Strasbourg/Bucuresti, 27 June 2001

DGIV/EDU/HE (2001) 21

ED-2001/UNESCO-CEPES/LRC.2/9

SECOND SESSION

Riga, 6 June 2001

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)

Distribution: meeting

http://culture.coe.fr/her (restricted access)

1. OPENING OF THE MEETING

The First Vice President, Mr Christoph Demand, and the Secretariats welcomed delegates and observers to the Second Session of the Committee. The First Vice President read a message from the President, Ms Birute Mockiene, who was unable to attend the session.

2. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

The Convention Committee adopted its agenda as it appears in document DGIV/EDU/HE (2001) OJ 6 - ED-2001/UNESCO-CEPES/LRC.2/1.

3. REPORT OF THE FIRST MEETING OF THE LISBON RECOGNITION CONVENTION COMMITTEE

The Convention Committee adopted the Report of the First Meeting of the Lisbon Recognition Convention Committee as appears in the document DGIV/EDU/HE (2001) 9 - ED-2001/UNESCO-CEPES/LRC.2/2.

4. OVERVIEW OF SIGNATURES AND THE RATIFICATION PROCESS AT NATIONAL LEVEL

The Convention Committee took note of the overview of ratifications and signatures of the Lisbon Recognition Convention as provided by the Secretariat and observer delegations and encouraged those countries that had not yet become party to the Convention to consider measures to bring the ratification process to a successful conclusion as soon as possible.

With reference to the request of 2 March by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and under the provisions of Article XI.3 of the Lisbon Recognition Convention, the Lisbon Recognition Convention Committee invited the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to accede to the said Convention.

6. THE UNESCO-CEPES/COUNCIL OF EUROPE CODE OF GOOD PRACTICE FOR THE PROVISION OF TRANSNATIONAL EDUCATION

The Lisbon Recognition Convention Committee adopted the UNESCO/CEPES-Council of Europe Code of Good Practice for the Provision of Transnational Education as reproduced as Appendix 1 to the present list of decisions.

The Lisbon Recognition Convention Committee adopted the Recommendation on Criteria and Procedures for the Assessment of Foreign Qualifications as reproduced in Appendix 2 to the present list of decisions.

8. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LISBON RECOGNITION CONVENTION AT NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL LEVEL – PRIORITIES FOR FUTURE ACTION

On the background of the Secretariat document and the discussion in the meeting, the Convention Committee asked its Bureau and the Secretariats to consider ways of improving the implementation of the Lisbon Recognition Convention at both a national and international level, taking into account the developments within the Bologna Process, and in close consultation with the ENIC and NARIC Networks, as well as higher education institutions and student representatives as members of the higher education community.

9. ELECTION OF THE BUREAU

The Convention Committee elected its Bureau as follows:

President: Mr Andrejs RAUHVARGERS (Latvia)

First Vice President: Mr Christoph DEMAND (Austria)

Second Vice President: Mr Rolf LOFSTAD (Norway)

Rapporteur: Ms Liliana Daniela GÎRBEA (Romania)

and noted that the Bureau would serve until the end of the next ordinary session of the Committee.

10. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

none".

11. DECISIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Lisbon Recognition Convention Committee adopted the list of its decisions and recommendations as they appear in the present document and in Appendices 1 and 2 hereto.

12. CLOSING OF THE MEETING

The Secretariats thanked the outgoing members of the Bureau, Ms Birute Mockiene and Ms Kaja Schiøtz, for their work and the Latvian authorities for their excellent organization of this session of the Committee.

Code of Good Practice

in the Provision of Transnational Education

(adopted by the Lisbon Recognition Convention Committee

at its second meeting, Riga, 6 June 2001)

 PREAMBLE

The Parties to the Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region (the Lisbon Recognition Convention),

Conscious of the rapid development of transnational education, characterised by those arrangements and partnerships between institutions and organisations in which the students are located in a different country to the one where the institution providing the education is based, and of its impact on higher education globally, but also specifically in the Europe Region;

Conscious in particular of the challenges posed by transnational education institutions and programmes operating outside of the framework of any national education system;

Being aware of the fact that transnational higher education is rapidly expanding, due mainly to the growing and seemingly limitless uses of the new information technologies in providing educational services in a world of borderless higher education;

Convinced that national systems of higher education are, and will continue to be, entrusted inter alia to preserve the cultural, social, philosophical, and religious diversity of the European Region while also being expected to promote various forms of international and global co-operation;

Attaching great importance to the academic quality of study programmes and degrees awarded by higher education institutions engaged in transnational education;

Considering that, regardless of the procedures adopted for establishing and providing educational services, higher education institutions should comply with those standards of performance in teaching and learning that are required by the present and future development of knowledge, technology and the labour market;

Acknowledging that facilitating the recognition of qualifications awarded through transnational arrangements will contribute to promoting both the mobility of students and that of study programmes between higher education institutions and systems;

Having regard to the Council of Europe/UNESCO Convention onthe Recognition of Qualificationsconcerning Higher Education in the European Region that provides an overall normative framework for dealing with academic recognition matters;

Having regard also to the Codes of good practice developed and monitored by some of the major providers, such as:

• Code of Ethical Practice in the Provision of Education to International Students by Australian Universities, Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee;

• Quality Assurance Code of Practice: Collaborative Provision, United Kingdom Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education;

• Principles of Good Practice for Educational Programs for Non-U.S. Nationals;

Mindful that such Codes provide working frameworks from the perspective of the sending institutions/systems of higher education, and that they have to be complemented by the perspectives of the receiving institutions/systems;

Having regard also to the Diploma Supplement developed jointly by the European Commission, the Council of Europe and UNESCO and aiming to provide supplementary information facilitating the assessment of qualifications;

Confident that ethical principles and values should closely guide the international and global cooperation between higher education systems and institutions;

Conscious of the need to find commonly agreed solutions to practical recognition problems in the European Region, and between the States of this Region, and those of other regions of the world, in an ever more global space of higher education;

Conscious of the need to permanently update the implementation mechanisms of the principles and provisions of the Lisbon Recognition Convention, thus keeping up with the pace of new developments in higher education cooperation;

Have agreed on the need for:

• A Code of Good Practice in the provision of higher education study programmes and other educational services by means of transnational arrangements;

• Recommendation on procedures and criteria for the assessment of foreign qualifications, with a view to implementing the Code of Good Practice and to facilitating the recognition of qualifications awarded following completion of transnational study programmes/courses of study;

• and for these to be considered as fully complementary and mutually supportive documents.

Section I. Terminology

Terms defined in the Lisbon Recognition Convention are not mentioned here again and shall, for the purposes of this Code of Good Practice, have the same meaning as in the Convention. The following terms, listed in alphabetical order, shall have the following meaning:

Third parties, such as brokers, facilitators, or recruiters, that act as intermediaries between awarding and providing institutions for establishing transnational educational arrangements. An agent is not usually involved in the provision of educational services.

Adocument agreed formally by the partners that contains all collaborative arrangements made between the awarding and providing institutions.

A higher education institution issuing degrees, diplomas, certificates or other qualifications.

Any study programme, course of study or parts of a course of study that leads, after successful completion, to a qualification. This also includes services such as preparatory/introductory modules to facilitate access to a course of study, or training modules that lead to professional development.

The awarding and providing institutions involved in transnational arrangements.

An institution or organization which is delivering all or part of a study programme.

An educational, legal, financial or other arrangement leading to the establishment of (a) collaborative arrangements, such as: franchising, twinning, joint degrees, whereby study programmes, or parts of a course of study, or other educational services of the awarding institution are provided by another partner institution; (b) non-collaborative arrangements, such as branch campuses, off-shore institutions, corporate or international institutions, whereby study programmes, or parts of a course of study, or other educational services are provided directly by an awarding institution.

All types of higher education study programmes, or sets of courses of study, or educational services( including those of distance education) in which the learners are located in a country different from the one where the awarding institution is based. Such programmes may belong to the education system of a State different from the State in which it operates, or may operate independently of any national education system.

Section II. Principles

1. Transnational arrangements should be so elaborated, enforced and monitored as to widen the access to higher education studies, fully respond to the learners' educational demands, contribute to their cognitive, cultural, social, personal and professional development, and comply with the national legislation regarding higher education in both receiving and sending countries. In the case of collaborative arrangements there should be written and legally binding agreements or contracts setting out the rights and obligations of all partners.

2. Academic quality and standards of transnational education programmes should be at least comparable to those of the awarding institution as well as to those of the receiving country. Awarding institutions as well as the providing institutions are accountable and fully responsible for quality assurance and control. Procedures and decisions concerning the quality of educational services provided by transnational arrangements should be based on specific criteria, which are transparent, systematic and open to scrutiny.

3. The policy and the mission statement of institutions established through transnational arrangements, their management structures and educational facilities, as well as the goals, objectives and contents of specific programmes, sets of courses of study, and other educational services, should be published, and made available upon request to the authorities and beneficiaries from both the sending and receiving countries.

4. Information given by the awarding institution, providing organization,

or agent to prospective students and to those registered on a study programme established through transnational arrangements should be appropriate, accurate, consistent and reliable. The information should include directions to students about the appropriate channels for particular concerns, complains and appeals. Where a programme is delivered through a collaborative arrangement, the nature of that arrangement and the responsibilities of the parties should be clearly outlined. The awarding institution is responsible for and should control and monitor information made public by agents operating on its behalf, including claims about the recognition of the qualifications in the sending country, and elsewhere.

5. Staff members of the institutions or those teaching on the programmes established through transnational arrangements should be proficient in terms of qualifications, teaching, research and other professional experience. The awarding institution should ensure that it has in place effective measures to review the proficiency of staff delivering programmes that lead to its qualifications.

6. Transnational education arrangements should encourage the awareness and knowledge of the culture and customs of both the awarding institutions and receiving country among the students and staff.

7. The awarding institution should be responsible for the agents it, or its partner institutions, appoint to act on its behalf. Institutions using agents should conclude written and legally binding agreements or contracts with these, clearly stipulating their roles, responsibilities, delegated powers of action as well as monitoring, arbitration and termination provisions. These agreements or contracts should further be established with a view to avoiding conflicts of interests as well as the rights of students with regard to their studies.

8. Awarding institutions should be responsible for issuing the qualifications resulting from their transnational study programmes. They should provide clear and transparent information on the qualifications, in particular through the use of the Diploma Supplement, facilitating the assessment of the qualifications by competent recognition bodies, the higher education institutions, employers and others. This information should include the nature, duration, workload, location and language(s) of the study programme leading to the qualifications.

9. The admission of students for a course of study, the teaching/learning activities, the examination and assessment requirements for educational services provided under transnational arrangements should be equivalent to those of the same or comparable programmes delivered by the awarding institution.

10. The academic work load in transnational study programmes, expressed in credits, units, duration of studies or otherwise, should be that of comparable programmes in the awarding institution, any difference in this respect requiring a clear statement on its rationale and its consequences for the recognition of qualifications.

11. Qualifications issued through transnational educational programmes, complying with the provisions of the present Code, should be assessed in accordance with the stipulations of the Lisbon Recognition Convention.

Explanatory Memorandum

THE UNESCO/COUNCIL OF EUROPE

CODE OF GOOD PRACTICE

IN THE PROVISION OF TRANSNATIONAL EDUCATION

The Code which follows is designed to present the perspectives of both sending and receiving countries regarding the provision of transnational education. Its contents are to be seen as complementary to the Lisbon Recognition Convention thus providing a normative framework to be taken as reference by the national recognition bodies in their specific undertakings.

2. The objectives of the CodeIn order to promote good practice in the area of transnational education - with particular reference to the quality of the provision of study programmes and the standards of qualifications issued by the Parties to the Council of Europe/UNESCO Lisbon Recognition Convention, the Code is intended:

§ to meet the expectations of both the sending and the receiving countries with regard to transnational arrangements in higher education;

 

§ to provide a source of reference on issues relating to the quality assurance and evaluation of programmes provided and qualifications issued through transnational arrangements;

 

§ to offer "consumer protection" for students, employers and others who may be concerned with qualifications awarded through transnational arrangements;

 

§ to facilitate the recognition of qualifications awarded through transnational arrangements in higher education.

The Code includes a set of principles which should be respected by institutions or organizations involved in the provision of educational services through transnational arrangements. These principles are presented in the form of statements with a normative value. For implementing the provisions of the Code, mainly with regard to the recognition of qualifications issued through transnational arrangements, the ENIC network shall apply the procedures outlined in the Recommendation on procedures and criteria for the assessment of foreign qualifications. Therefore, the Code and the Recommendation are fully complementary and mutually supportive documents.

a) institutions and programmes involved in concluding any type of transnational arrangement whereby an institution provides educational services outside its country of origin;

b) teaching staff, regardless of their country of origin, who work in an institution/study programme established through a transnational arrangement;

c) students, regardless of their country of origin, who are registered, for a course of study or parts of it leading either wholly or in part to a higher education qualification, in an institution/programme established through a transnational arrangement;

d) agents, that are third parties, acting as brokers, facilitators or recruiters in transnational arrangements;

e) other stakeholders, like employers and the public at large, interested in the quality of higher education qualifications.

(adopted by the Lisbon Recognition Convention Committee

at its second meeting, Riga, 6 June 2001)

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 Region:

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 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 statement 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 none"theless 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 sworn statements 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 statement 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 statement 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 standardised statements 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.

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 fulfilment 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 recognition statements;

 

(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 ECTS. 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 fulfilment 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.

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 statement 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 statement.

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, none"theless, 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.

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 compies 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 statement 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 statement 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.

ITEM 1: OPENING OF THE MEETING

ITEM 2: ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

Document: DGIV/EDU/HE (2001) OJ 6 [the present document]

ED-2001/UNESCO-CEPES/LRC.2/1.

Action: adoption

ITEM 3: REPORT OF THE FIRST MEETING OF THE LISBON RECOGNITION CONVENTION COMMITTEE

Document: DGIV/EDU/HE (2001) 9

ED-2001/UNESCO-CEPES/LRC.2/2

The Convention Committee is invited to consider the Report of the First Meeting of the Lisbon Recognition Convention Committee, held in Vilnius on 16 June 1999.

Action: adoption

ITEM 4: OVERVIEW OF SIGNATURES AND RATIFICATION PROCESS AT NATIONAL LEVEL

Document: DGIV/EDU/HE (2001) 10

ED-2001/UNESCO-CEPES/LRC.2/3

The Convention Committee invites the observer delegations to provide information on the ratification process in their countries.

Action: taking note; advice to the Committee and the Secretariats

ITEM 5: REQUESTS FOR ACCESSION TO THE LISBON RECOGNITION CONVENTION

Document: DGIV/EDU/HE (2001) 17

ED-2001/UNESCO-CEPES/LRC.2/8

The countries requesting accession to the Lisbon Recognition Convention under the provisions of Article XI.3 of the Convention are invited to make a short presentation of their system of higher education and the ways recognition matters are addressed. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has submitted a request under this Article.

Action: decision on the request by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for accession to the Convention under Article XI.3

ITEM 6: THE UNESCO-CEPES/COUNCIL OF EUROPE DRAFT CODE OF GOOD PRACTICE FOR THE PROVISION OF TRANSNATIONAL EDUCATION

Document: DGIV/EDU/HE (2001) 13

ED-2001/UNESCO-CEPES/LRC.2/4

The Draft Code of Good Practice for the Provision of Transnational Education will be submitted to the Convention Committee for adoption. Under the provisions of Article X.2.5 of the Convention, the ENIC Network approved the draft Code at its 2000 meeting (Brussels, 22 – 24 May).

Action: adoption

ITEM 7: THE DRAFT RECOMMENDATION ON CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF FOREIGN QUALIFICATIONS

Document: DGIV/EDU/HE (2001) 16

ED-2001/UNESCO-CEPES/LRC.2/5

The Draft Recommendation on Criteria and Procedures for the Assessment of Foreign Qualifications will be submitted to the Convention Committee for adoption. Under the provisions of Article X.2.5 of the Convention, the ENIC Network approved the draft Recommendation at its 2000 meeting (Brussels, 22 – 24 May).

Action: adoption

ITEM 8: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LISBON RECOGNITION CONVENTION AT NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL LEVEL – PRIORITIES FOR FUTURE ACTION

Document: DGIV/EDU/HE (2001) 11

ED-2001/UNESCO-CEPES/LRC.2/6

Oral presentation of the conclusions and of the proposals for action resulted from the discussions of the topic in the 8th Joint Meeting of the ENIC and NARIC Networks.

On the background of the Secretariat discussion document, the Convention Committee is invited to consider ways of improving the implementation of the Lisbon Recognition Convention at both a national and international level. The discussion should take due account of other developments, including the discussions on the future strategy of the ENIC and NARIC Networks and developments within the Bologna Process.

Action: Advice to the Bureau and the Secretariats

ITEM 9: ELECTION OF THE BUREAU

Document: DGIV/EDU/HE (2001) 12

ED-2001/UNESCO-CEPES/LRC.2/7

Action: Election of the Bureau of the Lisbon Recognition Convention Committee for the period 2001-2003.

ITEM 12: CLOSING OF THE MEETING

MEMBERS/MEMBRES

AUSTRIA/AUTRICHE

Dr. Christoph Demand, Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Teinfaltstr. 8, A-1014 Vienna

AZERBAIJAN/AZERBAÏDJAN - Excused

BULGARIA/BULGARIE - Excused

CZECH REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

Ms Štepánka SKUHROVÁ, Head of Centre for Equivalence of Documents on Education, Czech ENIC/NARIC, U Luzického Sem. 13, 11800 Praha 1

ESTONIA/ESTONIE

Mr Gunnar VAHT, Head of the Estonian ENIC/NARIC, Kohtu 6, EE – 10130 Tallinn

FRANCE

Mr Gérard LINKS, Chef du bureau de réseau académique, de la mobilité et de l'enseignement international, Ministère de l'éducation nationale, Délégation aux relations internationale et à la coopération, 110, rue de Grenelle, 75357 Paris 07 SP

GEORGIA/GEORGIE

Mr Irakli MACHABELI, Ministry of Education, Scientific Department, 52 Uznadze St., Tbilisi 380002

Mr Shota DORODNADZE, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia, 4, Chitadze Str., 380018 Tbilisi

 

HOLY SEE/SAINT SIEGE

His Excellency Archbishop Erwin Josef ENDER, Apostolic Nuncio in Latvia,

Kosciuskos gatvé, 28, 2001 Vilnius

HUNGARY/HONGRIE

Dr. Júlia JUHÁSZ, Senior Adviser, Hungarian Equivalence and Information Centre, Ministry of Education, 10-14 Szalay Street, 1055 Budapes

ICELAND/ISLANDE

Mr Thordur KRISTINSSON, Director of Academic Affairs, The University of Iceland, Main Building - Suðurgata

101 Reykjavík

KAZAKHSTAN

Mr Nuraly Sultanovich BEKTURGANOV, Minister of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 473000 City of Astana, Republic Prospect No. 60

LATVIA/LETTONIE

Mr Andrejs RAUHVARGERS, Secretary General, Latvian Rectors' Conference, Raina bvd. 19, LV- 1586 Riga

LIECHTENSTEIN

Mr. Hans Peter WALCH, Head of Department for Higher Education, Schulamt, Herrengasse 2, FL-9490 Vaduz

LITHUANIA/LITUANIE

Mr Rimantas VAITKUS, Head of Division of Higher Education, Department of Higher Education and Research, Ministry of Education and Science, Žygimantu 9, 2600 Vilnius

LUXEMBURG/LUXEMBOURG – Excused

NORWAY/NORVEGE

Ms Kaja SCHIØTZ, Senior Executive Officer, University of Oslo, PO Box 1079 Blindern, N - 0316 OSLO

 

ROMANIA/ROUMANIE

Ms Daniela GÎRBEA, Director ENIC/NARIC, Ministry of Education and Research, 28-30, Gen. Berthelot St., Sector 1, RO – 70738 Bucharest

RUSSIAN FEDERATION/FEDERATION RUSSE

Mr Gennady A. LUKICHEV, Director, National Information Center on Academic Recognition and Mobility, Ministry of Education, 117198 Moscow, Mikluho-Maklaya Str. 6

SLOVAK REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE SLOVAQUIE

Ms Maria HRABINSKA, Slovak ENIC/NARIC, UIPS, Staré grunty 52, 842 44 Bratislava

SLOVENIA/SLOVENIE

Mr. Pavel ZGAGA, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education, Kandeljeva pl. 16, 1000 Ljubljana

SWITZERLAND/SUISSE

Ms Isabella BRUNELLI, Collaboratrice scietifique, Office fédéral de l'éducation et de la science, Département fédéral de l'intérieur, Hallwylstrasse 4, CH-3001 Berne

UKRAINE

Mr Vladimir DOMNICH, Head of Department for Licensing and Accreditation, Ministry of Education and Science, Prospekt Peremohy, 01135 Kyiv

ALBANIA/ALBANIE - Excused

ANDORRA

Ms. Roser BASTIDA, Director of the Ministry of Education, Ministeri D'Educació, Joventut i Esports, C/Bonaventura Armengol 6-8, Andorra La Vella, ANDORA

AUSTRALIA/AUSTRALIE

Mr Paul COWAN, Counsellor, Employment, Education and Training, Australian Embassy, 4 rue Jean Rey, F – 75724 Paris Cedex 15, FRANCE

BELARUS

Ms Ludmila RUDOVA, Executive Director, Belarus ENIC, National Institute for Higher Education, 15, Moskowskaya Street, Minsk, BY-22000

BELGIUM/BELGIQUE

Mr Erwin MALFROY, NARIC-Vlaanderen, Department of Education, Hendrik Consciencegebouw Toren A7, Koning Albert II-laan 15, B-1210 Brussel

CANADA

Mr Yves E. BEAUDIN, Interim National Coordinator, Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials (CICIC)95 St. Clair West, Suite 1106, Toronto, Ontario, M4V 1N6

CYPRUS/CHYPRE

Professor Demetres NATSOPOULOS, Ministry of Education and Culture, Council for the Recognition of Higher Education Qualifications, Thoukidides & Kimonos Corner, 1434 Nicosia

DENMARK/DANEMARK

Ms Helle OTTE, Director, Danish Centre for Assessment of Foreign Qualifications (CVUU), Danasvej 30, DK-1780 Kopenhagen V

FINLAND/FINLANDE

Ms Marjatta PAULAMÄKI, The National Board of Education, Finnish NARIC, PL 380, 00531 Helsinki

 

GERMANY/ALLEMAGNE

Dr. Peter OBERSCHELP, Zentralstelle für Ausländisches Bildungswesen, Central Office for Foreign Education, Lennéstraße 6, D-53113 Bonn,

GREECE/GRECE

Professor Dr. George ELIOPOULOS, Institute of Technology Education (ITE), 12, Katsantoni, 152 35 Pedeli

IRELAND/IRLANDE

Ms Orla CHRISTLE, The Higher Education Authority, 3rd Floor, Marine House, Clanwilliam Court, Lower Mount Street, IRL-Dublin

ISRAEL

Ms. Nira GUR-ARIEH, Head of Division, Ministry of Education, Jerusalem 91911

ITALY/ITALIE

Mrs Silvia CAPPUCCI, Deputy Director CIMEA della FONDAZIONE RUI, Viale Ventuno Aprile, 36, I - 00162 Roma

KYRGYZ REPUBLIC - Excused

MALTA/MALTE

Dr. Paul HEYWOOD, Malta Equivalence Information Centre (MEIC), University of Malta, 20 Museum Road, Rabat, RBT 12

MONACO - Excused

THE NETHERLANDS/PAYS-BAS

Mr Jindra DIVIS, Director, Department for International Credential Evaluation/Afdeling Diplomawaardering & Onderwijsvergelijking, Dutch ENIC/NARIC, Nuffic, Kortenaerkade 11, P.O. Box 29777, 2502 LT The Hague

POLAND/POLOGNE

Ms Eva MAJDOWSKA, Deputy Director of the Bureau for Academic Recognition and International Exchange, Head of Polish ENIC, ul. Smolna 13, PL 00-375 Warszawa

PORTUGAL

Ms Manuela PAIVA, Head of NARIC and Head of the Division for Recognition and Exchange

Direcção - Geral do Ensino Superior, Direcção de Serviços Pedagógicos, Av. Duque d' Ávila, 137, 4º , 1069-016 Lisboa

SAN MARINO/SAINT MARIN

Ms Edith TAMAMGNINI, Ambassador, Permanent Delegate to UNESCO, Contrada Omagnano 20, 47890 Republic of San Marino

SPAIN/ESPAGNE

Mr. Ángel GÓMEZ-MORENO, Profesor Titular de Literatura y Filología Hispánica, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28040 Madrid

SWEDEN/SUEDE

Mr. Ulf ÖHLUND, Head of department, National Agency for Higher Education, Box 7851, SE- 10399, Stockholm

TAJIKISTAN - Excused

"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"/"L'EX-REPUBLIQUE YOUGOSLAVE DE MACEDOINE"

Ms Nadežda UZELAC, Senior Adviser, Macedonian ENIC, Ministry of Education and Science, ul. Dimitrie Cuposki br. 9, 1000 Skopje

TURKEY/TURQUIE

Professor Dr. Tugmaç SAYRAC, Vice-President, The Council of Higher Education (Y.Ö.K.)

ENIC Turkey, Bilkent, Ankara 06539

UNITED KINGDOM/ROYAUME UNI

Dr. Cloud BAI-YUN, Head of the UK NARIC, ECCTIS Ltd, Oriel House, Oriel Road, Cheltenham Gloucestershire GL50 1XP

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/ETATS-UNIS

Mr Stephen HUNT, Ph.D., Director for Planning and Policy, Manager, International Programs/USNEI National Library of Education

400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Rm. 4W309, Washington, DC 20202-5523

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA

Ms Milica KADIC, Advisor for International Cooperation, University of Montenegro,

Cetinjski put bb., 81000 Podgorica, MONTENEGRO

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Ms Anne SERIZIER, European Commission - DG Education and Culture, Higher Education - SOCRATES/ERASMUS, JEAN MONNET

ESIB

Ms Manja KLEMENCIC, Secretary General, The National Unions of Students in Europe (ESIB), Ave. de la Toison d'Or 17A, Box 80, B - 1050 Brussels, BELGIUM

IBO

Ake SORMAN, Diploma Regional Manager, International Baccalaureate Organisation,

15, Rue des Morillons, 1218 Grand-Saconnex-Geneva, SWITZERLAND

SECRETARIATS

COUNCIL OF EUROPE

Directorate of School, Out-of-School and Higher Education/Direction de l'Education et de l'Enseignement supérieur, F - 67075 STRASBOURG Cedex

Mr Sjur BERGAN, Head of Higher Education and Research Division/Chef de la Division de l'enseignement supérieur et de la recherche

                 

Mr Villano QIRIAZI, Administrateur, Division de l'Enseignement supérieur et de la recherche, Direction Générale IV

UNESCO-CEPES

European Centre for Higher Education, 39 Stirbei Voda St., RO - 70732 BUCURESTI

Mr Lazar VLASCEANU, Programme Specialist