Towards a National Qualifications Framework for Germany
Reflections from a VET research standpoint
Dr. Georg Hanf; Dr. Volker Rein
URN: urn:nbn:de:0035-0192-4
A broad consensus exists in Germany in the discussion on the draft European Qualifications Framework (EQF) and the possible development of a National Qualifications Framework (NQF): Education - in the sense of lifelong learning and ensuring the employability of the country's citizens - must be organized and designed with an eye to the macro-objectives that qualifications be transparent, permeable and competence-oriented.1
Research and development being undertaken in this connection aim for a national qualifications framework that covers all fields of education and can interface with other systems or frameworks in Europe. The envisioned NQF will not limit itself to describing academic knowledge and classifying programmes but will be strictly orientated towards competences and vocational proficiency.
Preliminary remarks
This article takes stock of progress and provides guidance for the German discussion on the aims, design elements and processes for the development of a possible national qualifications framework (NQF) - from the perspective of vocational education and training. It raises a number of questions that must be settled prior to or during the development of such an instrument.
1. The aims of qualifications frameworks with regard to education and employment
A broad consensus exists in Germany and in the discussion on the draft European Qualifications Framework and the possible development of a National Qualifications Framework (NQF):Education - in the sense of lifelong learning and ensuring the employability of the country's citizens - must be organized and designed with an eye to the macro-objectives that qualifications be transparent, permeable and competence-oriented.
The "strengthening" of the European Union as a common political and economic area that the European Council agreed upon for the coming decade at its Lisbon meeting in 2000 includes an emphasis on education and training. In keeping with this, the Maastricht Communiqué issued by the European Council in December 2004 envisions the development of a European Qualifications Framework (EQF) to foster transparency and mobility within and between national education and employment systems. The Communiqué also links this with the goals of ensuring and increasing the quality of vocational education and training and of enhancing its parity with general secondary and higher education. In the area of vocational education and training, it additionally aims to closely link the development of an EQF and with the development of a European credit transfer system for vocational education and training (ECVET). Consultations on the first draft of the EQF2 were held during the second half of 2005. This draft is currently being reworked by a technical working group and will enter the decision-making process in mid-2006. The draft is likely to be adopted by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers in the spring of 2007, during the German Presidency of the European Union.
To date, the elaboration of a possible NQF has always been discussed in close conjunction with the draft European Qualifications Framework (EQF) and its education policy and employment policy aims in order to ensure right from the start that qualifications acquired in Germany are comparable and compatible with qualifications in other countries. At the same time, the NQF project is the driving force - at national level - for bringing together and integrating work that is in progress on a number of "construction sites" in the education system and that aims in the same direction as an EQF.
This is evident from, for instance, the fact that under the new Vocational Training Act admission to final examinations with the Chambers is now also possible for persons who have attended full-time vocational school and not just for those who have received their training through the "dual" vocational training system, or that Land (state)-level laws provide for the possibility of giving credits for vocational qualifications in relation to university degree programmes.
In its advisory opinion issued on 15 November 2005, Germany's Federal Ministry of Education and Research, in conjunction with the Standing Conference of Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder of the Federal Republic of Germany ("KMK"), informed the European Commission with regard to the first draft of the EQF3 that Germany intends to develop a national framework for vocational and general education. These plans are also being put into concrete terms in the work being done by the ministry's task force on innovations in VET (modernising training regulations, managing transition from school to work, facilitating progression from initial into further and higher education, opening up the German system to Europe) . Meeting on 14 December 2005, the Board of the Federal Institute for Vocational Education and Training - Germany's "parliament for vocational training" - also advocated in its advisory opinion on the Commission's draft the development of a qualifications framework in Germany that encompasses all education sectors. It reiterated this position at its meeting on 9 March 2006.
A NQF is on the agenda that will not limit itself to describing academic knowledge and classifying programmes but will be strictly orientated towards competences and vocational proficiency. The envisaged system will classify qualifications in terms of learning outcomes that can be matched to levels of work requirements and skill profiles, without regard to formal certificates or diplomas. In this connection, the NQF is understood as an instrument that can be used to obtain information that makes it possible to compare learning outcomes that are achieved through different pathways.
2. The relationship between an EQF and NQFs
The consultation paper on the EQF refers several times to the fact that the EQF is based on a voluntary commitment of the Member States and that the individual countries are responsible for their own qualifications systems and the classification of their qualifications:
"The optimal approach would be that each country sets up a single National Framework of
Qualifications and that each country links this single National Framework of Qualifications to an EQF. However, considering the rich diversity of national education and training systems and their stages of development, each country should at least put in place a process whereby existing qualifications structures and systems are linked to an EQF.. A clear and demonstrable link is established between the qualifications in the systems or framework and the level descriptors of an EQF."4
The document also makes it clear however that a prerequisite for the implementation of an EQF is that national education and training authorities be bindingly committed to following a number of objectives, principles and procedures: "The national ministry or ministries responsible for qualifications should define and decide the scope of the framework (which systems, sub-systems and responsible bodies are to be included)." 5
National procedures for classifying qualifications are to be made explicit and thus demonstrable. Those countries that have completed the classification of their qualifications will be entered in a Europe-wide list.
What implications does this have for an NQF?
Although it is not an absolute prerequisite, a national qualifications framework facilitates the use of an EQF. Individual qualifications or "families" of qualifications could also be matched to EQF levels. However, any country that doesn't have a national framework but wants to match its national qualifications to the EQF would still have to translate them into EQF terminology: learning outcomes, competences, dimensions, levels. In this round-about way, a country's national qualifications as a whole would become its national qualifications framework. The use of (largely) the same terminology would provide the most easily comprehensible link between national qualifications and the EQF. Action needs to be taken here in both directions: EQF to NQF and vice versa.
| NQF | EQF |
| Reference system for recognized qualifications and for learning outcomes that fall outside of these qualifications | Reference system for recognized qualifications/qualifications frameworks |
| Developed by national authorities, regional and sectoral bodies | Developed in cooperation with member states |
| Geared to national priorities | Geared to Community priorities |
| Instrument for recognizing what an individual has learned | Not a mechanism for recognizing what individuals have learned |
| Value based on the interaction between the actors within the national context | Value based on the trust between member states |
| Quality is assured by the practices of the national authorities and institutions | Quality is assured by the practices of national authorities and when linking an NQF with the EQF |
| Levels defined by national benchmarks | Levels determined by learning progress, without regard to context |
During the work currently being done to revise the EQF categories, attention must be paid to ensuring that they correspond - not necessarily word for word, but in substance - with (future) national qualifications descriptions. As a result, the players developing the respective NQF would have a relatively free hand when supplying the details or underpinning the EQF categories in their own particular national context. This means they will particularly have to work toward making certain that the EQF categories allow competence to be shown and that school-based/academic and vocational qualifications and competences are given space.
Once this has been ensured, a national framework can certainly differ from the European meta-framework. As a look at the qualifications frameworks developed by England, Ireland and Scotland shows, NQFs can vary considerably, even when the systems are very similar: These systems work respectively with 8, 10 and12 levels. They either do not make any horizontal distinctions between competence dimensions at all, or they describe eight or just five dimensions. The job at national level is to specify the objectives targeted by the creation of a national qualifications framework, how qualifications are to be described in the future, which competence levels would consequently be sensible and appropriate, and how many levels appear to be necessary.
3. Vantage point of the target groups
All actors involved in education are potential users of an NQF. In the field of vocational education and training, this includes the federal and regional governments (Länder), social partners, enterprises, chambers, certification bodies, training providers and, last but not least, individuals.
As an instrument, NQFs definitely have a variety of possible uses.In the education system, a competence-oriented reference framework should present education activities without regard to certificates, link them to one another and credit learning outcomes (including those that are informally acquired) in a way that incorporates all qualifications and education sectors. This could, for example, enable more flexible access and transitions within the vocational education and training system and facilitate permeability between the vocational education and training system and the tertiary education system as a result of reciprocal credit transfers.
Using an NQF, employers and employees could "decipher" or portray (as the case may be) desired or acquired qualifications which would be understood as "clusters of competences". Compared to formal certificates, the use of an NQF enables this to be done in a way that is much more tailored to actual needs and covers work experience as well. In particular, NQFs are about facilitating vertical and horizontal mobility in and between different economic sectors and the "decipherability" of existing competences.
| Target area/group | Function |
| Education system | Adequate portrayal of German certificates; permeability, lifelong learning |
| Employment system | Mobility, flexibility |
| Employers | "Decipherability" of competences; pin-pointed personnel recruitment and development |
| Individuals | Recognition and crediting of learning outcomes; easier access to qualifications, shorter duration of education and training |
For the individual, NQFs are about supporting lifelong learning (among other things) by enabling easier access to acquiring initial qualification, by avoiding wasting time and dead-ends while acquiring qualifications, by linking formal and informal learning; they are also about ensuring that the education and employment systems are geared more to actual needs in connection with obtaining advanced qualification, changing jobs and the transparency of existing competences.
4. Aspects of the design
The following comments regarding the design of a national qualifications framework are based primarily on findings from a review of the first EQF draft that was conducted to determine the draft EQF's potential implications for the German vocational education and training system.6 The paradigm represented by vocational competence provides the point of departure for matching or describing qualifications. It is also assumed here that the work on developing an NQF also takes into account its compatibility with European qualifications framework mechanisms and rudimentary German qualifications framework structures.
To start with, there is the fundamental question of whether and to what extent qualifications that have been acquired in the VET system or general school system can be classified on a competence-centric basis using just one overarching system. The following questions have to be dealt with in this connection: Are the learning outcomes approach and the concomitant definitions used for this - in, for example, the first EQF draft - sensible and appropriate? Which competence dimensions should be delineated? Which criteria should be taken into account when elaborating the individual levels? Is it possible to describe all learning outcomes with a single standard set of descriptors or can descriptors be formulated only for individual learning fields or domains?
- Basic definitions
To date, the discussion on an NQF has been linked with the development of a European reference system with its own particular education policy and employment policy aims. Correspondingly, such an instrument should be based on a uniform understanding of terminology (such as competence, qualification, sector and, in the German context, domain) that is constitutive for its development. The definition of the term learning outcome7 proposed in the draft EQF could also be used in the German context. This definition is based on acquired and demonstrable competences regardless of whether they were acquired in educational institutions, the work process, social environment, the secondary education system, vocational training system, on the basis of knowledge set forth in curricula and textbooks or through experience. It must be examined whether the approach envisaged for the EQF draft - that of largely ignoring learning venues and periods - would work with regard to quality assurance in the context of German vocational education and training since Germany's vocational training regulations use an input-outcome mix (cf. general training plans).
The definition of competence used in the OECD comes close to the German understanding of vocational competence.8 However, the differences and commonalities in the definition and understanding of this term in the fields of vocational, secondary and tertiary education must be clarified as a prerequisite for an overarching approach that encompasses all fields of education.9 The definition of qualification10 used in the first EQF draft and by the OECD is practicable once knowledge and skills are understood as sub-categories of competences and that knowledge and skills cannot be used effectively without competences. In keeping with this, qualifications could also be understood as clusters of competences. - Competence dimensions
From a vocational training perspective, it would make sense to make the breakdown into technical, methodological, social and personal categories that is recognized in the description of vocational competence in the VET sector the point of departure for the demarcation of the competence dimensions in an NQF.11 It would be possible to translate or match up the technical categories with the competence dimensions "(cognitive) knowledge" and "(functional) skills" as envisioned in the first draft of the EQF. The same applies to the category "methodological competences" which can be integrated into the competence dimensions "knowledge" and "skills". The question of how competence dimensions have to be further subdivided or detailed must be explored in a trial phase. It must be noted that a clear-cut delineation between individual competence dimensions is not possible. Particularly with regard to the descriptions of the requirements for the individual levels, competence dimensions must make it possible to match up learning outcomes in a clear, straightforward and pragmatic way. - Levels and descriptors
The design used for the individual levels was based on the priorities of the parties involved. The aim was to have a uniform number of levels - with an average level of competence where appropriate - for all domains. This will require clarifying the extent to which the levels can be demarcated in relation to occupations, occupational fields and sectors.
The number of levels could be determined with the help of qualitative criteria for describing activities. Such criteria include complexity, lack of transparency, interconnectedness and speed of change.12 The fewer the levels, the easier it is to describe and cover them. However, this tends to lead to more leeway and a lack of clarity when matching up qualifications. The greater the number of levels, the more suitable the matches will be. However, this goes hand-in-hand with increased difficulties in developing definitions that clearly differentiate one level from another. The number of levels also depends on whether non-vocational or pre-vocational qualifications are also to be included. And lastly, it must also be remembered that it is not necessary for competence dimensions to have the same number of levels. It is however very necessary to clearly formulate the differences between levels. Furthermore, all levels have to be described throughout in outcomes-related terms and in concrete terms that differentiate between the levels to enable adequate, comprehensible assessments.
When formulating descriptors, attention must be paid to ensuring that learning outcomes attained and classified in different systems (e.g., the employment system13 and the education system14) can all be matched up. Thus, theoretical knowledge (for example) can be prevented from dominating and practical knowledge and skills (occupational experience) can take on a higher standing than was the case with, for example, the first EQF draft. The descriptors in the individual dimensions should follow a uniform style. This would ensure an orderly description of the differences between the individual levels. This would also remedy the shortcoming that (in some cases) within just one framework level different requirement levels are addressed for different dimensions.
Descriptors should be formulated in a way that is complementary both vertically and horizontally across all dimensions and levels in order to make it possible to better portray the ascending levels and the continuum of learning outcomes. Descriptors should also be developed in a way that is geared to acquired competences and in observance of the future guidelines for formulating knowledge and skills in training regulations and framework curricula.
It appears to be fundamentally possible to develop a description of the final qualification from initial and continuing training profiles as a set of learning outcomes, a description that outlines in the particular NQF the respective vocational competence that has been acquired. It would be necessary to clarify whether all dimensions have the same importance when qualifications are being matched up, what the deciding factors are in matching a qualification to any particular level and how this assessment is conducted when a qualification is spread over several levels. The question of whether and how learning outcomes from partial vocational training qualifications can be individually matched has to be examined in depth because such qualifications are acquired through a combination of theoretical and practical instruction that is taught on an integrated basis at various learning venues over a particular period of time.
5. Operationalization
When developing an NQF, a number of questions regarding its operationalization - questions that are indispensable to the functioning of such an instrument - have to be clarified.
For example, credit points are considered suitable indicators for competence descriptions and are generally viewed as practicable instruments for recognizing or crediting acquired qualifications. The Maastricht Communiqué issued by the European Council in December 2004 envisions the development of the EQF in tandem with a European credit transfer system for vocational education and training (ECVET). The development and implementation of an overarching credit transfer system that covers several fields of education and functions on a cross-border basis would, alongside other means, foster the "mobility" of qualifications between the vocational training system and general education (including higher education) with a new level of transparency.
The work on developing an NQF must however clarify how credit points for yet-to-be-defined segments of integrated vocational training programmes can be granted while giving full consideration to the vocational competence that is acquired through training that integrates theoretical with practical instruction. The question of whether a credit transfer system that is geared to vocational training can be compatible with a European Credit Transfer System (ECTS II)15 that was developed for the European university sector and is geared to qualities has not yet been clarified.
The following questions must also be examined in the course of additional research and development activities and trials which can tie into existing models for and experience gathered with the individual topics: Which standards are decisive for designing qualifications on a competence-centric basis and which standards should be used to ascertain competences? What rules should apply for a standards-based certification of learning outcomes that have been acquired non-formally or informally? What criteria and procedures should be used to determine equivalences as a prerequisite for procedures for recognizing or crediting acquired competences? What effects do competence-centric qualifications have, and what impact do they probably have on examination methods and procedures? What implications does this have for quality assurance?
6. Outlook
A national qualifications framework that spans all education sectors can constitute an important institutional prerequisite for achieving the macro education policy objectives of linkage and competence orientation of (not just vocational) qualifications - in the spirit of fostering citizens' lifelong learning and employability. Work to develop an NQF should involve all stakeholders right from the start in order to ensure lasting acceptance. It could be helpful to bring in experts and actors from neighbouring countries that also have dual structures (Austria, Switzerland, Denmark and The Netherlands) to serve as peer learners in this process.
Due to a number of existing approaches - be it the targets for greater permeability as found in the new Vocational Training Act, be it in academic courses that are designed to be competence-oriented, in the model programme for university access for vocationally qualified individuals, or be it in the work being done on national education standards - the conditions for the development of such an instrument in Germany are favourable. An NQF could step up these developments in keeping with the aims of all user groups.
- Federal Institute for Vocational Education and Training: Report for the Board on a Review of an NQF (1/2006) dated 24 February 2006.
- Commission of the European Communities: Towards a European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning, 2005, p. 38ff.
- European Council: Maastricht Communiqué on the Future Priorities of Enhanced European Cooperation in Vocational Education and Training (Review of the Copenhagen Declaration of 30 November of 2002), 2004.
- Standing Conference of Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder of the Federal Republic of Germany: Handreichung für die Erarbeitung von Rahmenlehrplänen der Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK) für den berufsbezogenen Unterricht in der Berufsschule und ihre Abstimmung mit Ausbildungsordnungen des Bundes für anerkannte Ausbildungsberufe (Leaflet for the Development of Framework Curricula issued by the Standing Conference of Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs for Vocational Instruction in Part-time Vocational Schools and their Coordination with the Federal Government's Training Regulations for Recognized Training Regulations), 2004.
- German Employers' Association for Vocational and Further Training: Kuratorium der Deutschen Wirtschaft für Berufsbildung: Bildung für Europa. EQR und ECVET (Education for Europe, EQF and ECVET), 2005
Rychen, D.S., Salganik, L.H.: A holistic model of competence. In: ibid (Eds.), Key Competencies for a Successful Life and a Well-Functioning Society, 2003. - Sloane, P.F.E: Kompetenzen und Kompetenzniveaus in der beruflichen Domäne von Wirtschaft und Verwaltung: Bildungsstandards, Kompetenzorientierung und Lernfelder (Competences and Competence Levels in the Vocational Domains in Trade, Industry and Administration). In: Bildungsstandards in der beruflichen Bildung II - Handlungserfordernisse, pp. 3 - 19., 2005.
- Ständige Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder der Bundesrepublik Deutschland: Handreichung für die Erarbeitung von Rahmenlehrplänen der Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK) für den berufsbezogenen Unterricht in der Berufsschule und ihre Abstimmung mit Ausbildungsordnungen des Bundes für anerkannte Ausbildungsberufe, Bonn 2004.
Advisory opinions on the First Draft of the European Commission for a European Qualifications Framework, dated 8 July 2005:
- Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung: Stellungnahme des Hauptausschuss (3/2005) vom 14.12.2005.
- Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung: Prüfbericht für den Hauptausschuss vom 01.12.2005.
- Federal Ministry of Education and Research / Standing Conference of Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder of the Federal Republic of Germany: First Advisory Opinion, Bonn 15 November 2005.
- Stellungnahme der Spitzenverbände der deutschen Wirtschaft zur Arbeitsunterlage der EU-Kommission "Auf dem Weg zu einem europäischen Qualifikationsrahmen für lebenslanges Lernen", Berlin 15 November 2005.
Content on this page is licensed under the 
