DOCSLIB.ORG

Higher Education Entrance Qualifications and Exams in Europe: a Comparison

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Higher Education Entrance Qualifications and Exams in Europe: a Comparison EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES B Agriculture and Rural Development Culture and Education Fisheries Regional Development Transport and Tourism EN DE FR DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT B: STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES CULTURE AND EDUCATION HIGHER EDUCATION ENTRANCE QUALIFICATIONS AND EXAMS IN EUROPE: A COMPARISON STUDY This document was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Culture and Education. AUTHORS Cecile Hoareau McGrath, Marie Louise Henham, Anne Corbett, Niccolo Durazzi, Michael Frearson, Barbara Janta, Bregtje W. Kamphuis, Eriko Katashiro, Nina Brankovic, Benoit Guerin, Catriona Manville, Inga Schwartz, Daniel Schweppenstedde RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATOR Markus J. Prutsch Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies European Parliament B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] EDITORIAL ASSISTANCE Lyna Pärt LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN Translation: DE, FR ABOUT THE PUBLISHER To contact the Policy Department or to subscribe to its monthly newsletter please write to: [email protected] Manuscript completed in May 2014 Brussels © European Union, 2014 This document is available on the Internet at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies DISCLAIMER The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorized, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy. DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT B: STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES CULTURE AND EDUCATION HIGHER EDUCATION ENTRANCE QUALIFICATIONS AND EXAMS IN EUROPE: A COMPARISON STUDY Abstract The study analyses admission systems to higher education across ten countries, covering some countries of the European Union (France, Germany, Italy, Slovenia, Sweden and the United Kingdom), a candidate country (Turkey) as well as commonly used international comparators (Australia, Japan and the US). These countries are compared on three axes: the equity of admissions, their quality and their ability to encourage students’ mobility. On this basis, recommendations are provided with regard to admission to higher education in Europe. IP/B/CULT/IC/2013_007 May 2014 PE 529.057 EN Higher Education Entrance Qualifications and Exams in Europe: A Comparison __________________________________________________________________________________________ CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES 5 LIST OF FIGURES 6 LIST OF BOXES 6 GLOSSARY OF TERMS 7 PREFACE 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 11 1. INTRODUCTION 15 1.1.Worldwide trends influencing admissions 15 1.2.Policy context 16 1.3.The history of EU intervention in higher education 17 1.4.Key questions 19 1.5.Descriptive questions 20 1.6.Evaluative questions 20 2. METHOD 25 2.1.Statistical overview 25 2.2.Case study comparison 27 2.3.Benchmarking of countries 28 2.4.Stakeholders’ interviews 33 2.5.Review of policy and national sources 33 3. VARIETY OF ADMISSION SYSTEMS: AN OVERVIEW 35 3.1.Entry Requirements 35 3.2.Content of secondary school exams 40 3.3.Variation within national systems 42 3.4.Actors 45 3.5.The age of entry into higher education 49 3.6.Timeframe of application 51 3.7.The cost of application to higher education 52 3.8.Summary 53 3 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies __________________________________________________________________________________________ 4. THE EQUITY OF ADMISSIONS SYSTEMS 55 4.1.Strengths and weaknesses of each system in terms of equity 55 4.2.Admission systems and socio-economic inequalities 57 4.3.Admission systems and specific groups of learners 62 4.4.Summary 66 5. THE QUALITY OF ADMISSIONS SYSTEMS 67 5.1.Strengths and weaknesses of each system in terms of quality 67 5.2.The relationship between management of admissions and quality 70 5.3.Admission systems as reliable predictors of students’ achievements 72 5.4.Timing of applications 74 5.5.Summary 74 6. ENABLING MOBILITY THROUGH ADMISSIONS SYSTEMS 77 6.1.Strengths and weaknesses of each system in terms of mobility 78 6.2.Trends in inbound and outbound mobility 80 6.3.Admissions as a regulating mechanism 82 6.4.The absence of European-wide coordination initiatives 83 6.5.International comparisons on the coordination of admissions 85 6.6.Summary 87 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 89 7.1.Conclusions 89 7.2.Recommendations for European institutions 90 7.3.Recommendations for Member States 94 7.4.Issues for further research 95 BIBLIOGRAPHY 97 ANNEXES 115 4 Higher Education Entrance Qualifications and Exams in Europe: A Comparison __________________________________________________________________________________________ LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 International comparision 29 TABLE 2 Overview of regulatory schemes in country case studies 32 TABLE 3 Summary of entry requirements 36 TABLE 4 Role of higher education institutions in the selection of students, selection criteria and management of applications 45 TABLE 5 Bodies managing admissions 47 TABLE 6 Average and typical age of entry to higher education 50 TABLE 7 Application, administrative, and other fees 53 TABLE 8 Strengths and weaknesses of each system in terms of equity 56 TABLE 9 Comparison between system characteristics and indicators related to access and attainment 58 TABLE 10 An overview of measures adopted towards disabled students across the 10 case studies 65 TABLE 11 Strengths and weaknesses of admission systems in terms of quality 68 TABLE 12 Strengths and weaknesses of admission systems regarding mobility 78 TABLE 13 Inbound mobility 80 TABLE 14 Outbound mobility ratio 81 TABLE 15 List of admission agencies 92 5 Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies __________________________________________________________________________________________ LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 Three stages of the study 20 FIGURE 2 International overview 27 FIGURE 3 Admissions system in Germany 87 FIGURE 4 A suggested information portal and support service for higher education admissions in Europe 93 LIST OF BOXES BOX 1 Secondary school leaving certificates with varying degree of choice: England and Slovenia 41 BOX 2 Standardised tests in addition to school leaving certificate 42 BOX 3 Centralised and dual admissions systems: case study country examples 49 6 Higher Education Entrance Qualifications and Exams in Europe: A Comparison __________________________________________________________________________________________ GLOSSARY OF TERMS Admission is defined as a ‘specific activity undertaken to admit students to universities’ for the purpose of this study (Matross Helms, 2008: 2). This definition is narrower than definitions provided elsewhere, which included for instance: ‘the process from when a potential student develops an interest in entry to higher education until enrolment in a particular institution and course takes place’ (Harman, 1994: 318). Considerations related to admissions in this study include entry qualifications and examinations, application procedures (e.g. length), and the regulation of such entry criteria to higher education. The study does not cover certain broader factors such as the drivers of the choice of students regarding particular higher education institutions and disciplines, e.g. rankings (Horstschraeer, 2012). This study concentrates on admissions to undergraduate education in universities and academic degrees, and excludes admissions in postgraduate education, short degrees or more vocational routes. An open admission system exists when holders of relevant secondary school certificates have an automatic right of access to higher education (Sargent et al., 2012: 24). A selective admission system is a system where applicants have to meet other criteria in addition to holding a secondary school certificate to be admitted to higher education institutions (Sargent et al., 2012: 24). Inbound mobility rate is the number of students from abroad studying in a given country, expressed as a percentage of total tertiary enrolment in that country (UNESCO, 2012). Outbound mobility ratio is the number of students from a given country studying abroad, expressed as a percentage of total tertiary enrolment in that country (UNESCO, 2012). Qualifications include any diploma or other certificate issued by a competent authority attesting the successful completion of an education programme and giving the holder of the qualification the right to be considered for admission to higher education, according to the Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education. Access to higher education refers to the opportunity to enter higher education, though is not a guarantee for admission. The principles of inherited merit, equality of rights and equality of opportunity have been used to frame access policies according to Clancy and Goastellec (2007: 137-38). Access includes two categories of students: those who enter higher education for the first time (‘new entrants’); and those who use the facilities of higher education (‘enrolled students’) regardless of how many years they have already spent in higher education (Keiser et and O’Heron, 2005: 17). This study concentrates on new entrants to an undergraduate level/first cycle of higher education. Where admission practice is restrictive or selective, the distinction needs to be made between conditions for access, and conditions for admission
Load more

Recommended publications
  • List of Tech Levels for 2017 Performance Tables
    2017 16 to 19 performance tables: qualifications in the tech level category February 2015 (replaces December 2014 version) Contents Introduction 3 Headline performance measures for 16-19 year olds 4 Qualifications that will be included in the tech level category in the 2017 16-19 performance tables 5 Tech levels in agriculture, horticulture and animal care 5 Tech levels in arts, media and publishing 9 Tech levels in accounting and finance, business, administration and law 11 Tech levels in child development and well-being 12 Tech levels in construction, planning and the built environment 13 Tech levels in engineering, manufacturing and transportation operations 16 Tech levels in health, public services and care 20 Tech levels in information and communication technology 21 Tech levels in leisure, sport, travel and tourism 22 Tech levels in retail, hospitality and commercial enterprise 23 2 Introduction This is the final list of qualifications that have been approved by the Department for Education (DfE) for teaching to 16 to 19 year olds from September 2015. These qualifications will be reported in the tech level category of the 2017 16-19 performance tables (to be published in early 2018). They will be reported alongside qualifications such as A Levels and other vocational qualifications. Qualifications that will be reported in performance tables for the first time in 2017 have an asterisk (*) after the title. Qualifications that were added to the list in February 2015 are indicated with a hash symbol (#) after the title. Tech levels are rigorous advanced (level 3) technical qualifications on a par with A Levels and recognised by employers.
    [Show full text]
  • Academic Studies for Officers
    University VIENNA and National Defense Academy VIENNA Academic Studies for Officers A Central European Perspective (Presentations of the First International Conference in Vienna, 15 – 19 March 1999) Published by Brigadier-General Gernot ALBRECHT Vienna, April 2001 SUMMARY OF CONTENTS WOLFGANG GREISENEGGER..................................................3 Welcome Address......................................................................................3 ERNEST KÖNIG..........................................................................5 Welcome Address......................................................................................5 GERNOT ALBRECHT .................................................................9 Opening Statement....................................................................................9 ARMIN A. STEINKAMM ............................................................10 The Bundeswehr University [UDBW]..................................................10 JÖRG E. P. KELLER.................................................................17 Academic Officer Training within and for the Armed Forces – a German Perspective ....................................................................................................................17 BEAT A. KÄCH .........................................................................32 The Swiss Military College ....................................................................32 ALTERO FASANO.....................................................................43
    [Show full text]
  • Referencing the Scottish Credit & Qualifications Framework (SCQF)
    Referencing the Scottish Credit & Qualifications Framework (SCQF) to the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) Report 2019 Referencing the Scottish Credit & Qualifications Framework (SCQF to the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) Referencing Report 2019 1 This page has been left blank deliberately. Referencing the Scottish Credit & Qualifications Framework (SCQF to the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) Referencing Report 2019 2 PREFACE The Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF) was first referenced to the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) in 2009. This referencing was published in 2010 as part of a report on the referencing of the National Qualifications Frameworks (NQFs) of the four UK countries to the EQF. In the intervening eight years since publication, the SCQF has developed considerably, with the revision of SCQF Level Descriptors, the redefinition of SCQF Principles and a considerable expansion in the range and number of qualifications on the Framework. In 2015/16, a pilot project was undertaken to establish if the original referencing outcomes continued to be a true reflection of links between the SCQF and EQF. This report builds on the work completed in the pilot and provides a revised and updated analysis of the SCQF/EQF referencing. This report sets out the evidence that the SCQF continues to meet the ten criteria and ten quality assurance principles which govern referencing to the EQF. To provide a context for the reader, it also describes political, legal and social context in which the SCQF operates, explains the nature of the learning landscape in Scotland insofar as it relates to the SCQF, and describes the different kinds of qualifications in the Framework.
    [Show full text]
  • Higher Education Entrance Qualifications and Exams in Europe: a Comparison
    DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT B: STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES CULTURE AND EDUCATION HIGHER EDUCATION ENTRANCE QUALIFICATIONS AND EXAMS IN EUROPE: A COMPARISON STUDY This document was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Culture and Education. AUTHORS Cecile Hoareau McGrath, Marie Louise Henham, Anne Corbett, Niccolo Durazzi, Michael Frearson, Barbara Janta, Bregtje W. Kamphuis, Eriko Katashiro, Nina Brankovic, Benoit Guerin, Catriona Manville, Inga Schwartz, Daniel Schweppenstedde RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATOR Markus J. Prutsch Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies European Parliament B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] EDITORIAL ASSISTANCE Lyna Pärt LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN Translation: DE, FR ABOUT THE PUBLISHER To contact the Policy Department or to subscribe to its monthly newsletter please write to: [email protected] Manuscript completed in May 2014 Brussels © European Union, 2014 This document is available on the Internet at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies DISCLAIMER The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorized, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy. DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT B: STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES CULTURE AND EDUCATION HIGHER EDUCATION ENTRANCE QUALIFICATIONS AND EXAMS IN EUROPE: A COMPARISON STUDY Abstract The study analyses admission systems to higher education across ten countries, covering some countries of the European Union (France, Germany, Italy, Slovenia, Sweden and the United Kingdom), a candidate country (Turkey) as well as commonly used international comparators (Australia, Japan and the US).
    [Show full text]
  • Higher Technical Qualifications in Chemistry and Related Subjects
    Royal Society of Chemistry: Higher Technical Qualifications in chemistry and related subjects. Research report written by: Jane Powell, Lena WWW.SHIFT-MEMBERSHIP.CO.UK Karlin, Tilly Barkway and Octavia Browett ©SHIFT INSIGHT 2020 Executive summary Methods Learners' journeys This report follows a literature review phase • Learners of HTQs choose them because they need a more accessible learning and presents findings from 51 qualitative interviews route or have a preference for a more applied, rather than academic, qualification. with employers, providers and learners of Higher • HTQs have diverse and mixed cohorts and tend to bring together learners from Technical Qualifications*. a wide range of work and educational backgrounds, genders and age groups. Qualitative evidence indicates that HTQs are more inclusive for non-traditional Providers' needs learners compared to university degrees. • Accounts of employers, providers and learners suggest HTQs are used to achieve • The sector is volatile, with providers describing a triple purpose: as an entry route to a variety of industries; to achieve how they responded to changing conditions progression and promotion within their current workplace or sector; and to by switching, tweaking and considering new progress into science-based undergraduate courses. HTQs currently seem to be HTQs. more successful at facilitating the last two outcomes, as school leavers with no • The reported cohort sizes were usually small and relevant work experience sometimes have a poor understanding of the diversity, could fluctuate considerably year on year, with or specifics, of careers these qualifications can lead to. projected demand sometimes not materialising in enrolments. Employers' perceptions • Individual cases suggest employer engagement • While most employers indicated that they did not have a shortage of applicants is important in making new HTQs viable.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019-2020 Program of Studies
    Greater Lowell Technical High School 2019-2020 Program of Studies Joseph Mastrocola, Superintendent-Director Jill Davis, Assistant Superintendent/Principal Core Values A core value is a central belief deeply understood and shared by every member of an organization. Greater Lowell Technical High School has established a set of core values to guide the actions of all students and staff and that are reflected daily in their performance building quality lives and a positive school culture conductive to learning for all. All members of the Greater Lowell Technical High School Learning Community will strive to: R.E.A.C.H. Respect - We treat ourselves, others and our surroundings with dignity through words and actions Effort- We work to the best of our abilities to make continuous progress without giving up or giving in Accountability - We own our words and actions and have the courage to accept responsibility for our decisions Commitment- We show dedication to our success, our school and our community Honesty- We act with integrity and value the importance of truthfulness Greater Lowell Technical High School School Committee Fred W. Bahou, Jr. Curtis J. LeMay Chairperson Dracut, Vice-Chair Lowell, Secretary Raymond J. Boutin Paul E. Morin George W. O’Hare Lowell Dracut Lowell Matthew J. Sheehan George A. Tatseos Kempton P. Giggey Dracut Tyngsboro Dunstable Administration Joseph Mastrocola Superintendent-Director Jill Davis Assistant Superintendent/Principal Jeffrey Albert Director-Special Education Tracy Encarnacao Director-Guidance & Counseling Services Michael Barton Director-Curriculum/Instruction & Assessment Directors Stacy Bezanson Director-Cooperative Education/Placement Mark Byrne Director-Plant Services Jamie Costa Senior Assistant Principal Lisa Martinez Director-Technology, Enrollment & Information Kristin Foti Director-Media and Professional Development Christine Messina Director-Practical Nursing & Continuing Ed.
    [Show full text]
  • DOCUMENT RESUME the Development of Technical And
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 411 471 CE 074 838 TITLE The Development of Technical and Vocational Education in Africa. INSTITUTION United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, Dakar (Senegal). Regional Office for Education in Africa. ISBN ISBN-92-9091-054-2 PUB DATE 1996-00-00 NOTE 411p.; Product of the International Project on Technical and Vocational Education (UNEVOC). PUB TYPE Reports Research (143) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC17 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Case Studies; *Developing Nations; Economic Development; Education Work Relationship; Educational Cooperation; *Educational Development; Educational Legislation; *Educational Policy; Foreign Countries; Industry; *Role of Education; *School Business Relationship; *Vocational Education IDENTIFIERS *Africa ABSTRACT The 13 chapters in this book depict the challenges facing African nations in their efforts to develop their technical and vocational education (TVE) systems. Chapter 1,"TVE in Africa: A Synthesis of Case Studies" (B. Wanjala Kerre), presents a synthesis of the case studies in which the following major trends taking place within the existing socioeconomic context are discussed: TVE within existing educational structures; cooperation between TVE institutions and enterprises; major challenges facing the nations in their efforts to develop TVE; and the innovative measures undertaken in response to the problems and constraints experienced. The remaining 12 chapters are individual case studies giving a more detailed picture of natural efforts and challenges encountered in the development of TVE. Chapters 2-8 focus on the role of TVE in educational systems: "TVE in Cameroon" (Lucy Mbangwana); "TVE in Congo" (Gilbert Ndimina); "TVE in Ghana"(F. A. Baiden); "TVE in Kenya"(P. 0. Okaka); "TVE in Madagascar" (Victor Monantsoa); "TVE in Nigeria" (Egbe T.
    [Show full text]
  • Course Entry Requirement Statement for 2021 Entry
    Course Entry Requirements Statement for 2021 Entry Course Entry Requirement Statement for 2021 Entry Contents Scope and Purpose ........................................................................................ 3 UK QUALIFICATIONS ......................................................................................... 4 GCSEs and equivalent qualifications .................................................................... 4 A’Levels and equivalent qualifications ................................................................. 4 EU AND INTERNATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS .............................................................. 19 Maritime Courses ........................................................................................ 31 ENGLISH LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS .................................................................... 29 APPENDIX A: EXEMPTIONS AND EXCEPTIONS ......................................................... 29 APPENDIX B: ACCEPTABLE ENGLISH LANGUAGE QUALIFICATIONS FOR STUDENTS REQUIRING A STUDENT ROUTE VISA ................................................................................... 32 APPENDIX C: EUROPEAN SCHOOL LEAVING/MATRICULATION CERTIFICATES EQUIVALENT TO IELTS (ACADEMIC) 6.0 OVERALL ....................................................................... 38 External Relations | Admissions and Enrolment 2 Updated April 2021 Course Entry Requirements Statement for 2021 Entry Scope and Purpose 1. This document is designed for use by Solent University (SU) staff when evaluating applicants for entry
    [Show full text]
  • Specification for the UCAS Data for HESA (*J) 2018/19
    Title: Specification of the UCAS data for HESA Transaction (*J) 2018 Date: 11th October 2018 Version: V1.2 Status: Final Version Security Marking: Private Security Marking: PRIVATE Page 1 of 108 Document Owner: UCAS Last updated: 11/10/2018 1. Overview ............................................................................................................ 3 a. Basis of specification ...................................................................................... 3 b. Providers’ access to transaction ..................................................................... 3 c. Timing ............................................................................................................. 3 d. Structure ......................................................................................................... 3 e. Coverage ........................................................................................................ 3 f. Changes to specification ................................................................................. 4 3. Housekeeping .................................................................................................... 4 a. Document Change Control ............................................................................. 4 4. Changes to data specification for 2018/19 .......................................................... 5 5. Field Specification .............................................................................................. 6 6. UCAS *J file format: UCAS November 2018 ....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • National Qualifications Framework Developments in Europe 2017
    ENENEN NATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENTS IN EUROPE 2017 National qualifications framework developments in Europe 2017 Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2018 Please cite this publication as: Cedefop (2018). National qualifications framework developments in Europe 2017. Luxembourg: Publications Office. http://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2801/029873 A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2018 Copyright © European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop), 2018 All rights reserved. PRINT ISBN: 78-92-896-2649-1 doi:10.2801/545730 TI-01-18-117-EN-C PDF ISBN: 978-92-896-2650-7 doi:10.2801/029873 TI-01-18-117-EN-N Designed by Missing Element Prague Printed in the European Union The European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) is the European Union’s reference centre for vocational education and training. We provide information on and analyses of vocational education and training systems, policies, research and practice. Cedefop was established in 1975 by Council Regulation (EEC) No 337/75. Europe 123, 570 01 Thessaloniki (Pylea), GREECE PO Box 22427, 551 02 Thessaloniki, GREECE Tel. +30 2310490111, Fax +30 2310490020 E-mail: [email protected] www.cedefop.europa.eu Joachim James Calleja, Director Tatjana Babrauskiene, Chair of the Governing Board Foreword Cedefop has been working on transparency and recognition of qualifications since the 1980s and has helped shape the European qualifications framework (EQF), adopted in 2008 and revised in 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • Qualifications Levels Explained
    QUALIFICATIONS LEVELS. Regulated qualifications in England, Wales & Northern Ireland are in either the Regulated Qualifications Framework (RFQ) Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ) The table shows how the most common qualifications compare. The higher the level, the more difficult a qualification is. Qualifications at the same level are a similar level of difficulty, but the size and content of the qualifications can vary. AS levels and A levels are both level 3, but you study AS levels over 1 year and A levels over 2 years. You’ll therefore have a deeper knowledge of a subject if you’ve studied it at A level. LEVEL RFQ EXAMPLES FHEQ EXAMPLES Entry Entry level certificate Entry level Skills for Life Entry level award, certificate and diploma Entry level Functional skills Entry level Foundation Learning 1 GCSE (grades D-G) Key Skills level 1 NVQ level 1 Skills for Life level 1 Foundation diploma BTEC award, certificate and diploma level 1 Foundation Learning level 1 Functional Skills level 1 Cambridge National level 1 2 GCSE (grades A*-C) Key Skills level 2 NVQ level 2 Skills for Life level 2 Higher diploma BTEC award, certificate and diploma level 2 Functional Skills level 2 Cambridge National level 2 Cambridge Technical level 3 AS and A level Advanced Extension Award Cambridge International award International Baccalaureate Key Skills level 3 NVQ level 3 Advanced diploma Progression diploma BTEC award, certificate and diploma level 3 BTEC National Cambridge Technical level 3 4 HNC Certificate of higher education Certificate
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating the Comparability of Scores from Achievement Test Variations
    Evaluating the Comparability of Scores from Achievement Test Variations Phoebe C. Winter, Editor Copyright © 2010 by the Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DC All rights reserved. THE COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) is a nonpartisan, nationwide, nonprofit organization of public officials who head departments of elementary and secondary education in the states, the District of Columbia, the Department of Defense Education Activity, and five U.S. extra‐state jurisdictions. CCSSO provides leadership, advocacy, and technical assistance on major educational issues. The Council seeks member consensus on major educational issues and expresses their views to civic and professional organizations, federal agencies, Congress, and the public. Evaluating the Comparability of Scores from Achievement Test Variation Based on research funded by an Enhanced Assessment Grant from the U.S. Department of Education, awarded to the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, in partnership with the Council of Chief State School Officers and its SCASS TILSA and SCASS CAS. Publication of this document shall not be construed as endorsement of the views expressed in it by the U.S. Department of Education, the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, or the Council of Chief State School Officers. COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS Steven Paine (West Virginia), President Gene Wilhoit, Executive Director Phoebe C. Winter, Editor Council of Chief State School Officers One Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20001‐1431 Phone (202) 336‐7000 Fax (202) 408‐8072 www.ccsso.org ISBN: 1‐884037‐28‐3 Copyright © 2010 by the Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DC All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]