2011 Short Cycle Higher Education in Europe Level 5: the Missing Link MAGDA KIRSCH AND YVES BEERNAERT This project has been funded with the support of the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Commission Copyright © 2011 by EURASHE All rights reserved. This information may be freely used and copied for non-commercial purposes, provided that the source is acknowledged (©EURASHE). EURASHE Ravensteingalerij 27/3 1000 Brussels BELGIUM ISBN-9789081686709 This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein Foreword ‘Level 5-The Missing Link’ is an intriguing title for this new publication of EURASHE for those not versed in the qualifications terminology. It rightly points to an existing lack in the National Qualifications Frameworks, at least in some countries in the European Higher Education Area (formerly ‘Bologna’). The implementation of the two- (later three) cycle structure also had to incorporate the level that is the link between secondary and higher education, and this for reasons explained below. It is a great merit of the two researchers, Magda Kirsch and Yves Beernaert, co-authors of the report, that they have taken up the challenge of mapping a sector of (higher) education in a variety of countries, which often have just this in common, that they are among the 47 that signed the Bologna Declaration, but otherwise have such different education systems and structures that make comparisons of levels and programmes extremely difficult. This certainly for a level that in many countries led an existence of its own, outside the remit of higher education authorities. The authors had done so before, when in 2003 they made the Europe-wide survey of “existing tertiary short cycle (TSC) education in Europe” also on behalf of EURASHE, and similarly commissioned by the European Commission. Unlike with the previous publication they are now surveying those training courses that qualify as an intermediate step within the first cycle of higher education only, thus wisely leaving aside those other short qualifications that could not claim to be part of higher education. Within the constraints of the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Commission the authors had to limit the scope of the survey to those countries eligible for funding, thus leaving aside other countries, such as the Russian Federation, Georgia, Ukraine, etc. that would then be the object of another study, in order to make the picture of the state-of-art of ‘Level Five’ in the EHEA complete. As the authors themselves point out, there are various reasons of an economic, social and personal nature which have made it obvious that this fifth level could not be overlooked in the national qualifications frameworks, after it had rightly found its place in the European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning. Indeed the Bergen Ministerial meeting of Ministers (2005) had enabled countries to embed ISCED Level Five in the first cycle, thus effectively integrating it into the Bachelor-Master structure, on the basis of a compromise phrase in the Ministerial Communiqué, which stated “within national contexts, the possibility of intermediate qualifications”. Besides which the economic agenda of the European Union contributed to the growing success of the intermediate qualification, by building upon a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (“ET 2020”), in order to meet Europe’s ‘many socio-economic, demographic, environmental and technological challenges” in the years ahead. It also became more and more clear that for an individual learner, the intermediate qualification could be a help for social advancement, through a qualification that enables a first entry in the labour market, and in addition may lead to a further qualification. 2 SCHE in Europe – Level 5 – The missing link I am therefore confident that this comprehensive report will reach a variety of audiences, including our colleagues from the Bologna Follow-up Group, and all those who are looking for arguments that demonstrate the valuable contribution of intermediate qualifications to lifelong learning. Stefan Delplace Secretary General EURASHE 3 SCHE in Europe – Level 5 – The missing link Acknowledgements We are deeply grateful to the representatives of the ministries of education and the institutions that have taken the time to fill in the Eurashe 2010 questionnaires. Our heartfelt thanks go to the representatives of ministries that have taken the time to read the drafts of the country descriptions and who have made suggestions to improve some of the contents. Similarly we thank the experts, Rosita Van Meel of ETF and Richard Thorn of IOTI who have taken the time to read the comparative chapters with the conclusions and recommendations and who have come up with suggestions to improve the contents of these chapters. Special thanks go to Hans Daale, the external evaluator of the project, who has relentlessly given advice to the two experts in drafting and finalising the comparative part of the present study. We also want to address our special thanks to Richard Thorn and Durmus Günay who wrote an example of good practice. We are grateful to CEDEFOP for allowing us to use some of their reports, especially on qualification frameworks in Europe and on skills needs and demands. We are also very grateful to the members of the Administrative Board of Eurashe and the regional coordinators who have given their support to collect the information necessary to draft the present report. We also thank Paddy Carpenter who has taken the time to review, at short notice, the English of the study. We finally also thank Stefan Delplace, the secretary-general of Eurashe, and the project manager, Iva Voldanova, for the support they have given us over the past year. Without the support of all those colleagues it would have been impossible to finalise the present study within the deadlines originally set. Magda Kirsch & Yves Beernaert 4 SCHE in Europe – Level 5 – The missing link 1. Table of Content Foreword ................................................................................................................................................ 2 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................ 4 Part I: Comparative study .......................................................................................................................... 9 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 9 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 16 1.1. Objectives of the study ............................................................................................................. 16 1.2. Structure of the report .............................................................................................................. 17 2. Context of the present study .................................................................................................... 19 2.1. Background of the report ......................................................................................................... 19 2.2. Socio-economic context ............................................................................................................ 20 2.3. Many NQF’s still under construction ........................................................................................ 21 2.4. Several meta-frameworks in use .............................................................................................. 22 2.5. Level 5 is not always SCHE ........................................................................................................ 23 3. Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 27 3.1. Questionnaires sent out by regional coordinators ................................................................... 27 3.2. Interviews.................................................................................................................................. 29 3.3. Desk top research ..................................................................................................................... 29 3.4. Drafting of the country chapters .............................................................................................. 29 3.5. Drafting of the comparative chapter ........................................................................................ 30 3.6. Conclusions and recommendations .......................................................................................... 30 3.7. Problems encountered ............................................................................................................. 30 3.8. Considerations for further studies ............................................................................................ 32 4. Cross-country results ................................................................................................................ 33 4.1. Presence of SCHE/ level 5 in the countries surveyed ............................................................... 33 4.2. Main objectives