How Do Qualifications Systems in Different Countries Act As Incentives Or Disincentives

How do qualifications systems in different countries act as incentives or disincentives to lifelong learning?

Mike Coles, Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, London

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, 11-13 September 2003

SESSION 5, FRIDAY, 11.00HRS – 12.30HRS, Room: Maths M113

In the paper which follows some difficult research issues are raised. Here are some issues that I would like you to think about and let me have your observations.

1. I am concerned that qualifications systems focus almost exclusively on formal learning and pay only scant attention to non-formal and informal learning. If we are trying to describe links between qualifications systems and lifelong learning then we should take the recognition of non-formal and informal learning into account. How can qualifications systems do this?

1. Is it the case that non-pecuniary reward for learning is not very well researched? If so is this because these rewards are difficult to identify… or to measure… and exactly how do qualifications develop non-pecuniary rewards?

1. Are you convinced by the concept of a mechanism and how the idea might be applied to link qualifications systems to lifelong learning?

1. How practical is the methods of analysis outlined in this paper?

1. There is considerable interest in this activity from policy makers in many countries. Is there evidence from the research community as to why this is the case?

Mike Coles

+442075095604

How do qualifications systems in different countries act as incentives or disincentives to lifelong learning?

Mike Coles, Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, London

9 September 2003

Abstract

This paper describes international comparative research work in the field of qualifications systems – the aim of the work is to unravel the connections between qualifications systems and lifelong learning – more specifically the volume, distribution and quality of lifelong learning. The OECD manages the project and the hope is that information provided by the 23 participating countries will show how lifelong learning can be enhanced by understanding better qualifications policy and the policy instruments within qualifications systems. This paper illustrates advances in thinking about the ways in which qualifications systems can influence participation in lifelong learning and the quality of learning experiences. If there are relationships between qualifications systems and lifelong learning that are not just spurious correlations there will be mechanisms by which this happens. These mechanisms are the kernel of this activity and a set of 10 is proposed together with a description of the possible effects of mechanisms on individuals, providers and employers. Mechanisms might act on different stakeholders in different ways and operate differently in changing social, economic and cultural conditions. Thus the complexity of the field of enquiry is recognised. The paper attempts to refine the conceptualisation of mechanisms that work through the aspirations of individuals, the planning process of providers and the needs of employers. The paper also outlines some tentative ideas for analysing the interactions that are at the heart of the activity. Early attempts at analysis of 14 reports from countries on their qualifications systems is also reported. These reports include descriptions of the systems, current policy initiatives and analysis of research on the impact of qualifications on individuals (financial and otherwise). They form an authoritative and up-to-date data set on qualifications systems around the world.

Background

This paper draws heavily on a paper by Friedereke Behringer and Mike Coles which is about to be published by the OECD[1]: In this paper the author has taken the opportunity to discuss a little more about the nature of mechanisms that may link qualification systems (QS) and lifelong learning (LLL).

The OECD activity The Role of National Qualifications Systems in Promoting Lifelong Learning was launched by the OECD in the Autumn of 2000. At the time of writing, 23 countries[2] are involved in the activity. Co-operation with the European Union, CEDEFOP, the European Training Foundation, the International Labour Office and the World Bank contributes to the activity.

Describing qualifications systems and LLL

QS have been defined for the purpose of the OECD activity as:

systems that include all aspects of a country’s activity that result in the delivery or recognition of learning. These systems include institutional arrangements, quality assurance processes, assessment and awarding processes, skills recognition and other mechanisms that link the labour market to education and training. Qualifications systems may be more or less integrated and coherent. One feature of a qualification system may be an explicit framework of qualifications.

In order to generate a common framework based on country reports a model of a framework for the description of QS has been developed that is based on 11 components[3], these are:

• Scope of application of the QS
• Control of the QS
• Accreditation processes for qualifications
• A qualifications framework within the QS
• Descriptors present in qualifications
• Access to qualifications for individuals
• Progression for individuals
• Stability of the QS
• Awarding processes
• Credit systems
• International reference points

Considerations about LLL

The OECD has adopted a ‘cradle-to-grave’ concept of lifelong learning, that is all learning activity undertaken throughout life, with the aim of improving knowledge, skills and competencies within a personal, civic, social and/or employment-related perspective. Thus the whole spectrum of learning, formal, non-formal and informal is covered in this broad definition, as are active citizenship, personal fulfilment, social inclusion, professional/vocational and employment related aspects.

Lifelong learning is an activity carried out by individuals, therefore the motivation, propensity and capacity of individuals to take up further learning as influenced by the QS is the core of the analysis. The concept of lifelong learning is of special importance for adults, but the learners include school children, students, working and non-working adults. In addition, impacts of the QS on providers and employers have to be taken into account. They are important actors in the field of LLL and are influenced by QS. Providers encompass schools, colleges, employers, learning centres etc. Employers (of any size and sector) provide a share of work related training and education of adolescents and adults, and being gatekeepers they can stimulate, enable or block access to learning.

The Indicators of LLL are key output variables in this activity and it is clearly important to pay attention to developing as comprehensive a list of LLL indicators as possible. Many countries and international organisations have developed potentially useful indicators for LLL. A list of 18 indicators has been developed for this activity, for most of them data are currently available for most of the countries involved in the activity. The indicators cover performance (skills, competencies and attitudes), access and participation, and resources for LLL.

Aspect of LLL / Potential Indicators
Skills, Competencies and Attitudes /

• Literacy level
• Numeracy level
• Basic skills learning in adults
• Availability of work-based skills

Access and Participation /

• Participation in pre primary education
• Completion of full upper secondary education programme
• Participation in tertiary education
• Participation in CET /mean number of training hours per person engaged in CET
• Adult share of total enrolments in formal education (by level of education)/Enrolment rates of adults
• Participation in labour market training (as percentage of labour force)
• Numbers of unemployed adults learning

Resources for Lifelong Learning /

• Expenditure per student in elementary and secondary education
• Expenditure per student in tertiary education
• Grants and allowances to students/households
• Public expenditure on labour market training
• Volume of LLL opportunities provided by government
• Level of investment in training from employers
• Range of provision from main institutions including voluntary organisations

Once again the list is based on a wider set of indicators has been identified from published sources. This wider set includes ‘process’ elements of LLL such as level of use of ICT and use of mechanisms for recognising informal learning.

In some existing studies it is suggested that a composite indicator of LLL can be developed for each country by combining, through the use of an algorithm, various indicators. For the moment this approach has been rejected. One reason is that the relationships between QS and LLL are complex and little understood – evidence for effects of one on the other are not available in literature. Another is that the effects may not be visible at the composite level and it might incorrectly be concluded that there are no clear effects.

Links between qualifications systems and lifelong learning

The basic understanding of this activity is that there may be some kind of causal link between QS and LLL. The description of QS as components will be used as independent variables and a set of indicators of LLL will be treated as dependent variables. Analysis will explore this relationship quantitatively and qualitatively.

The individual

Literature about participation in LLL often takes the individual as a starting point. Economic approaches (human capital theory) as well as sociological approaches (rational choice theory) share the assumption of the individuals deciding about the amount and timing of education and training on a rational basis. There are differences in the ways individuals are considered to appraise the scope of possible benefits in the modelling of the decision process and in the concept of rationality (maximising returns, sequential decision making). The main difference is with the assumptions about aims or preferences of individuals. Economic approaches generally treat them as stable, equal for all individuals and mainly based on money. Sociologists place emphasis on different and changing preferences. Generally speaking, in taking decisions individuals try to optimise potential benefits, they often do not all the information they need to make decisions about participation in education and therefore information and guidance is crucial. Benefits can range from entirely personalised non-pecuniary rewards through to highly instrumental utility considerations. Relevant to the decisions individuals make is perceptions of alternatives, restrictions and possible benefits, all these are subject to individual values and possible distortions. It is subjective expectations that influence the decisions of individuals. This means that their perception of possible benefits connected to the award of the qualification is a decisive factor, and this is influenced by their anticipation of the chances of success and the risk of failure. This is reported as unevenly distributed across population groups.

Participation in LLL is partially compulsory, e.g. attendance at schools up to a certain age, or in special courses for unemployed persons in order to be entitled to unemployment benefits. Under these conditions the avoidance of detriments has to be taken as benefits of participation.

Lifelong learning involves public and private cost. When making decisions about their participation individuals take into account their private costs (monetary and non-pecuniary), including opportunity costs. For adults loss of earnings and entitlements (including tax deductions) determine opportunity cost, in the case of discontinuation of employment this can be a major factor. Costs differ not only for different areas of lifelong learning, but also between population groups.

Considerations of subjective expected net benefits of acquiring (additional) qualifications are regarded as the main driving force for individuals, taking into account possible benefits and the cost of participation and the anticipated chances of success. This implies that any hypothesis on the influences of the QS on LLL is actually a chain of hypotheses with an intermediate unobserved term - the subjective expected net benefits.

Providers and employers

The effect of QS on providers is assumed to work through the cost of provision, content and structure of supply. Employers decide on the investment in training for their staff on the basis of expected utility, being determined by the need for competencies (signalled by qualifications), the cost of the investment, and the benefits (e.g. in terms of enhanced productivity and estimated length of returns on investment). The cost of investment is not only influenced by the cost of the provision of training, but also by the loss of working time whilst employees are training and the possibility of having to increase wages either by trade union agreement or by offering retention allowances.

Linking mechanisms

If there are relationships between QS and LLL that are not just spurious correlations, then there will be means by which these happen – a mechanism of some sort. These mechanisms are the kernel of this activity. The goal is to identify what each mechanism is, how it transforms a feature of QS into greater participation in learning. They may also operate in different ways in different social, economic and cultural conditions. Hence the importance of giving full consideration to these contextual conditions. The condition of the labour market with its demands regarding volume and structure of work translates into job opportunities and the necessity to acquire further qualifications. Innovation and new technologies require skill development. Institutional regulations also account for demand for qualifications, e.g. the prerequisite to undertake vocational training in order to be entitled to unemployment benefits. The degree of compression of the wage structure and the general rate of labour turnover influence the possible returns of training to employers. Together with basic cultural values they influence expected cost and benefits; these effects will differ between various groups of the population in a country and between countries. The following diagram shows the general structure of the model of the activity.

Figure 1

The derivation of potential mechanisms that link QS with LLL is a critical step in this research. It is important to have a common understanding of the concept of a mechanism. At this stage a mechanism is conceptualised as a process that translates a feature of QS into outcomes on LLL. According to this conceptualisation if there is a mechanism working, a change in a component of QS leads to a change in the quantity, quality or distribution of LLL. At the same time countries with different “parameter values” of the components should have different LLL outcomes, other things equal.

The table that follows is a list of components or features of QS with the main potential mechanism. The table is regarded as a basis for discussion; there might be some more mechanisms working, and there might be contradictory views on the kind of the relationship between QS and the selected mechanism. The basis for identifying the mechanisms needs to be put to the test though application to the reports prepared by countries.

Component of QS / Brief overview / Potential mechanism and how the mechanism might work to enhance LLL
Scope of application / This includes such things as breadth (international, national, regional) or whether it applies to sectors of the education system or occupational sectors. It can also include its legal status whether there are collective agreements or agreements involving professional organisations. / Portability might be easier within larger, national QS.
Signalling is possibly stronger when more agencies are involved in recruiting on the basis of qualifications
Acceptance of qualifications is also enhanced when a system has broad scope and has a legal basis
Availability of qualifications is enhanced when the size of the market is larger, niche and regional markets can be serviced, collective agreements can help with this

Control

/ The government of a country or its agencies is one locus of control. This control may or may not involve participation of other social partners such as employee groups or enterprises. Sometimes control is operated independently by a body that awards qualifications. The latter may or may not be regulated by government.
Sometimes there may be no clear control within a system, either because there are multiplicities of agencies or because control lies outside the state, perhaps with large enterprises operating their own qualifications or with awarding bodies based in other countries. / Acceptance is likely to be higher where there is strong control
Transparency of the system should, in theory, be enhanced by clear control
Value assigned to qualifications might be enhanced if qualifications are rationalised through firm and stable control.
Flexibility might lead to better access to qualifications and this could occur when there is greater diversity and less central control
Portability might be easier in a stable and controlled system
Accreditation processes for qualifications / Accreditation refers to the process of quality regulation. If this process exists outside agencies providing qualifications it might be centralised and government-run or regional or sectoral. The process could involve high status independent organisations or it may be left to bodies with a vested in interest in the qualification. The process may vary in clarity and transparency to those outside the system.
The quality process might involve establishing benchmarks or standards or be restricted to maintaining standards established through practice. The process may impinge on part of the awarding process (e.g. setting assessments) or be overarching and comprehensive such as monitoring the way the qualification is marketed)
The quality process may or may not define how recognising prior learning takes place.
Aspects of control and stability of this process apply in just the same way as to the QS system as whole. / Costs for individuals and providers will rise for of an extensive quality process.
Portability would probably be enhanced by a more extensive quality process
Flexibility could be affected by a quality process – it is difficult to predict whether accreditation would have a positive or negative effect.
Value and reliability associated with qualifications would be enhanced by this aspect of control of the system
Transparency could be affected by a quality process – it is difficult to predict whether the latter would have a positive or negative effect.
Framework within the QS / Some systems contain a framework showing relationships between types of qualifications. This framework can show ‘equivalencies’ between qualifications that are essentially different and it may show progression or pathways from on level of qualification to another. These frameworks can be limited to a sector of education or an occupational sector. Some frameworks are inclusive.
Frameworks can serve many purposes, one of them is to rationalise and bring order to a complex system another is to act as a national benchmark of quality (see above). / Transparency is likely to be enhanced through the existence of a framework
Accessibility to qualifications may be increased or decreased depending on how inclusive the framework is
Signalling power of qualifications will be enhanced if they can be more easily distinguished from qualifications in related fields.
Descriptors present in qualifications / Qualifications take different forms – they involve completion of learning programmes and tests of learning. They may include a detailed set of requirements or they may provide only a spine of requirements for interpretation at local level. These descriptions may vary from qualification to qualification or they may be generic and bring a standard form to qualifications.
Besides defining content and assessment procedures they may define purposes, learning arrangements, prerequisite attainment and how prior learning, informal and non-formal learning can be credited. / Accessibility should be enhanced by clear descriptions but any regulation may reduce the effect
Costs may be increased through the need to meet requirements, and of conducting assessments
Value and reliability associated with qualifications would be enhanced by this aspect of control of the system
Access to qualifications and progression for individuals / Qualifications and learning programmes associated with them may have different entry points and sometimes these may be controlled through entry requirements and prescribed preparatory courses and systems of recognition of prior learning.
Systems without frameworks may have pseudo frameworks through definition of linkages between qualifications. The latter can range from formal credit arrangements to linkages based on previous practice. Routes and pathways can be explicit or implied and consequently so can transfer from one qualification to another and equivalence of standards.
In some systems there are none of these features / Accessibility should be enhanced with a range of entry points but specifications for entry requirements may have the opposite effect
Costs may increase with entry requirements but may decrease with recognition of prior learning
Stability of the QS / Permanent, fixed term, mixed. Another aspect is stability of control – there may be a gradual or oscillating shift in control / Reliability in the QS might encourage investment from individuals and enterprises and this could be influenced by stable governance
Value assigned to qualifications might be enhanced if qualifications are rationalised through firm and stable control.
Portability might be easier in a stable and controlled system
Cost of provision of courses will be lower if the system is stable and not susceptible to changing practices and requirements.
Acceptance of qualifications as may be enhanced if recruiters can use a system over an extended period of time.
Transparency may be enhanced if time allows more information which includes consistent messages are available
Awarding processes / This aspect of qualifications systems begins with the assessment evidence and concludes with a judgement of outcome that might mean the award of a certificate. The process of assessment can be formal or informal and might involve recognition of prior learning.
The extent of assessment in qualifications can vary widely. There is a range of types of certificates, diplomas, degrees. There may be many awarding institutions or a restricted number.
Sometimes social partners participate in awarding processes; sometimes awarding decisions are taken by assessment experts.
Regulation of awarding places is common but the level of monitoring and intervention can vary. / Cost of assessment (including non-pecuniary costs for individuals) will be dependent on the style of awarding process.
Value will be dependent on an effective maintenance of standards through awarding processes.
Credit systems / Some qualifications systems have a process of awarding credit gained in one assessed area or qualification to another. To facilitate this process the qualifications in the system may be unitised but this is not a necessary condition. Where units are available there will often be rules of combination of units and partial certification may be possible. / Flexibility is a goal of credit systems
Accessibility is thought to be enhanced by unitised systems
Costs may be higher for a full qualification built of units but units may be achieved in phases and therefore costs will be staggered.
International reference points / There are many reference points for qualifications systems; these include ISCED 97 that spans all phases of education and other frameworks such as the EU-levels frameworks devised by CEDEFOP that have a VET focus. These frameworks can act as benchmarks for trans national comparison. / Portability is likely to be enhanced when a qualification system is clearly benchmarked internationally
Acceptance by recruiters may be enhanced through international benchmarking

The analysis produces the following mechanisms that will enhance lifelong learning in a country (the extent and/or the quality and/or the distribution):