Path-dependent Implementation of the European Qualifications Framework in Education. A Comparison of Norway, Germany and England

Funding text 1: England represents a third type of adjustment because it is the frontrunner in developing national frameworks, although independently of EU policies. Education problems arose on the agenda in advance of the European agenda setting, creating strong concurrency between the national and EU problem definitions. The shortcomings of the EQF were stressed by recommending the inclusion of an entry level in the EQF, as in the English national qualifications framework. This was even supported by the EU (CEDEFOP 2010) and underlines the position of England, which leads the way in learning outcomes policies. On the other hand, England is criticized for not having managed to link the higher education HE framework to the EQF because the English framework is largely limited to vocational qualifications outside universities. According to Lester (2011), qualifications framework approaches in England have remained fragmented compared with the best examples in other countries.; Funding text 2: Three distinct groups of stakeholders have been prominent in the Norwegian implementation process. In the Ministry of Education and Research, an internal project group with representatives from the Directorate for Education and Training was established. It included an EQF reference group consisting of relevant stakeholders from social partners, education unions, and representatives from schooling and university systems, student unions and public agencies in the education sector. A broader consultative group, “European education and training policies”, involving a broad range of stakeholders (including nongovernmental organizations and the voluntary sector), was kept informed about the implementation of the EQF. Stakeholders, including the authorities, have been careful to underline that the EQF should not be an instrument of reform, but should provide a categorization of learning outcomes into levels of the education system (Bergseng 2011). Moreover, the stakeholders claimed they were not sufficiently involved in the process, and the social partner members of the consultative group criticized the framework developments as being too fragmented. In May 2009, they requested improved co-ordination of processes and activities to fulfill the requirements of one comprehensive qualifications framework (CEDEFOP 2010). This led to a major review of the process by the ministry in September 2009, as a result of the decision to work toward a comprehensive framework. The implementation of the EQF has been characterized as a technical exercise in Norway. It has not been politically grounded and there has been little public interest and debate during the process. Bergseng (2011) found that the partners had limited involvement in the preparation process, and that the consultation process was mostly characterized by information exchange.

Funding text 1: England represents a third type of adjustment because it is the frontrunner in developing national frameworks, although independently of EU policies. Education problems arose on the agenda in advance of the European agenda setting, creating strong concurrency between the national and EU problem definitions. The shortcomings of the EQF were stressed by recommending the inclusion of an entry level in the EQF, as in the English national qualifications framework. This was even supported by the EU (CEDEFOP 2010) and underlines the position of England, which leads the way in learning outcomes policies. On the other hand, England is criticized for not having managed to link the higher education HE framework to the EQF because the English framework is largely limited to vocational qualifications outside universities. According to Lester (2011), qualifications framework approaches in England have remained fragmented compared with the best examples in other countries.; Funding text 2: Three distinct groups of stakeholders have been prominent in the Norwegian implementation process. In the Ministry of Education and Research, an internal project group with representatives from the Directorate for Education and Training was established. It included an EQF reference group consisting of relevant stakeholders from social partners, education unions, and representatives from schooling and university systems, student unions and public agencies in the education sector. A broader consultative group, “European education and training policies”, involving a broad range of stakeholders (including nongovernmental organizations and the voluntary sector), was kept informed about the implementation of the EQF. Stakeholders, including the authorities, have been careful to underline that the EQF should not be an instrument of reform, but should provide a categorization of learning outcomes into levels of the education system (Bergseng 2011). Moreover, the stakeholders claimed they were not sufficiently involved in the process, and the social partner members of the consultative group criticized the framework developments as being too fragmented. In May 2009, they requested improved co-ordination of processes and activities to fulfill the requirements of one comprehensive qualifications framework (CEDEFOP 2010). This led to a major review of the process by the ministry in September 2009, as a result of the decision to work toward a comprehensive framework. The implementation of the EQF has been characterized as a technical exercise in Norway. It has not been politically grounded and there has been little public interest and debate during the process. Bergseng (2011) found that the partners had limited involvement in the preparation process, and that the consultation process was mostly characterized by information exchange.