Вестник ТГПУ им Л.Н. Толстого №3 2005

СОТРУДНИЧЕСТВО № 3, 2005 not initially operate this add-on system are now introducing it (in what may be considered a form of reverse engineering) with their two-year vocationally oriented Foundation Degrees (Smith &Betts, 2003). Problems may also arise with the number of vertical divisions and the size of increment between framework levels. Generally frameworks tend to have between seven and ten levels, moving from foundation secondary school level to PhD, but the number of levels is purely arbitrary. The increment between levels is also open to interpretation. For example in the Irish system, a pass degree at level seven could be perceived as being more than two thirds of the way towards a doctoral qualification which is obviously not the case. NQF systems recognise learning outcomes at a specific level, no matter how they are gained. APL (the Accreditation of Prior Learning) and APEL (the Accreditation of Prior and Experiential Learning) are systems for the recognition and accreditation of earlier learning. These are commonly regarded in the West as a means whereby w'ork-based learning and training can be recognised, encouraged and rewarded. Despite the rhetoric surrounding the advent of APL it has proved extremely difficult to operate. Few qualification systems or institutions are able to cope efficiently with the prior learning experiences of students, because of the way that learning outcomes are written, and the problems that students have in showing that their own learning experiences can meet these outcomes. TOWSAnalysis An analysis of the threats, weaknesses, opportunities and strengths of the global phenomenon of qualification framework systems may suggest likely development routes for Russia in its pursuit of sustainable development strategies. Threats Most advanced societies are regulating their higher education and vocational systems through the implementation of qualification and accreditation frameworks. Russia may be in danger of losing ground in the international mobility of its graduates and in the recognition and portability of its qualifications if educational regulations in Russia are not comparable and compatible with current world best practice. It is noteworthy that Russia is aiming to comply with the requirements of the European Union Bologna process (3 years Bachelors + 2 years Masters + 3 years Doctorate). It has recently been proposed that the time for its teacher training qualifications be reduced from five years to four. This could lead to a variant on the Bologna model as utilised as an option in Ireland (4 year Bachelors + I year Masters + 3 years Doctorate). Knowledge is increasingly a marketable commodity as shown by the GATS agreement discussed earlier in the paper. Just as in the financial services sector, there is amove towards the transnational regulation of higher education services which will, in time, require state compliance. Non-participation in such developments could threaten Russian competitiveness. Opportunities The movement towards the transnationalisation of education, as shown in the 1999 European Bologna Declaration (NQAI p. 45), commits the EU nations to improve the level of harmonisation between national systems, especially in relation to the portability of degrees. There is considerable worldwide interest in the European attempt to produce a greater degree of harmony between different national systems within a particular geographical region. In cooperation with the Council of Europe, the Russian higher education system has been developed in a manner aligned with the Bologna model and Russia became signatories to the Bolognia Declaration in 2003 (NARIC, 2005). Given its size, Russia could provide a system of comparable consequence.