The Wales-Wide Web

One of the pre-occupations of `European policy makers in education and training is the mobility of students - and by extension the equivalence of qualifications. Over the last year the Commission has been driving through a policy reform - variously called the Copenhagen process or the Maastricht agreement.

This sets out a series of somewhat vague tools and instruments of reform of national education and training systems and a framework for the development of equivalent qualifications for occupational training in the different European Member States. In my view it is a ill judged venture on a number of levels. Firstly, rather than focus on improving learning, the policy framework is pre-occupied with the transparency of outcomes as a tool for mobility. A second preoccupation is with formal institutional systems - rather than recognising the many different ways and contexts for gaining and practicing occupational competence. Thirdly the approach is mechanistic - and fails to take account of the richness of teh different histories and cultures of learning in the different countries.

Extended text for this entry:

Why have they gone down this road? A major concern for the European Commsission is achieving the goals of the Lisbon declaration which set out for Europe to become the most productive economy in teh world by teh year 2010. Thsi in itself was a very poor idea. It toolk no account of social solidarity or of distribution of wealth. It essentially oritated European policy towards competition with Japan, the USa and China - rather than seeking collbaorative, sustainable and econologically sensitive development. And to do this they restated their belief in the mystical power of advanced technology for economic success.

I am totally unconvinced that equivalences in education and training will work. Instead I think we should be recognised individual achievement and collaborating to provide opportunities for rich learning to take place in different contexts.

Anyway all this was a prelude (or rant) to a bit of a story. My daughter, Arddun was over in Germany a couple of months ago. She applied to Bremen University to do a course in History. A good set up - they would let her attend lectures but not sit assessments until she had passed her advanced German qualification. seems very reasonable. She has three 'A' levels - in history, German and Spanish and four AS levels. She has an A and two B grades - high grades of those of you reading this not familiar with the UK 'A' Level system.

Next thing she gets a letter regretting to turn her down as she is not qualified under the equivalences rules. We do a bit of digging - look on the official web site of the DAAD (german Acadmeic Exchnage Service) and the German Cultures Ministers Conference (ANABIN web site) (who are responsible for this area on behalf of the regional Lander authorities and slowly sort out why.

What the DAAD say is this:

"United Kingdom

With your secondary school-leaving certificate or higher education admissions qualification you can generally be directly admitted to higher education in Germany once you have passed the DSH language proficiency test."

Now here is the rub. We do not have a school leaving certificate or higher education admissions qualification in the UK. And the anabin web site is quite clear. A student must have the equivalent of the Arbitur - the German school leaving certificate. This is a grouped examination including German, math, science and languages. And so - quite logically - they say any UK student must have 'A' or "AS' levels qualifications in at least a foreign language and math for entry to any German university. Now pretty obviously few (if any) students thinking of doing history in the UK would do History, a language and math at 'A' level. For one thing the timetable wound not cope. For another, the UK university entrance people would take a pretty dim view of such a combination.

So - the problem. One country has a broad grouped exam system for university entry. the other a narrow but more in depth system. I'm not saying here which I prefer. I have written much about this in the past. I am saying the equivalences system is broken. Instead of trying to build equivalences they should recognize each others strengths and pay some heed to cultural and systemic diversity.

And - if they cannot get their act together for something like university entrance - the chances of making a system stick for vocational and occupational qualifications is nil.