Вестник ТГПУ им Л.Н. Толстого №3 2005

№ 3, 2005 ВЕСТНИК ТГПУ им. Л. Н. Толстого side by side. For example, the UK has a framework for higher education qualifications (FHEQ) running parallel to a national qualification framework (NQF), with a system of equivalences allowing transfer between them (NARIC, 2005). We now present tw*o examples of national qualification frameworks to illustrate ‘strong’ versus ‘weak’ systems - the New Zealand model initially, a ‘strong’ highly directive model, and a more recent ‘weak’ consultative Irish model. A situational analysis shows the different social and economic contexts fromwhich these frameworks were developed. NewZealand In New Zealand the model, developed in 1990, was driven by the ‘neo-liberal’ economic factors of the 1980’s (Young, 2003, p.231). These economic factors stressed the importance of open markets and competitiveness for a vulnerable economy in the process of changing from an agrarian past to a knowledge and skill-based future. The development of the framework which is one of the longest established ( NQAI, p.28), formed part of the thrust which has made the New Zealand educational system one of the most globally successful and competitive (King, 2004, p. 90). The framework was intended to develop labour market skills by producing a highly educated workforce. The New Zealand Qualification Framework (NZQF) has been identified as an ideal model since it was initially ‘comprehensive’, encompassing the school, university and training sectors (ibid). It was prescriptive, allowing little autonomy to individual institutions or sectors to determine their own frameworks or discretionary powers to make awards. A new terminology of ‘levels’, ‘units’ and ‘standards’ w-as developed for the system. The NZQF soon experienced strong opposition from schools and universities which felt threatened and undermined by the power of this new authority. The terminology and associated practices were alien to those working in the New Zealand educational sectors, and government had to intervene directly to remove standardised ‘units’ from schools. After five years of operation the framework was near collapse. A compromise was eventually arrived at which explicitly recognised the different needs of the education and industrial training sectors, but at the expense of the unity of the system (Young 2003, p.231). For instance the New' Zealand Qualifications Authority now approves all degrees and national qualifications outside of the universities, and the New Zealand Vice- Chancellors’ Committee approves all university qualifications (NQAI, 2002, p.30). - Ireland A more recent Irish development has been the establishment of a National Qualifications Authority (NQFA) and a resulting National Qualification Framework (NQF) in a period of rapid economic growth in the late 1990’s. At this time, national agreements were arrived at between .government and the social partners such as the trade unions and employers. These agreements contributed to a social consensus regarding the way forward for the economy and society as a whole. This consensus developed in tandem with a restructuring and modernisation of the educational system. The secondary school curriculum and examination systems underwent wide-ranging changes and major overhaul. An underdeveloped vocational educational system was expanded together with its associated qualification and awards structures. At the same time, national policies were being developed to promote lifelong learning opportunities. The Irish NQF was the opposite of the NZ structure in being non-directive, consensual and partial. For example, the schools and universities were not subject to the regulatory framework or levels, though the universities are now belatedly coming on board by adopting ‘levels’ and modularisation systems. The NQAI did not initially utilise the concept of ‘credits’ though this has created problems in the implementation of the system. The Irish educational system is now attempting to move in the direction of greater unification in order tomaintain the viability of the framework and to prevent fragmentation.