Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung (BIBB)

Background

Pursuant to the recommendation of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 April 2008 concerning the establishment of the European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning, each national qualification system is to be coupled with the EQF by 2010. For the purpose of implementing that requirement, it had been agreed in Germany that a national qualifications framework, the GQF, would be established. The adoption of the GQF (cf. Arbeitskreis DQR, 2011) in the GQF Working Group cleared the way for starting to link the national qualifications to the GQF levels.

GQF Working Group

The joint Federal and Länder "German Qualifications Framework" Coordination Group was established at the beginning of 2007 to prepare a draft of the German Qualifications Framework.

In order to involve other relevant stakeholders in the drafting process, the Federal and Länder governments additionally set up a "German Qualifications Framework" Working Group with the objective of developing, jointly and across educational sectors, a common terminology and a GQF that works in practice.

Apart from the members of the Federal/Länder Coordination Group, the GQF Working Group also includes representatives of the social partners, higher education institutions and other experts and thus of all educational sectors. The basis for the cooperation in the Working Group is the principle of consensus among the represented stakeholders; to achieve this, all members make sure that the results of the work are continuously transmitted to their respective institutions/bodies.

(cf. www.deutscherqualifikationsrahmen.de/de/der_dqr/akteure_und_gremien/; a list of members is available there as well)

Even during the GQF drafting stages there was an apparent difference between the positions of the institutions belonging to the BIBB Board and the Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs (KMK) - a difference pertaining above all to the linking of vocational education certificates and university entrance qualifications and one that could not be resolved in the course of the further proceedings.

Following a suggestion by its Schools Committee, the KMK preferred an assignment of general and subject-specific university entrance qualifications together with more advanced vocational certificates to Level 5, the assignment of technical university entrance qualifications together with most of the qualifications from three-and three-and-a-half-year vocational training trades to Level 4 and the assignment of two-year vocational training trades to Level 3. The KMK thus favoured spreading training occupation qualifications over Levels 3, 4 and 5 of the GQF, but it has left open up to now what it means by "more advanced vocational certificates" and which specific trades they cover. From the discussions that have taken place in the GQF Working Group so far, however, we gather that it will apply to only a few of the approximately 350 recognized training occupations.

This prompted the Conference of Ministers of Economic Affairs (WMK) to clearly define in its resolution of 25 August 2011 its position on how to proceed with the implementation of the GQF and the EQF (cf. WMK 2011). Among other things, it pointed out that transparency, permeability and equivalence in the German education system could only be attained if all the stakeholders involved accepted the GQF as potential users and recognised an added value. This does not mean codifying the existing education and training hierarchies but rather it means ensuring the supply of skilled personnel by reinforcing vertical and horizontal permeability at the national and European levels. One point made by the WMK seems to be particularly important: that the GQF can only attain these goals if qualifications in different fields of education are assigned using uniform criteria and methods on the basis of the competences described in the GQF. This also means that there are no reasons for the WMK to assign a higher qualification level to general university entrance qualifications than to technical university or subject-specific university entrance qualifications. Following on this, the WMK arrives at the recommendation that three- and three-and-a-half-year training occupations corresponding to the Vocational Training Act and the Crafts and Trades Regulation Code be classified on an equal footing with general university entrance qualifications in the GQF.

At its 335th Plenary Session on 20/21 October 2011, however, the KMK confirmed its policy of locating general and subject-specific university entrance qualifications as well as (a few) more advanced vocational certificates at Level 5 and hence of maintaining its approach of spreading training occupation qualifications over three levels.

Towards the end of 2011, therefore, there appeared to be a deadlock between the KMK and the other stakeholders, decisively the Federal government and the WMK as well as the social partners and the organisations of the Chambers. The BIBB Board therefore notes in its position statement of 29 November 2011 that owing to lack of substantive underpinning and traceability the KMK assignment proposal was completely unacceptable, and draws attention to the negative consequences for employee recruitment in all branches and sectors of the economy. On the one hand the dual system of vocational education and training would become less attractive, so that there would be a danger of less and less high school graduates opting for initial vocational education and training if the intended assignment implies to them that their school leaving certificate is worth more than a vocational training certificate. On the other hand, the KMK calls the equivalence of the educational sectors into question with its position. Ultimately, the BIBB Board criticises the lack of consistency in the KMK's position and calls for it to be revised accordingly (cf. BIBB-Hauptausschuss 2011). Moreover, in different motions or press releases the CDU/CSU, SPD, Bündnis 90/Die Grünen and FDP political groups in the German Bundestag expressed their critical stance on the KMK resolution (cf. Deutscher Bundestag 2012; Ausschuss für Bildung, Forschung und Technikfolgenabschätzung 2012; KAMP 2012).

Despite this disagreement all concerned were in agreement that a solution had to be found so as not to endanger the further process of implementing the EQF. In particular, the abovementioned recommendations of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 April 2008 require that all new qualification certificates, diplomas and Europass documents contain a clear reference to the applicable EQF level by 2012. For that reason there was to be a top-level meeting at the beginning of 2012 if possible to clear the air and resolve the disagreement.

Top of the page

Current situation

On 31 January 2012 a consultative meeting was held on the invitation of the President at the Secretariat of the Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs (KMK) to clear up outstanding issues with regard to the assignment of qualifications to the GQF. In the end the top-level representatives of the Federal government, the KMK, the WMK, the social partners and the organisations of the Chambers as well as the BIBB agreed on a common position on the implementation of the GQF and hence the European Qualifications Framework as well as follows (cf. BMBF et al. 2012):

• Crucial importance in attaining greater transparency, permeability and equivalence is attached to the EQF as the common European reference framework for the various national qualification systems. The main purpose is to promote the mobility of the stakeholders in the education and employment systems.
• National implementation of the EQF takes place through the GQF in such a way that an appropriate evaluation and thus comparability of German qualifications in Europe are assured. In this connection, a reference is made to links which have already been agreed on consensually between the parties concerned, especially the link of bachelor, master craftsman, vocational school and business specialist qualifications to GQF Level 6.
• Initial vocational education and training qualifications will be assigned to levels 3 and 4, with the qualifications in what have up to now been two-year occupations being assigned to Level 3 and those training occupations that have required three and three-and-a-half years of training being assigned to Level 4. The qualifications connected with general schooling will be left unlinked for the time being.
• In five years, all the assignments undertaken until then will be reconsidered in context and decided on the basis of competence-oriented regulatory instruments against the background of national and international experience. Upgrading to higher levels shall explicitly not be ruled out. The GQF Working Group will be responsible for all outstanding linking tasks.

At its 7 March 2012 meeting the working group deployed by the BIBB Board to support the EQF/GQF process gave a largely positive assessment of that common position resulting from a development and discussion process that has been going on for several years now (cf. BIBB/Der Präsident 2012).

In the 31 January 2012 top-level conference one question of importance for the equivalence of general and vocational education, that of a common placement of vocational qualifications and qualifications from general education, could not be answered, so the adopted five-year moratorium now leaves sufficient time for resolving that problem definitively and in line with the agreed principle of recognition of the equivalence of vocational education and general schooling.

Parallel to the assignment discussion, further work was done in 2011 on questions of integrating the results of non-formal and informal learning into the GQF. For that purpose an expert hearing was held in the GQF Working Group in June 2011 and then task groups were set up that dealt with questions of the further incorporation of non-formal and informal learning into the GQF process and/or the further development of vocational education and training and prepared the corresponding recommendations. One of the recommendations is for comprehensive integration of the results of non-formal and informal learning at all levels of the GQF. For that purpose, a transparent and reliable procedure is to be implemented in Germany for determining, evaluating and certifying non-formally and informally acquired competences. In this connection the experts recommend building on existing know-how and making so-called "competent bodies" such as the Chambers of Crafts and Trades and the Chambers of Industry and Commerce responsible for the corresponding procedures (cf. n. s. 2011).

Top of the page

Forthcoming tasks

From the perspective of vocational education and training policy, three tasks appear to be of particular significance for the forthcoming implementation of the GQF:

1. Linking of qualifications: Pursuant to the 21 January 2012 agreement between the Federal and Länder governments and the social partners, the assignments shall be made that have already been consensually agreed on, especially for Level 6 (bachelor, vocational school, business specialist, master craftsman etc.). In addition, the linking of qualifications from two-year training occupations to Level 3 and from three- and three-and-a-half-year training occupations to Level 4 is to be undertaken. The GQF Working Group is also called upon to undertake the other assignments still pending with the exception of the general school leaving qualifications, which are to be left out for the time being (cf. BMBF et al. 2012). In principle the basic system of training and upgrading training already established can serve for this work; that system was confirmed in past GQF preparatory phases through appropriate examples of use as follows: linking of training occupation qualifications to Levels 3 and 4, linking of the qualifications attributable to the first upgrading training level to Level 5 (specialist), linking of the qualifications attributable to the second upgrading training level to Level 6 (operative professional) and linking of qualifications attributable to the third upgrading training level to Level 7 (strategic professional) of the GQF and the EQF.
2. Development of competence-oriented regulatory instruments: Recommendation 4 of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 April 2008 (cf. p. C 111/3) provides for a learning outcome-oriented approach to the description and definition of qualifications. In this connection the stakeholders agreed at the top-level conference of 31 January 2012 to describe qualifications from vocational education and training in the future in so-called competence-oriented regulatory instruments as well as to develop competence-oriented education standards for all general education certificates.
3. Designation of a National Coordination Point: Recommendation 6 of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 April 2008 calls for the establishment of an infrastructure for the implementation of the EQF/GQF (cf. p. C 111/3). It is of particular importance that a National Coordination Point be created here ensuring that the qualifications assigned to the GQF are linked with the EQF and that all the relevant stakeholders (meaning in particular the institutions represented in the GQF Working Group) are involved in the implementation process in accordance with national legislation and practice.

Over and above these requirements, it is necessary to clarify in general to what extent legislative provisions are needed for the further implementation of the GQF/EQF process. Without wanting to go into this problem in greater detail in this article, let it be said that in the next five years one should operate sub-legally wherever possible, above all so that the initial experiences can be made, as it were, on a trial basis and so as not to hamper the EQF/GQF process unduly with legislative procedures. In this connection the WMK recommends in its 25 August 2011 resolution (p. 2) a low-threshold and unbureaucratic legal implementation. This does not rule out legal provisions in principle. Thus an expert opinion which examined legal effects of the EQF recommendation as well as its implementation under German law on behalf of the BMBF refers also to the fact that the establishment of legal provisions offers the best possibility of making GQF/EQF implementation obligatory for everyone and sustainable (cf. HERDEGEN 2009, p. 25).

In line with the agreement of 31 January 2012 (cf. BMBF et al. 2012) the position is taken here that in view of the possibility of revision after five years the implementation process should not be undertaken too timidly. From the point of view of vocational education and training it seems reasonable to implement the agreed identification of the level accomplished on certificates as speedily as possible and just as speedily to ensure the required learning outcome orientation of the regulatory instruments at the initial and continuing training level if revisions are made. In order to support this process, the BIBB has already prepared suggestions for the implementation of competence-oriented training regulations on behalf of the BMBF (cf. LORIG et al. 2012).

The general rule should be that one begins with the implementation at the point where the fewest difficulties are to be expected. Together with the training level, the continuing education and training regulated country-wide and at the level of the Chambers should be given special mention in this connection. At the end of the five-year term, an evaluation of the overall process should be attempted and if necessary the requisite corrections should be made with a view to the further binding implementation of the GQF/EQF. Preference should be given to a low-threshold solution for the creation of a Coordination Point as well, one that can be easily integrated into the existing system and above all one that does not cause too much bureaucracy.

Concerning the assignment of learning outcomes from non-formal as well as informal learning, the development work that has begun should be continued. On the one hand, specific implementation measures should be tested on the basis of the insights acquired so far using practical examples. On the other hand, experience with similar tasks in other areas needs to be reflected and considered for adoption. Mention should be made at this point of the implementation of the Professional Qualifications Assessment Act (BQFG). Here too, after all, it is a question of how qualifications acquired abroad but not adequately certified can be given recognition in Germany.

BWP will continue in the future to support the GQF/EQF process with articles on special questions that arise in the next few months in the course of further implementation, above all so as to help enable better insights into a set of topics that currently seems too many stakeholders to be inaccessible.

The eight qualification levels of the GQF and the assignment of occupation-oriented qualifications

Top of the page

Last modified on: July 25, 2012