7. Implications of the draft Ukrainian NQF (16/05/11) for higher education reforms: IMPLICATIONS/ISSUES: • What is the nature and basis of the generic level descriptors – for HE are they qualifications or level descriptors? • Do the levels describe the standard for an average student or a threshold standard? • How do they ensure correspondence between educational and professional qualifications – are they appropriate for each? • Should all educational standards be based on professional (occupational standards) laid down in competences? QUOTE MAIN OBJECTIVES: identification, structuring and description of qualification levels ensuring correspondence between educational and professional (occupational) qualifications establishment of a basis for development of educational standards based on professional (occupational) standards laid down in competences

8. Implications of the draft Ukrainian NQF (16/05/11) for higher education reforms: IMPLICATIONS/ISSUES: • What is meant by ‘co-ordination of their design’? Bologna emphasises and protects academic autonomy and diversity. • What needs to change in the current processes for the creation, delivery, assessment and validation of HE qualifications (impact of learning outcomes on curriculum development)? • How can trust in and knowledge of the NQF be spread? • What is the role of the national quality assurance agency in generating trust at all levels? • What role is envisaged for the Enic-Naric, Lisbon recognition convention and Diploma Supplement to aid the international recognition of Ukrainian qualifications? • What is the role of ECTS in facilitating recognition (+ mobility)? QUOTE MAIN OBJECTIVES: ‘ensuring assessment and recognition of qualifications, coordination of processes of their design’ raising trust of users (individuals, educational institutions, employers) to the national qualifications system’ ‘facilitating recognition of qualifications acquired in Ukraine at national and international levels’

9. Implications of the draft Ukrainian NQF (16/05/11) for higher education reforms: OBSERVATIONS: • Compliance with the content of qualifications where the content of professional activity is important but education is for other reasons than just employability – for personal development, for research, for democratic citizenship, for cultural transmission, etc. • A hierarchical order of qualifications can be problematic when it suggest one qualification is better than another – all qualifications have value and act as appropriate educational stopping off points. QUOTE PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT: consistency of qualifications levels compliance of the content of qualifications with the content of professional activity social partnership hierarchic order of qualifications (levels) and conformity to the national education system structure flexibility transparency overarching character compatibility

10. Implications of the draft Ukrainian NQF (16/05/11) for higher education reforms: IMPLICATIONS/ISSUES: • Do the basis work – are the categories appropriate and useful (fit for purpose)? • Blind test new qualifications against the proposed descriptors! QUOTE BASIS OF NQF DESCRIPTORS: Knowledge; Skills; Communication (social competence); Autonomy and accountability; Professional competence.

11. POTENTIAL BENEFITS(List from EQF Note 2: by Jens Bjornavold (Cedefop) and Mike Coles (UK). February 2010) • Increased consistency of qualifications • Better transparency for individuals and employers • Increased currency of single qualifications • A broader range of learning forms are recognised • A national/external reference point for qualifications standards • Clarification of learning pathways and progression • Increased portability of qualifications • Acting as a platform for stakeholders for strengthening cooperation and commitment • Greater coherence of national reform policies • A stronger basis for international co-operation, understanding and comparison

12. STPEHEN ADAM: stephenadam@orange.fr INTEGRATED TOOLS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION REFORM! • CONTEXT: • Growth in demand • Constrained funding • Demographic change • Increased competition • Globalisation RANKINGS ? Student- centred learning Employability Learning outcomes –delivery assessment