| |
|
|
| |
THE COMMITTEE OF THE CONVENTION ON
THE RECOGNITION OF QUALIFICATIONS CONCERNING HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE
EUROPEAN REGION
Second Session
Riga, 6 June 2001
RECOMMENDATION ON CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES FOR THE
ASSESSMENT OF FOREIGN QUALIFICATIONS
Draft decision:
The Lisbon Recognition Convention Committee
adopted the Recommendation on Criteria and Procedures for the
Assessment of Foreign Qualifications as reproduced in Appendix 1 to
document DGIV/EDU/HE (2001) 16 – ED-2001/UNESCO-CEPES/LRC.2/5
Prepared by Directorate General IV: Education,
Culture and Heritage, Youth and Sport (Directorate of School,
Out-of-School and Higher Education – Higher Education and Research
Division) of the Council of Europe and the UNESCO European Centre
for Higher Education (UNESCO-CEPES)
INTRODUCTION
1. The Working Party on Criteria and
Procedures for the Assessment of Foreign Qualifications was
appointed in 1995 to elaborate a draft recommendation. The Working
Party met five times between November 1995 and November 1997. It
started its work while the Lisbon Recognition Convention was still
being drafted and completed its draft half a year after the adoption
of the Convention.
2. At the outset, the Working Party was
appointed to address an important recognition issue. In the course
of its work, it became apparent that this issue was closely linked
to the Lisbon Recognition Convention, the work on which was
progressing faster than even optimists could reasonably expect. For
this reason, the decision was taken to foresee the draft
recommendation as a subsidiary text to the Convention. This
decision, however, implied that there would be a considerable time
gap between the end of the drafting process and the consideration of
the draft recommendation by the Convention Committee.
3. In the meantime, three important
developments occurred which could not have been foreseen by the
Working Party. On the one hand, the Diploma Supplement was revised
in a joint pilot project involving the European Commission, the
Council of Europe and UNESCO. The Working Party was aware of this
revision but it had not progressed far enough to be taken account of
in the text. The Diploma Supplement has now been completed and
adequate account should be taken of it in the draft recommendation.
4. The second development is more complicated.
As a treaty between States, the Convention covers qualifications
belonging to the systems of education of Parties. The draft
recommendation on criteria and procedures follows the same logic.
However, an increasing number of qualifications are issued by
institutions or programmes outside of national systems. These
qualifications are the subject of the Working Party on Transnational
Education, which was appointed in July 1998, has now finalized a
draft code of good practice in the provision of transnational
education. This draft code is submitted to the 2001 meeting of the
Lisbon Recognition Convention Committee. The draft Recommendation
has been reviewed with a view to ensuring coherence with the draft
Code.
5. The third development concerns
qualifications held by refugees, covered by Section VII of the
Convention, where a Working Party was set up in 1999 to prepare a
seminar on the subject and to consider how the assessment of
undocumented qualifications held by refugees could be improved.
6. A new, ad hoc Working Party was
therefore set up to review the draft Recommendation on Criteria and
Procedures in the light of developments since November 1997, and in
particular the Diploma Supplement and the discussions in the Working
party on Transnational Education. The Working Party met in Brussels
on 2 March 2000.
7. The draft Recommendation was approved by
the 2000 ENIC/NARIC meeting (Brussels, 22-24 May) and has been
reviewed by the Directorate General of Legal Affairs of the Council
of Europe. It is now submitted to the Lisbon Recognition Convention
Committee for adoption.
Appendices:
1. Draft Recommendation
2. Draft Explanatory Memorandum
3. Schematic outline of the recommended
procedure for the assessment of foreign qualifications
APPENDIX 1
DRAFT RECOMMENDATION ON PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA
FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF FOREIGN QUALIFICATIONS AND PERIODS OF STUDY
Preamble
The Committee of the Convention on the
Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the
European Region,
Considering that the aim of the Council of
Europe and UNESCO is to achieve greater unity between their members,
and that this aim can be pursued notably by common action in
cultural matters;
Having regard to the Council of Europe/UNESCO
Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher
Education in the European Region;
Having regard to the European Cultural
Convention;
Having regard to European Conventions Nos. 15
on the Equivalence of Diplomas leading to Admission to Universities,
21 on the Equivalence of Periods of University Study, 32 on the
Academic Recognition of University Qualifications, 49 Protocol to
the European Convention on the Equivalence of Diplomas leading to
Admission to Universities and 138 on the General Equivalence of
Periods of University Study as well as European Agreement No. 69 on
the portability of student grants;
Having regard to the UNESCO Convention on the
Recognition of Studies, Diplomas and Degrees concerning higher
Education in the States belonging to the Europe Region;
Having regard to the two declarations on the
application of European Convention No. 15 and to the General
Declaration on the European Equivalence Conventions;
Having regard to the Declaration of the
European Ministers of Education in Bologna on 19 June 1999;
Having regard to the Diploma Supplement
elaborated jointly by the European Commission, the Council of Europe
and UNESCO, to the UNESCO/Council of Europe Code of Good Practice in
the provision of transnational education and to the European Credit
Transfer System (ECTS);
Having regard to the practical action in
favour of improving the recognition of qualifications concerning
higher education carried out by the Council of Europe/UNESCO
European Network of national information centres on academic
recognition and mobility ("the ENIC Network");
Considering that the Council of Europe and
UNESCO have always encouraged academic mobility as a means for
better understanding of the various cultures and languages, and
without any form of racial, religious, political or sexual
discrimination;
Considering that studying or working in a
foreign country is likely to contribute to an individual's cultural
and academic enrichment, as well as to improve the individual's
career prospects;
Considering that the recognition of
qualifications is an essential precondition for both academic and
professional mobility;
Recommends the governments of States party to
the Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning
Higher Education in the European Region1:
i. to take into account, in the establishment
of their recognition policies, the principles set out in the
appendix hereto;
ii. to draw these principles to the attention
of the competent bodies concerned, so that they can be considered
and taken into account;
iii. to promote implementation of these
principles by government agencies and local and regional
authorities, and by higher education institutions within the limits
imposed by the autonomy of higher education institutions;
iv. to ensure that this Recommendation is
distributed as widely as possible among all persons and bodies
concerned with the recognition of qualifications concerning higher
education;
Invites the Secretary General of the Council
of Europe and the Director-General of UNESCO, as appropriate, to
transmit this Recommendation to the governments of those States
which have been invited to the Diplomatic Conference entrusted with
the adoption of the Lisbon Recognition Convention but which have not
become parties to that Convention.
APPENDIX TO THE DRAFT RECOMMENDATION ON
PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF FOREIGN QUALIFICATIONS
AND PERIODS OF STUDY
I. General considerations
1. The present Recommendation is adopted
within the framework of the Lisbon Recognition Convention and
applies to the Parties of this Convention. The principles and
practices described in this Recommendation can, however, also
equally well be applied to the recognition of qualifications issued
in other countries under transnational education arrangements or to
the recognition of qualifications in countries other than those
party to the Lisbon Recognition Convention.
2. The Recommendation codifies established
best practice among credential evaluators and builds on this
practice in suggesting further improvements. The provisions of the
Recommendation are in particular directed at recognition cases where
a complex assessment is required. It is realised that cases
involving well-known qualifications may be treated in a simpler way.
II. Definitions
3. Terms defined in the Lisbon Recognition
Convention are used in the same sense in the present Recommendation,
and reference is made to the definition of these terms in Section I
of the Convention. Terms that specifically
refer to the provision of transnational education are defined in the
UNESCO/Council of Europe Code of Good Practice in the provision of
Transnational Education.
III. General principles
4. Holders of foreign qualifications shall
have adequate access, upon request, to an assessment of their
qualifications.
5. The provisions referring to the assessment
of foreign qualifications shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to
the assessment of periods of study.
6. Procedures and criteria for the assessment
of foreign qualifications should be transparent, coherent and
reliable, and they should periodically be reviewed with a view to
increasing transparency, taking account of developments in the
education field and eliminating requirements leading to undue
complications in the procedure.
7. In the assessment of foreign qualifications
concerning higher education, the international and national legal
frameworks should be applied in a flexible way with a view to making
recognition possible. In cases where existing national laws conflict
with the present Recommendation, States are encouraged carefully to
consider whether national laws may be amended.
8. Where, after thorough consideration of the
case, the competent recognition authority reaches the conclusion
that recognition cannot be granted in accordance with the
applicant's request, alternative or partial recognition should be
considered.
9. In all cases where the decision is
different from the recognition requested by the applicant, including
in cases where no form of recognition is possible, the competent
recognition authority should inform the applicant of the reasons for
the decision reached and his or her possibilities for appealing
against it.
10. The assessment criteria contained in this
Recommendation have been drawn up with a view to increasing the
consistency of the procedures and use of criteria for the assessment
of foreign qualifications, thus assuring that similar recognition
cases will be considered in reasonably similar ways throughout the
European region. It is nevertheless realised that a margin of
flexibility in making recognition decisions is essential, and that
decisions will to some extent vary according to national systems of
education.
11. The procedural recommendations contained
in the present document aim at making assessment procedures more
consistent and transparent and at assuring all applicants a fair
consideration of their application. The recommendations on
procedures and criteria to be followed are equally valid regardless
of whether the outcome of the assessment procedure is:
-
(i) a recognition decision;
-
(ii) advice to the competent recognition
authority making the decision;
-
(iii) a addressed to
individual(s), institution(s), potential employer(s) or others.
-
It is recommended that applicants have
access to an assessment relevant to the case.
12. While the aim of assessments should be to
assess applicants' foreign qualifications in qualitative terms, it
is realised that quantitative criteria will have to be used to a
certain extent. Their use should, however, be limited to cases where
quantitative criteria are relevant to quality and may supplement
qualitative criteria.
IV. Assessment procedures
Information to applicants
13. The competent recognition authority should
give all applicants an acknowledgement of the receipt of their
application.
14. National information centres, competent
recognition authorities and other assessment agencies should publish
standardised information on the procedures and criteria for the
assessment of foreign qualifications concerning higher education.
This information should automatically be given to all applicants as
well as to persons making preliminary inquiries about the assessment
of their foreign qualifications.
15. The time normally required to process
recognition applications, counted from such time as all relevant
information has been provided by applicants and/or higher education
institutions, should be specified to applicants. Applications should
be processed as promptly as possible, and the time of processing
should not exceed four months.
16. National information centres, competent
recognition authorities and other assessment agencies should provide
advice to individuals enquiring about the possibilities and
procedures for submitting formal applications for the recognition or
assessment of their foreign qualifications. As appropriate, in the
best interests of the individual, informal advice should also be
provided in the course of, as well as after, the formal assessment
of the applicants' qualifications, if required.
17. National information centres and competent
recognition authorities should draw up an inventory of typical
recognition cases and/or a comparative overview of other education
systems or qualifications in relation to that of their own country
as an aid in making recognition decisions consistent. They should
consider whether this information could be made available to
applicants with the proviso that this information serve only as an
indicative guide, and that each application will be assessed on an
individual basis.
Information on the qualification for
which recognition is sought
18. The responsibility for providing
information on the qualification for which recognition is sought is
shared by applicants, higher education institutions at which the
qualifications in question were awarded and the competent
recognition authority undertaking the assessment as specified in the
Lisbon Recognition Convention, in particular in its Articles III.3
and III.4. Higher education institutions are strongly encouraged to
issue a Diploma Supplement in order to facilitate the evaluation of
the qualifications concerned, in particular by credential evaluators
and potential employers.
19. In cases where refugees, persons in a
refugee-like situation or others for good reason cannot document the
qualifications they claim, credential evaluators are encouraged to
create and use a Background Paper giving an overview of the
qualifications or periods of study claimed with all available
documents and supporting evidence.
Fees
20. The competent recognition authorities and
other assessment agencies should consider whether it is possible to
provide for assessment of foreign qualifications as a public service
free of charge. Where this is not feasible, fees should be kept as
low as possible and should not be so high as to constitute a barrier
to the assessment of foreign qualifications.
21. In deciding the size of any fees charged,
due account should be taken of the cost of living and the level of
salaries and student support in the country concerned. Special
measures aimed at low income groups, refugees and displaced persons
and other disadvantaged groups should be considered in order to
ensure that no applicant is prevented from seeking recognition of
his or her foreign qualifications because of the costs involved.
22. Any fees charged for the assessment of
foreign qualifications should, without exception, be payable in the
currency of the country in which the assessment is undertaken.
Translation
23. Requirements for the translation of
documents should be carefully weighed and clearly specified,
especially as concerns the need for authorised translations by sworn
translators. It should be considered whether requirements for
translation could be limited to key documents, and whether documents
in certain foreign languages, to be specified by the competent
recognition authority, could be accepted without translation. The
countries concerned are encouraged to revise any current laws
preventing the acceptance of documents in non-national languages
without translation. Attention is drawn to the fact that the use of
the Diploma Supplement may help reduce the need for translation of
other key documents.
24. As a rule, titles of foreign
qualifications should be provided in the original language, without
translation.
Verification of the authenticity of documents
25. In view of the increasing occurrence of
falsified diplomas and other documents, verification of the
authenticity of documents is becoming increasingly important. Such
verification seeks to establish:
(i) whether the documents in question are
genuine, i.e. whether they have been issued by the institution
indicated in the document and whether they have not subsequently
been unlawfully altered by the applicant or others; and
(ii) whether the documents in question have in
fact been rightfully issued to the applicant.
26. While the need to establish the
authenticity of documents as a part of the assessment procedure is
therefore very real, this need should nonetheless be balanced
against the burdens placed upon applicants. The basic rules of
procedure should assume that most applicants are honest, but they
should give the competent recognition authorities the opportunity to
require stronger evidence of authenticity whenever they suspect that
documents may be forged. While certified photocopies of documents
will be sufficient in most cases, the competent recognition
authorities should be in a position to require original documents
where this is considered necessary for the purpose of detecting or
preventing the use of forged documents.
27. States are encouraged to review any
national laws requiring overly complicated and costly
authentification procedures, such as full legalisation of all
documents. Modern communications make it easier to verify the
authenticity of documents in less cumbersome ways, and competent
recognition authorities and higher education institutions of home
countries are encouraged to react swiftly and positively to requests
for direct information on documents claimed to have been issued by
them.
28. In the case of refugees, displaced persons
and others who for good reasons, and in spite of their best
persistent efforts, are unable to document their claimed
qualifications, it should be considered whether alternative ways of
recognising these qualifications may be found. Such measures should
be adapted to the circumstances of their recognition application and
could include ordinary or specially arranged examinations,
interviews with staff of higher education institutions and/or the
competent recognition authority and sworns before a
legally competent authority.
V. Assessment criteria
Status of the institution
29. In view of the wide diversity of higher
education institutions
and of the developments in transnational
education, the status of a qualification cannot be
established without taking into account the status of the
institution and/or programme through which the qualification was
awarded.
30. The credential evaluator should seek to
establish whether the higher education institution belongs to the
higher education system of a State party to the Lisbon Recognition
Convention and/or belonging to the European Region.
In the case of qualifications awarded by
higher education institutions established through transnational
arrangements, the credential evaluator should analyze these
arrangements on the basis of the principles stipulated in the
UNESCO/Council of Europe Code of Good Practice in the provision of
transnational education.
31. Some countries have established a system
of formal assessment of their higher education institutions and
programmes. When evaluating qualifications from such systems,
credential evaluators should take due account of the results of the
formal assessment process.
Assessment of individual qualifications
32. Recognition of foreign qualifications may
be sought for a variety of purposes. The assessment should take due
account of the purpose(s) for which recognition is sought, and the
recognition should make clear the purpose(s) for which the
statement is valid.
33. Before undertaking the assessment, the
competent recognition authority should establish which national and
international legal texts are relevant to the case, and whether
these require any specific decision to be reached or procedure to be
followed.
34. The assessment should also take into
account past practice in similar recognition cases, in order to
ensure consistency in recognition practice. Past practice should be
a guide, and any substantial change of practice should be justified.
35. The assessment of a foreign qualification
should identify the qualification in the system of the country in
which recognition is sought which is most comparable to the foreign
qualification, taking into account the purpose for which recognition
is sought. In the case of a qualification belonging to a foreign
system of education, the assessment should take into account its
relative place and function compared to other qualifications in the
same system.
36. Qualifications of approximately equal
level may show considerable differences in terms of content, profile
and learning outcomes. In the assessment of foreign qualifications,
these differences should be considered in a flexible way, and only
substantial differences in view of the purpose for which recognition
is sought (e.g academic or de facto professional recognition)
should lead to partial recognition or non-recognition of the foreign
qualifications.
37. Recognition of foreign qualifications
should be granted unless a substantial difference can be
demonstrated between the qualification for which recognition is
requested and the relevant qualification of the State in which
recognition is sought. In applying this principle, the assessment
should seek to establish whether:
(a) the differences in learning outcomes
between the foreign qualification and the relevant qualification of
the country in which recognition is sought are too substantial to
allow the recognition of the foreign qualification as requested by
the applicant. If so, the assessment should seek to establish
whether alternative, partial and/or conditional recognition may be
granted;
(b) the differences in access to further
activities (such as further study, research activities, the exercise
of gainful employment) between the foreign qualification and the
relevant qualification of the country in which recognition is sought
are too substantial to allow the recognition of the foreign
qualification as requested by the applicant. If so, the assessment
should seek to establish whether alternative, partial and/or
conditional recognition may be granted;
(c) the differences in key elements of the
programme(s) leading to the qualification in comparison to the
programme(s) leading to the relevant qualification of the country in
which recognition is sought are too substantial to allow the
recognition of the foreign qualification as requested by the
applicant. If so, the assessment should seek to establish whether
alternative, partial and/or conditional recognition may be granted.
The comparability of programme elements should, however, be analysed
only with a view to the comparability of outcomes and access to
further activities, and not as a necessary condition for recognition
in their own right;
(d) a credential evaluator can document that
the differences in the quality of the programme and/or institution
at which the qualification was awarded in relation to the quality of
the programmes and/or institutions granting the similar
qualification in terms of which recognition is sought are too
substantial to allow the recognition of the foreign qualification as
requested by the applicant. If so, the assessment should seek to
establish whether alternative, partial and/or conditional
recognition may be granted.
38. Where formal rights attach to a certain
foreign qualification in the home country, the qualification should
be evaluated with a view to giving the holder comparable formal
rights in the host country, in so far as these exist and they arise
from the knowledge and skills certified by the qualification.
39. The recognition of qualifications issued
several years ago may be more problematic than the recognition of
recent qualifications. To what extent a qualification is outdated
will depend on the field concerned as well as the activities
undertaken by the applicant since the qualification was issued. In
general terms, older qualifications should be recognised along the
same lines as similar qualifications issued in the country in which
recognition is sought. It may be considered whether relevant work
experience may compensate for updated qualifications.
40. Competent
recognition authorities and other assessment agencies should be
encouraged to focus on the learning outcomes and competencies, as
well as the quality of the delivery of an educational programme and
to consider its duration as merely one indication of the level of
achievement reached at the end of the programme. The assessment
process should acknowledge that recognition of prior learning,
credit transfer, different forms of access to higher education,
double degrees and life-long learning will all shorten the duration
of some academic qualifications without diminishing the learning
outcomes and a decision not to grant recognition should not
be motivated by duration alone.
41. The assessment of a foreign qualification
should focus on the qualification for which recognition is sought.
Previous levels of education should be considered only where these
levels have a serious bearing on the outcome of the assessment and
should, as far as possible, be limited to qualifications of a level
immediately preceding the qualification for which recognition is
sought.
42. In undertaking the assessment, the
competent recognition authorities and other assessment agencies
should apply their know-how and best professional skills and take
note of all relevant published information. Where adequate
information on the learning outcomes embodied in the qualification
is available, this should take precedence in the assessment over
consideration of the education programme which has led to the
qualification.
VI. The outcome of the assessment
43. Depending on national law and practice,
the outcome of the assessment of a foreign qualification may take
the form of:
(a) a recognition decision;
(b) advice to another institution, which will
then make the recognition decision;
(c) a to the applicant or to whom it
may concern (e.g. current or prospective employers, higher education
institutions etc.) providing a comparison of the foreign
qualification with similar qualifications in the country in which
recognition is sought, without being a formal recognition decision.
44. The ENIC Network as well as competent
authorities should elaborate models for standardised assessment
statements at European and/or national level. To facilitate
international recognition, assessment agencies should use these
standardized as far as possible.
45. Where recognition cannot be granted
according to an applicant's request, the competent recognition
authority or assessment agency should, as far and as precisely as
possible, assist the applicant in identifying remedial measures the
applicants may undertake in order to obtain recognition at a later
stage.
APPENDIX 2
DRAFT EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
Preamble
The Preamble builds on the existing legal
framework for the recognition of qualifications concerning higher
education, as elaborated within the frameworks of the Council of
Europe and of UNESCO (as far as the latter applies to the Europe
Region). Specific attention is drawn to the Convention on the
Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the
European Region, elaborated jointly by both Organisations and
adopted on 11 April 1997. This Convention entered into force on 1
February 1999. The Preamble also builds on the most important
developments in the international recognition of qualifications over
the past years, including the outcomes of the Conference on
Recognition of Higher Education Qualifications: Challenges for the
next Decade, organised by the Higher Education and Research
Committee of the Council of Europe (CC-HER) (Malta, 26 - 28 October
1994) and the seminars on the methodology of credentials evaluation
organised by the European Association for International Education
(EAIE) and NAFSA: Association of International Educators in 1994 -
95. In the case
of qualifications issued through transnational arrangements, the
Preamble builds on the provisions of the UNESCO/Council of Europe
Code of Good Practice in the Provision of Transnational Education.
III. General principles
Paragraphs 4 - 11
The Recommendation clearly underlines the
right of applicants to having their foreign qualifications assessed
according to transparent, coherent and reliable procedures and
criteria.
As far as possible, competent recognition
authorities should strive to recognise applicants' foreign
qualifications. Where this is not possible, the Recommendation urges
the competent recognition authorities to consider alternative forms
of recognition. Such alternative recognition may include:
(i) recognition of the foreign qualification
as comparable to a qualification of the host country, but not to
that indicated by the applicant;
(ii) partial recognition of the foreign
qualification;
(iii) full or partial recognition of the
foreign qualification subject to the applicant successfully taking
additional examinations or aptitude tests;
(iv) full or partial recognition of the
foreign qualification at the end of a probationary period, possibly
subject to specified conditions.
The grant of partial recognition or
recognition subject to the fulfillment of specific conditions does
not, however, imply an automatic right to admission to any courses
designed to help applicants remedy deficiencies with a view to
obtaining recognition.
Only when the competent recognition authority
finds it impossible to grant even an alternative form of recognition
should an application be rejected outright. It should be kept in
mind that in some cases, the absence of recognition may be "fair
recognition" on the evidence of the case.
Where the recognition decision is different
from the decision requested by the applicant, the competent
recognition authority has a special obligation to stating the
reasons for its decision and to inform applicants of their
possibilities for making an appeal against the decision. This is
important both to allow applicants to make an appeal against the
decisions and to enable applicants to undertake remedial measures
with a view to obtaining recognition at a later stage. This should
in no way prevent competent recognition authorities from stating
their reasons for granting recognition.
Paragraph 12
There is an inherent dilemma in specifying
criteria for the assessment of foreign qualifications. While the aim
of an assessment is to assess the foreign qualification in
qualitative terms, the assessment cannot be undertaken without to
some extent relying on both qualitative and quantitative criteria.
It is, however, important that the criteria used be chosen because
of their suitability in indicating the quality of the qualification
in question and the applicant's ability to undertake the activity
for which recognition is sought (e.g. further study, research,
gainful employment). For example, students who have obtained good
study results (grades) may be considered to have considerable
potential for learning and personal development, even if the
qualifications for which they seek recognition have been earned in
an education system or at an institution which is considered to be
of substantially lower quality than the education system of the host
country. In this case, the result of the assessment may depend on
whether recognition is sought for the purpose of further study or
for the purpose of entry into the labour market. In the former case,
it may be easier to recognise the qualifications, since the
applicants may be expected to improve their qualifications and reach
their true potential in the course of further study. In the latter
case, it may be more difficult to grant recognition, since the
qualifications will be the basis for an activity which may have a
direct impact on other citizens, and since there is no guarantee
that the qualifications will be improved in the course of the
exercise of this activity in the labour market. For the latter form
of recognition, the duration and content of practice periods may
also be of importance.
The main difficulty, to which there is no
obvious answer, consists in reconciling the desire for an assessment
of quality with the requirement for transparency and accountability,
which implies the use of "objective" criteria. In no case should a
recognition decision be based on only a limited number of
quantitative criteria, such as length of study, without some attempt
being made to assess the quality of applicants' qualifications. To
an extent, substantial differences according to quantitative
criteria may, however, be taken as an indication of a difference in
quality.
IV. Assessment procedures
Paragraph 14
The paragraph concerns the information which
should be provided to applicants by national information centres and
competent recognition authorities upon receipt of the application.
The standardised information should deal with at least the following
elements:
(i) the documentation required, including
requirements as to the authentication and translation of documents;
(ii) a description of the assessment process,
including the role of the national information centre, other
assessment agencies and higher education institutions;
(iii) a description of the assessment
criteria;
(iv) the status of recognitions;
(v) the approximate time needed to process an
application;
(vi) any fees charged;
(vii) a reference to the national laws and
international conventions and agreements which may be relevant to
the assessment of foreign qualifications;
(viii) the conditions and procedures for
appealing against a recognition decision, according to national
legislation.
In principle, recognition decisions should be
open to appeal, and it is the duty of the competent recognition
authority to inform applicants of the modalities of such appeals,
including its formal aspects, such as deadlines. It is recommended
that this information be provided already at the receipt of the
application, partly to provide as complete a set of information as
possible to applicants, and partly to avoid a direct linkage between
the information on the outcome of the application and the
possibilities for appeal which may be taken as an implicit
encouragement to appeal even in cases where an appeal would have
little chance of being upheld. Assessment agencies may consider
whether to require applicants to sign an acknowledgement confirming
that the information has been received, and that the applicant has
acquainted himself or herself with the possibilities and procedures
of appeal.
Paragraph 15
This paragraph underlines the duty of the
competent recognition authority to specify its normal time limits
for processing recognition applications, keeping to these limits and
informing applicants in case of delay. It also specifies the
"starting point" for counting the time limits; i.e. from the time
all relevant information has been received by the competent
recognition authority. While all assessment should be undertaken and
completed as promptly as possible, it should be pointed out that any
assessment taking more than four months could seriously delay
applicants' further study, or their gainful employment, or oblige
them to undertake additional studies to meet requirements which the
assessment may subsequently find that they have already satisfied
through their foreign qualifications. Four months should therefore
be considered as the maximum time limit for processing recognition
applications; uncomplicated cases should, as a rule, be evaluated
faster.
Paragraph 17
The consistency of recognition decisions is an
important element in assuring transparent and coherent treatment of
applications for the recognition of foreign qualifications. It would
be unfortunate if similar recognition cases were handled in
substantially different ways and substantially different decisions
were reached. An overview of typical recognition cases may help in
assuring the required consistency.
The question of whether to make information
available to applicants is somewhat complicated. On the one hand,
such information may give applicants an indication of what they can
realistically expect and help them formulate their application. It
may also be of help to applicants in considering whether to make an
appeal against a decision. On the other hand, applicants may wrongly
understand the typical cases to provide a legal precedent for
"automatic" recognition of their own qualifications. It is therefore
essential that information on typical recognition cases provided to
applicants be accompanied by a clear explanation of the function of
this information, underlining that in all cases an individual
assessment of the application is undertaken.
Paragraph 18
Responsibility for providing information on
the qualification for which recognition is sought is shared:
(a) the applicants bear the main
responsibility for providing the information required by the
competent recognition authority;
(b) higher education institutions at which the
qualifications were earned have a duty to provide applicants and/or
the competent recognition authority with information about their
qualifications as well as other relevant information (such as
information on the qualifications structure, course content, etc.).
Higher education institutions should be encouraged to make use of
instruments devised to explain the content of foreign
qualifications, such as the UNESCO/Council of Europe Diploma
Supplement and information on credit accumulation and transfer
systems, such as the ECTS2.
The duty of higher education institutions may be limited to
responding to requests by applicants and/or the competent
recognition authority undertaking the assessment;
(c) the competent recognition authority is
responsible for maintaining a system of information on foreign
education systems and qualifications in the area of its competence.
It should be underlined that the competent
recognition authorities should provide applicants with a complete
overview of the pieces of information needed to undertake the
assessment. Only in exceptional cases should the competent
recognition authority ask for information in addition to what is
specified in this overview, and in no case should requests for
additional information be used as a means of prolonging or delaying
the assessment concerned. Applicants as well as higher education
institutions have a duty to provide all information requested within
a reasonable deadline specified by the competent recognition
authority.
Paragraph 19
The Background Paper is intended to be a tool
- for the credential evaluator to reconstruct
the educational background of the refugee in order to facilitate the
(future) assessment;
- for the refugee to affirm his or her
academic achievements towards other evaluating bodies, like
universities and employers, in order to gain access to further
studies or appropriate employment.
Applications from persons in a refugee-like
situation or others who for good reason cannot document their
qualifications should be treated in the same way.
The Background Paper itself is not an
evaluation, but an authoritative description or reconstruction of
the academic achievements linked to the available documents and
supporting evidence.
The Background Paper is:
1. an overview of the claimed educational
background with the available documents and supporting evidence
2. a checklist, based upon the model of the
Diploma Supplement, used by the credential evaluator to add more
relevant information
Example of overview
Paragraphs 20 - 22
Fees may constitute an impediment to
recognition. If the assessment of foreign qualifications cannot be
provided free of charge, fees should therefore be kept as low as
possible. It is recalled that any fees charged by the competent
recognition authority will be additional to any costs of translating
and/or certifying documents. The provisions of the present
Recommendation are especially important in view of the increasing
tendency for public bodies to charge user fees.
Fee practices vary considerably throughout the
European region. It is hardly possible to give precise indication of
acceptable fee levels, as local conditions such as the cost of
living and the level of salaries and student support must be taken
into account. Nevertheless, in some cases the fees charged must be
considered as excessive. It is, for example, unreasonable that the
assessment of a foreign qualification should cost a substantial part
of an average monthly salary in the public sector.
Paragraph 23
The requirements for complete information
should be carefully weighed against the burdens the fulfillment of
this need places upon applicants, specifically as concerns
requirements for authentication and translation of documents, which
tend to be time-consuming and costly. A consideration of
requirements for authentification should weigh the necessity of
minimising the risk of fraud against the need to reduce the burden
on honest applicants. It is suggested that it may, in most cases, be
sufficient to require authentification of key documents, such as
diplomas, transcripts and birth certificates. It should also be
considered whether certified photocopies, rather than originals, may
be required. It is important that all requirements be clearly
specified to applicants.
In the case of translation requirements, it
should also be considered whether these may be limited to key
documents. It may, for example, not be necessary for the applicant
to provide detailed translation of curricula. It should also be
considered whether it is strictly necessary to require translations
to be carried out by certified translators. Where this requirement
is maintained, the competent recognition authority should provide
applicants with lists of accepted translators. It should further be
considered whether certain documents could be accepted without
translation. This could apply to documents issued in widely spoken
languages, in languages which are linguistically close to the
language(s) of the host country, languages widely understood in the
host country, and/or languages in which staff members of the
competent recognition authority have sufficient competence.
Paragraph 24
The reason why titles of foreign
qualifications should not be translated is that a translation in
this case implies an assessment, and this assessment should only be
undertaken by qualified recognition experts. The Diploma Supplement
revised jointly by the European Commission, the Council of Europe
and UNESCO as well as credit accumulation and transfer systems have
been devised to explain the content of qualifications without
translating or evaluating them. Attention is drawn to the fact that
transliteration is distinct from translation. Transliteration
implies reproducing the sounds rendered by one alphabet or writing
system in another alphabet or writing system, such as rendering a
word written in the Cyrillic alphabet or in Japanese characters in
the Latin alphabet. Transliteration enables readers unfamiliar with
the alphabet or writing system of the original language to identify
words or expressions from that language and should be undertaken
using standard systems of transliteration where they exist.
Verification of the authenticity of documents
Paragraphs 25 - 28
The problem of falsified documents is becoming
increasingly serious. It is therefore necessary to underline the
need to verify the authenticity of documents submitted by
applicants, as well as the identity of the applicants themselves. At
the same time, however, it is necessary to maintain a balance
between the need for verification and the need to avoid placing
undue burdens on the majority of applicants, who submit authentic
documents, and who should be treated according to the basic judicial
rule of being "innocent until proven guilty". It is therefore
necessary to give competent recognition authorities the possibility
to require particularly severe proofs of authenticity, such as the
submission of original documents, in cases where forgery is
suspected. Another possibility in such cases is to require copies
certified by an original signature and/or stamp of the institution
having issued the qualifications. Higher education institutions
should reply promptly to requests for such certification, which
should be issued without fees, if possible, or at any rate at
moderate fees.
At the same time, some laws on the
verification of documents, such as those which require full
legalisation of all documents, date from a time when international
communication was much more difficult than today. While they may
have been justified at the time, today there are better and more
efficient ways of verifying the authenticity of documents through
direct contact with competent recognition authorities and higher
education institutions from which the documents are claimed to
originate. States are therefore encouraged to review their national
laws with a view to simplifying and modernising their rules on the
verification of the authenticity of documents.
V. Assessment criteria
Paragraphs 29 - 31
In view of the increasing diversification of
higher education systems, and of higher
education institutions through transnational arrangements,
including the establishment of a large number of private
higher education institutions, qualifications cannot be properly
evaluated without taking into account the institution which has
issued the qualifications. At the same time, national laws and
practices for the assessment of higher education institutions vary
very widely. Consequently, the kind of information which may be
obtained on higher education institutions also varies. Section VIII
of the Lisbon Recognition Convention outlines the kind of
information which should be provided by Parties which have
established a system of formal assessment of higher education
institutions and programmes, as well as the kind of information
which should be provided by Parties which have not established such
a system. The UNESCO/Council of Europe Code of
Good Practice in the Provision of Transnational Education outlines
the principles which should be respected by institutions and
organizations involved in the provision of educational services
through transnational arrangements and they should be applied in the
assessment of academic qualifications.
Paragraph 32
There is a direct connection between the
assessment of foreign qualifications and the purpose(s) for which
recognition is sought. For example, a given qualification may be
adequate for the purpose of further study, but not for the purpose
of employment at a given level. Conversely, a given qualification
may be adequate for the purpose of employment, but not for further
study, e.g. at doctoral level. This could, for example, be the case
if a research component, the writing of an independent thesis or
another form of substantial independent work were totally lacking in
the foreign qualification, and such a component were a requirement
for access to doctoral studies in the home country. This implies
that a recognition should make it clear for which
purpose(s) it is valid, and a renewed assessment should be
undertaken if recognition is sought for other purpose(s) than those
(that) covered by a previous.
Qualifications may serve a wide range of
purposes, some examples of which are:
(a) general access to higher education;
(b) restricted access to higher education
(i.e. access restricted to certain parts of the higher education
system, such as certain technical studies);
(c) general access to further studies at a
given level (such as doctoral studies or second degree studies);
(d) restricted access to further studies (e.g.
access to further technical studies);
(e) access to professional training;
(f) general access to the labour market (i.e.
as a qualification for a wide range of positions at a given level);
(g) access to a specialised area of the labour
market;
(h) access to a regulated profession.
Paragraph 33
Some examples of national or international
legal texts which may apply to applications for the recognition of
foreign qualifications are:
(a) national laws and regulations on
qualifications concerning higher education;
(b) national laws and regulations concerning
the exercise of gainful employment, including laws and regulations
on regulated professions;
(c) Council of Europe and UNESCO Conventions;
(d) Council of Europe and UNESCO
Recommendations and codes of good practice;
(e) European Union directives, including those
on professional recognition;
(f) other European Union rules and
regulations, e.g. those governing the recognition of qualifications
earned in the framework of EU mobility programmes such as SOCRATES
and, previously, ERASMUS;
(g) international agreements established in
the framework of other international Organisations, such as the
Nordic Council of Ministers;
(h) bilateral or multilateral agreements
between States;
(i) bilateral or multilateral agreements
between higher education institutions.
Not all such texts have the same legal value;
their relative legal status must therefore also be taken into
account.
Paragraph 36
Differences in the content and profile of
qualifications may concern e.g. the degree of specialisation or
general education, requirements for independent written work
(including theses), the inclusion of practice periods, laboratory
experience or similar requirements (e.g. in medical or natural
sciences), or the inclusion of non-academic elements (such as sports
or vocational training) in the qualification.
What may be defined as "substantial
differences", which may lead to partial recognition or to
non-recognition, will to a large extent depend on the purpose(s) for
which recognition is sought, for example recognition for the purpose
of pursuing further studies or for access to a non-regulated
professional activity. In some contexts, a broadly based education
may be desirable, whereas, in other contexts, a considerable degree
of specialisation may be required. In another example, a thesis may
be an essential requirement for a given qualification. Applicants
whose foreign qualification satisfies the teaching requirements for
the qualification in the host country, but do not include a thesis,
may be required to submit a thesis before full recognition can be
granted.
Examples of learning outcomes may be one or
more of the following:
(a) broad knowledge of a specific subject;
(b) understanding of research results in a
specific subject;
(c) ability to analyse and solve problems;
(d) ability to communicate effectively -
orally and in writing - with diverse groups on complex issues;
(e) ability to apply research results with
routine skills and in a fixed domain;
(f) ability to apply research results and to
adapt routine skills to new domains;
(g) ability to conduct research;
(h) ability to discern conflicting theories or
paradigms;
(i) ability to pursue a specific occupation or
profession at operational, management or technology development
level.
Paragraph 37
The paragraph underlines that if a competent
recognition authority wishes to withhold recognition - entirely or
partially - of a foreign qualification, it is the duty of the
competent recognition authority to demonstrate that this decision is
justified. This is in accordance with the principles of the Lisbon
Recognition Convention as well as the European Union Directives on
professional recognition. The "relevant qualification of the country
in which recognition is sought" may be indicated by the applicant
requesting recognition or, if the applicant has given no indication,
by the competent recognition authority, taking into account the
purpose for which recognition is sought.
Paragraph 38
Formal rights are not totally distinct from,
but also not totally identical to, the purpose for which recognition
is sought. Formal rights obtained through a qualification may, for
example, be the right to access to higher education (i.e. the right
to be considered for participation in higher education), the right
to access to doctoral studies, the right to use a given title or the
right to apply for professional recognition. The latter will in
many, perhaps most, cases also be subject to non-educational
requirements, such as practice periods (where these are considered
as distinct from, rather than as a part of, the education programme
leading to the qualification) or nationality, residence or language
requirements. The assessment of foreign qualifications for
professional purposes is covered by this recommendation only in so
far as the assessment concerns the knowledge and skills certified by
the qualification concerned for the purpose of professional
recognition.
The Recommendation suggests that where a
qualification gives its holder certain formal rights in the home
country, the assessment should seek to assess whether the
qualification can give the holder comparable formal rights in the
host country. It is, however, realised that national practices with
regard to granting formal rights through educational qualifications
may vary. This provision is applicable only to the extent that these
formal rights may be obtained through a qualification issued in the
home country.
Paragraph 39
A qualification certifies a certain competence
obtained at a certain time. The value of a qualification may
diminish over time, or be entirely lost, either because the holder
of the qualification has not kept up the competence acquired by
undertaking activities relevant to the field, or because significant
new knowledge has been gained in the field, and the holder is not
adequately acquainted with these developments. To what extent a
qualification becomes outdated may depend on the field of knowledge
concerned.
The recognition of older qualifications can
therefore be problematic, and there is no standard solution to the
problem. However, the problem is not limited to foreign
qualifications. If older qualifications from the country in which
recognition is sought are still recognised, similar foreign
qualifications of similar age should also be recognised for the same
purpose. If, however, qualifications from the country in which
recognition is sought are considered outdated and are no longer
recognised, similar foreign qualifications should be considered in
the same way.
Paragraph 40
Length of study is one of the most frequently
used assessment criteria, and experience shows that it is also among
the criteria most easily accepted by applicants whose qualifications
are recognised only partially or not at all. The concept of "length
of study" is somewhat problematical because, while generally
expressed in terms of years or semesters of study, there may be
differences, between countries and between individual institutions,
in the number of weeks which make up a semester or a year of study
and in the number of working hours in a week of study as well as in
the distribution of those of hours in terms of teaching, self study
and other learning activities (practice periods, laboratory work,
etc.). Substantial differences in this respect could reduce the
difference between two qualifications of seemingly different
"length", or they could increase the difference between
qualifications of seemingly similar "length". "Length of study"
should therefore not be considered a uniform concept, and it should
not be used as the sole criterion in the assessment of foreign
qualifications.
In general terms, however, length of study may
be taken to give an indication of the level of a qualification. The
wider the difference in the length of study normally required to
obtain various qualifications, the more likely it would seem that
these qualifications are not of the same level. The question of what
constitutes a substantial difference in the length of study must
also be seen in relation to the stipulated length of study for the
qualification in question. A difference of one year is a clearer
indication with regard to a study programme the stipulated length of
which is, say, four years, than with regard to an entire primary and
secondary education programme the stipulated length of which is,
say, twelve years. Therefore, it is suggested that a difference of
one year or more may be considered substantial in the case of most
higher education programmes, while the difference in the length of
programmes leading to access qualifications should be two years or
more in order to be considered substantial. It should also be
underlined that while the differences indicated may be
considered substantial, they must not necessarily be so considered,
nor should other factors necessarily be excluded from the
assessment. In cases where the differences in length of study are
less than indicated here, these differences should not be considered
sufficient by themselves to justify a decision not to recognise the
qualification.
It should also be noted that "level" and
"quality" are different concepts. A given secondary school leaving
certificate may be of excellent quality for the purpose of general
access to higher education at starting level, which is one of its
main purposes, and a student holding that qualification with good
grades may be assumed to have an excellent potential for academic
studies. The student will, nonetheless, not have acquired the
academic level necessary for access to advanced studies.
Paragraph 41
The paragraph underlines the need to focus any
assessment of a foreign qualification on that qualification. Taking
account of previous levels of education should be an exception
rather than a rule. For example, in the case of someone applying for
recognition of a doctoral degree, the applicant's school leaving
qualifications should not be a part of the assessment. Previous
levels of qualifications should only be considered in exceptional
cases, and the assessment should as far as possible be limited to
the level immediately preceding the qualification for which
recognition is sought. The most pertinent example is perhaps that
deficiencies in an applicant's secondary school leaving
qualifications may affect his or her first degree qualifications, or
partial qualifications at first degree level, to such an extent that
full recognition at first degree level cannot be granted. However,
it should be emphasised that this would be an exceptional situation.
Paragraph 42
The paragraph concerns the efforts which
competent recognition authorities and other assessment agencies can
reasonably be expected to undertake in the assessment of individual
cases. They should apply all their professional skills and take
account of the relevant literature, but they are not required to
conduct in-depth research on the comparability of learning outcomes
and/or fitness for further activities. In evaluating a foreign
qualification, more emphasis should be given to the outcome of the
education process (i.e. the knowledge and skills certified by the
qualification and the ability to undertake further activities) than
to the process itself (i.e. the education programme through which
the qualification was earned).
VI. The outcome of the assessment
Paragraph 45
The indications referred to in this paragraph
concern additional education applicants may take in order to improve
their chances of obtaining recognition at a later stage. The
competent recognition authorities should assist these applicants by
obtaining as precise indications as possible on measures to be taken
or, as appropriate, refer applicants to relevant written information
or contact persons at higher education institutions or other
relevant bodies.
* * * *
APPENDIX 3
SCHEMATIC OUTLINE OF THE RECOMMENDED PROCEDURE
FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF FOREIGN QUALIFICATION
In the following, a schematic outline will be
given of the recommended procedure for the assessment of foreign
qualifications or periods of study. This is intended as a summary
checklist. In practice, the sequence of the steps outlined may vary,
or several steps may be taken simultaneously.
Step 1
Receipt of the inquiry or application by the
competent recognition authority.
Acknowledgement of receipt; information to the
applicant about procedures and criteria.
Proceed to step 2.
Step 2
Verification of whether all necessary
information is supplied.
If no: gather further information
from the applicant or higher education institution(s)
If yes: proceed to step 3
Step 3
Verification of whether the applicant's
qualification is authentic, and whether the documents submitted have
in fact been rightfully issued to the applicant. [In this the
competent authority may seek the assistance of the national
information centre]
If no: (i.e. the qualification is
false): recognition refused.
If yes: proceed to step 4.
Step 4
Verification of whether the institution and/or
programme having issued the qualification is recognized as belonging
to a system of higher education.
In the case of transnational education,
verification of whether the awarding institution complies with the
principles stipulated in the UNESCO/Council of Europe Code of Good
Practice in the Provision of Transnational Education.
If no :
recognition would normally not be granted.
If yes: proceed to step 5.
Step 5
Assessment of the foreign qualification,
taking into account:
(i) the purpose for which recognition is
sought;
(ii) formal regulations
(a) national laws
(b) international Conventions, directives,
Recommendations, good practice, etc.
(iii) past practice in similar cases;
(iv) the content of the qualification, to the
extent that this completes items (i) - (iii);
(v) information and advice from other ENICs,
higher education institutions or other sources.
The assessment should seek to answer questions
such as:
(a) are the differences in (targeted or
achieved) learning outcomes so substantial that the foreign
qualification cannot be fully recognised? If so, is it possible to
grant alternative or partial recognition?
(b) are the differences in the further
activities for which the foreign and the home country qualifications
prepare so substantial that full recognition is not possible? If so,
is alternative or partial recognition possible?
(c) are the differences in key elements of the
programme leading to the qualification so substantial in relation to
similar programmes in the host country that full recognition cannot
be granted in view of the purpose for which recognition is sought?
If so, is alternative or partial recognition possible?
(d) is the quality of the programme or the
institution at which the qualification was earned so different from
similar programmes or institutions in the host country that full
recognition is not possible? If so, is alternative or partial
recognition possible?
Step 6
The assessment on the foreign
qualification is issued (the outcome of the assessment). Depending
on national laws and practice, this may take the form of:
(i) advice to another institution, which will
then make the decision;
(ii) a decision;
(iii) a to the applicant or to whom
it may concern (e.g. current or prospective employers, higher
education institutions, etc.).
If positive decision by (i) or
(ii): recognition granted, applicant satisfied.
If negative decision: the reason(s)
for the decision should be clearly stated and the applicant informed
of his or her possibilities for appeal.
The applicant may:
(a) accept the verdict;
(b) appeal the verdict.
1. In this Recommendation, this Convention will be referred to
as "the Lisbon Recognition Convention".
2. European Credit Transfer System
|
|
| |
|
|
|
