Emerging National Qualification Framework in India: A Journey of Dilemmas

Introduction

The global trend of reforming higher education has embraced a market-centric paradigm, relying largely on the premise of developing human resources. The globalisation process has increased these demands of flexible, mobile and transparent sets of competence to meet demands of global economies. The thrust in revamping educational structures around the world can be seen as an affirmative step in this regard. The move towards a National Qualification Framework (NQF) is also seen as a way of relying on the market to deliver public services such as education and training (Varghese, 2015). At first glance, the NQF seems to provide a structure of nationally accredited qualifications while focussing on learning outcomes, encompassing globalisation and internationalisation (International Labour Organization, 2006; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2006) to achieve the policy objectives of transparency, comparability and portability (Cort, 2010). It is also posed as a political way for regaining confidence in the national system of education as several employers repeatedly highlight the shortage of skills in graduates and the inability of an education system to make them ready for work. Although different forms of Qualification Frameworks (QFs) ranging from sectoral QFs to regional QFs to NQFs to transnational QFs exist, the basis of level descriptors are situated on learning outcomes. In fact, learning outcomes and competency development have become a policy mandate of QFs worldwide which also provide it a ‘crisis of legitimacy’. Policies are, therefore, formed, and strategies are set on a regular basis to formulate NQFs and/or make them robust and acceptable.

India is a relatively new player in this arena and is keen to retune its large and complex education systems which for generations have been operating on a stand-alone basis. Uniting this fragmented education system is a mammoth task, and the policy decision to formulate an NQF is thus revolutionary although not immune from critics.

The Indian education system varies widely in terms of its structure, contents, courses offered and levels. These result in creating problems of comparability and difficulties in establishing equivalence. Moreover, due to the lack of a central agency to be entrusted with the NQF, there is more than one QF in the higher education domain. The National Vocational Qualification Framework (NVQF), the National Vocational Education Qualification Framework (NVEQF) and the National Skill Qualification Framework (NSQF) by different policy entities are examples of overlapping QFs. The University Grants Commission (UGC), the apex body of Indian higher educational administration, seems now planning a new National Higher Education Qualification Framework (NHEQF). There are growing demands for a comprehensive NQF too. While all these QFs can be seen as efforts to streamline various sections of education and training, in the midst of a complex diverse and somewhat unequal Indian education system, these newly sprouted QFs may also cause further dilemmas and hinder the implementation process of integrating Indian higher education. In addition, to operate NQF with an egalitarian outcome-centric model in a country with myriad contoured and controlled educational systems, a neoliberal model of NQF may be seen as a win–win scenario, but in reality could remain as mere rhetoric or make the situation even worse, as experienced in some other developing counties. Therefore, on the one hand, there is a proactive push to streamline the education system, while, on the other, the dilemmas are manifold. How to comprehend them to move forward with a progressive and rooted policy is the central issue.

This article, therefore, seeks to examine the dilemmas associated with the Indian conceptualisation of QFs to gain an initial understanding on how policy can recalibrate a fragmented Indian higher education system and the QFs in a comprehensive manner. In order to understand the issue better this article discusses efforts in India to develop QFs with reference to countries which already have formed NQFs and tries to draw from their experiences.

The following section begins with a brief discussion of international trends in the move towards QFs. It also discusses some major characteristics of QFs and some associated critiques. The next section is a discussion of India’s efforts to develop QFs. It then critically analyses emerging challenges and issues associated with the formulation and implementation of QFs in the diversified educational landscape of the nation. The final section attempts to suggest a direction in which the effort towards a comprehensive NQF in India could evolve.

The Global Perspectives on Qualification Frameworks

The shifts in the global economy and increased demands for skill have created a mismatch between educational qualifications and the expertise needed for the labour market. There is a need to regain the confidence of employers which has kindled a universal drive towards QFs. This urge, according to Levin (1998) is an ‘epidemic spread’ of neoliberal policies across countries.

The first wave of QF started from Scotland (Young, 2005), followed by Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. These QFs were regarded as a transformative instrument to develop skilled human resources. They were also a mechanism to integrate education and training. This initial response to community and industry demands paved the way for the second wave of QFs. In the late 1990s, Ireland, Maldives, Mexico, Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia and Wales proceeded towards NQFs. In quick succession, China, Jamaica, Serbia, Slovenia, Albania and several other countries followed and opted for it. By the 2000s, several nations have either formed NQFs or have initiated its process (Tuck, 2007).

Parallel to the NQFs, the Regional Qualification Frameworks (RQFs) also began gaining importance in some regions, especially in the European Union and Southern African Development Community. The initiatives by the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), World Bank and International Labour Organization (ILO) pushed the agenda of QFs further into the policies of developing countries. The Bologna Process and the following policy initiatives by the European Commission are perhaps one of the most significant transnational efforts in this regard. Instead of following the path to ‘harmonise’ the qualification, it focussed on developing translation devices to make the relationship between qualifications in different systems clearer (Bjørnåvold, 2007). The establishment of the European Qualification Framework (EQF) compared the qualification indicators of its member states that encouraged mobility of learners and professionals. The qualification descriptors, supported by competence, also influenced many other countries to opt for similar frameworks.

The basic premise on which all the QFs are founded are ‘learning outcome’ and ‘competence development’, which essentially means that skills possessed by the individual (learning outcomes) are more important than the mode of acquiring learning (Varghese, 2015). Hence, firstly, it places the learner at the centre stage and, secondly, says that any provider can offer education against a specified learning outcome (Allais, 2007). This, according to Ensor (2003), devalues educational institutions at all levels where standard setting, monitoring and accreditation are recentralised (Ensor, 2003, p. 331). Since QFs value the end result, that is outcome, it provides legitimacy to competence acquired in formal, non-formal and informal ways and, therefore, focusses on an assessment of learning. The repositioning of qualifications, therefore, can be value oriented, based on cognitive complexities and even with the absence of specific knowledge area or practice (Allais, 2007).

This change also seems to devalue the privileged position of reputed educational institutions as the QFs focus on a learners’ competence and is less bothered about the institutions involved in it. This works in favour of the massive demands for education in general and higher education in particular and, at the same time, provides legitimacy to all entities, not just educational institutions, to operate in the field of the education market. In other words, it gives providers more freedom and a strong argument to open up the sector to the market, in the guise of nation-building through skill development and educational reforms.

At the operational level, a QF relies on the rearranging of various existing structures of educational systems and argues for a simplified approach, allowing more flexibility and mobility. However, as analysed by Allais (2003), it creates a rather restrictive model by specifying the level descriptors in great detail. The recognition that learning outcome should be the guiding principle also creates a dilemma among policymakers to come to a consensus about learning outcomes, predetermined for the purpose. This encourages policymakers and experts to formulate working definitions and guidelines for each level descriptor. And in the process of rigorously defining standards, it becomes narrower. Allais (2003) even pointed out that this constant effort to define and link competences with learning outcomes of specific programmes often ends up in never ending spirals, leading to ultra-rigid models, where everything is predefined. This seems contrary to the foundational ideas which informed the conception of educational reform with curriculum-based to QFs. What are the chances of the same being replicated in India is part of the main question which is being discussed in this article.

National Qualification Framework in Indian Education

With the second largest population size, India has one of the largest education systems in the world. Over 285 million enrolments in schools and higher education in 2013–2014, and nearly 32 million alone in higher education, India certainly has a colossal system to manage. The education system consists of five years of primary (I–V), three years of upper primary (VI–VIII), two years of secondary education (IX and X) followed by two more years of higher secondary (XI and XII) before a student enrols into the higher education institutions. In general, or in non-technical subjects, India follows a 3 + 2 + 4-year structure with certain exceptions. After three years of undergraduate study, a student can opt for a two-year Master’s degree followed by a doctoral degree of four years. Except vocational courses, such as a polytechnic, all others offer the possibility of pursuing doctoral studies. Sometimes, there could be another one/two years of an MPhil course prior to the doctorate. In professional courses, the undergraduate degree can be obtained in four or five years, depending on the course structure.

Education in India is the joint responsibility of the central and state governments. The Planning Commission of India (PCI) used to set the new development initiatives of the nation through five-year plans, until now. The newly formed NITI Aayog (National Institution for Transforming India), which replaced the PCI, has not opted for a five-year plan and intends to follow a more flexible model of planning based on changing global and national socio-economic educational circumstances. Nevertheless, the present government puts strategic priorities on education and promises to bring out the new education policy after thirty years (the last one was in 1986).

The former PCI or the present NITI Aayog, along with state governments, puts in efforts to improve all sections of formal education. Starting from the base of the educational structure, efforts towards the universalisation of elementary education finally started showing positive results with a Net Enrolment Ratio (NER) of 88 per cent. This non-negotiable strategic priority and the commitment to an inclusive policy on educational development also includes inclusiveness. While reducing gender, class, caste and other socio-economic disparities is the priority under the broad goal of improving access, the concern for excellence (also another major policy goal) is now becoming an issue of great concern. Thus, the recent policy discourse emphasises on quality education for all, a major shift towards learner achievement and learning outcomes. The efforts to improve quality education with improved access also continue in the secondary education.

The schemes of vocationalisation of education were significantly revised in 2011 which substantially increased access to vocational studies. Various public schemes promoted skills building and the National Skill Development Mission was set up in 2007, which continues its greater ambition of following ‘skill India’, a flagship scheme initiated by the present Indian government.

The scenario in higher education is, however, somewhat diverse. The second largest higher education system in the world, although improved its Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) and increased the number of educational institutions, the overall poor quality of education and employability of its graduates remain worrisome. The higher education institutions also vary widely in terms of course contents, levels, grading systems and title of qualifications. These result in a lack of comparability of outcomes, making it difficult to establish any equivalence of certificates or transfer of credits. This. in turn, hampers the mobility and employability of students. Moreover, several national and international reports are repeatedly highlighting the lack of required skills among Indian students, thus questioning the quality of higher education in India (for example, British Council, 2014; FICCI, 2014, among others).

Interestingly, a recent estimate by Varghese (2015), based on the National Sample Survey’s (NSS) 66th and 68th Rounds, shows that the total number of people requiring skills by 2022 will be 802.87 million in the 15–45 age groups. It will escalate to a greater height considering the fact that not more than 10 per cent youth have undergone any skill training. Nearly 93 per cent of the workforce in the unorganised sector have no opportunity to get trained in a formal or semi-formal system (Institute of Applied Manpower Research, 2012). To reap benefits of the demographic dividend of having one of the largest number of youth population, both the market and policymakers need to focus on skill and competence development. One possible way of assessing this is stressing on learning outcomes.

All these requirements urge the system to opt for a revamp and move towards a transparent and comparable QF in India. India recognises the need for an NQF both for general education and for vocational education and training, hoping that it will move the country towards developing nationally standardised yet internationally comparable qualifications (Varghese, 2015). From a policy perspective, a NQF is projected as a ‘dynamic’ solution to increase transparency and thus establish mutual trusts with different education systems in the country. Also, by forming a QF, India will respond to global demands and forces and gain the necessary thrust in the development of its labour force.

In response, the Government of India created a few QFs like the NVQF or the NVEQF in 2012 and the NSQF in 2013. The latest in this queue is the NHEQF followed by a comprehensive NQF. Although the push from the government to form QFs can be seen as a ubiquitous policy solution, one wonders whether they are really designed to achieve the objectives of transparency, comparability and portability. The following section discusses them critically, highlighting overlaps and associated issues, thus preparing the ground for the analytical section afterwards.

The Qualification Frameworks of India: Issues and Concerns

The focus on learning outcome and skills development in India received a push from 2009 onwards, when the National Skill Development Corporation (NSDC) was established. When the NSDC and the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) in association with Ministry of Labour and Employment (MOL&E) planned the NVEQF, the idea was to describe the competence that learners must have. The NVEQF delineated a series of competences and extended this further in a competence-based curriculum model consisting of a student manual, trainer guide and other explanatory materials.

Later, the NSQF was introduced which intended to assimilate the previously formulated NVEQF. It stressed even more on learning outcomes and what a learner is able to do with the acquired knowledge. Another intention was to use rigorous formal methods to assess qualifications that an individual achieved. The NSQF took the definition of the level descriptors once step further and introduced more attributes to the series of skills, knowledge and aptitudes, acquired through formal, non-formal and informal modes. Initially ten levels have been identified and further divided into sub-levels with grading of complexities. Each of these sub-levels is associated with a set of descriptors spread into five domains. Each descriptor is then defined, indicating different domains (process, professional knowledge, professional skill, core skills, responsibility) and each domain into further levels which can help map the ladder of competences a learner could acquire.

In continuation, the Ministry has proposed a new quality assurance (QA) framework which looks into issues of certification and assessment providing guidance to NSQF. The Ministry also proposes to establish Sector Skills Councils (SSCs) which will try to identify and operationally define outcomes relevant for various industries. As a part of the whole system the central and other school boards will also coordinate with these by certifying skill-based vocational courses. Several other subsidiary bodies will be created at the central and state levels to coordinate the operational aspects of the QFs.

It is important to note that even the sector-specific QFs also started their planning by offering alternative models to the existing traditional ones. However, in the process of defining level descriptors and sub-levels, the QFs are heading towards yet another rigid model which, in spite of its claim of being flexible, is further meandering in streams of narrowly defined criterion. These efforts seem like a prescriptive way of reforming education and as found by Wolf (1995), this methodological exercise could lead to a vicious circle of over specification in the quest of clarity. Moreover, some of the qualifications have no actual ‘embeddedness’ in education or work (Young, 2007) and the language used can be confusing to learners as well (Canning, 1999).

This binary concept of competence is at the heart of the QF system (Brown, 2011). The newly envisaged NHEQF also does not seem immune from this trend of narrowly defined competences. The proposed committee started working on it, and from the initial discussions it seems that there will be more segmentations in the initially defined level descriptors and their subsections. In addition, the focus on what learners will be able to do, in clear and precise operational guise, may be closer to vocational education and training than to university higher education.

Then comes the issue of curriculum design. Although the QFs repeatedly mention its priority on the outcome, they eventually stress on reforming the curricula to make sure that outcomes are achieved. Defined by being ‘too prescriptive’ by many (Allais, 2003, 2007; Cort, 2010; Wolf, 1995; Young, 2007), the existing QFs chalk out a specific way of setting up curricula. This brings in a new trend of standardisation and commoditisation of education which is deeply infused in the heart of contemporary policymaking. Analysing several NQFs, Cort (2010) suggests that this trend is wrapped in beliefs, assumptions and causalities, despite the fact that there is no real evidence.

Traditionally however, curriculum design in India has been driven by the combination of national need and international educational trends, preceded by the imperial model. The curriculum used to define outcomes was largely input-based. However, with a growing trend towards competence-based lines, seen necessary to promote flexible specialisations (Foley, 1994), the logic somewhat flips. It is no more how you learn. Rather, achieving the learning outcome is important. Indian education is not adapted to this system, and the rush is to reform strategies that are formed on an ad hoc basis and are mostly borrowed from developed countries. To ensure that learning outcomes are achieved, in an input-dominated educational model, curriculums are being defined even more narrowly with greater details of deliverables. All these processes are being done without much effort to make them more Indianised.

It is kindling subtle tension among policymakers and educationists on the issue of selective knowledge and liberating values of education. The presumption that all learning outcomes can be defined in advance unproblematically and education in general, and higher education in particular, should be driven only by end results is perhaps a matter of great debate (Allais, 2003). The shift towards meticulous planning of desired end results from pedagogic issues and the process on how it should be learnt adds to this discourse. Also, to keep the balance—which aspects of curriculum should be nationally defined and which can be left to market-based providers—makes the issue more complex for policymakers and educational administrators (Allais, 2010).

Another major operational challenge for the NQF is to retune the various regulatory bodies and agencies to form a comprehensive QF. For instance, the proposed NHEQF has to deal with not less than six major regulatory/governing agencies. The UGC, the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), the Medical Council of India (MCI), Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) and the Bar Council of India (BCI) are some of them. The higher education courses governed by them vary in duration, credit structure, finance structure and goals. They also differ epistemologically and the rational to bring them together points to the danger that a comprehensive NQF may actually accentuate the process of academic drift rather than promoting parity (Cort, 2010; Raffe, 2003).

In addition, to make a specific and uniform NQF, the assessment and validation of learning outcome, including recognition and accreditation of prior learning across various levels is a complicated matter in itself. Since QFs are a market-oriented move to remodel education, the assessments should be done at the workplace and/or by the employer/potential employer. However, the basic challenge is to design outcome-based competency standards which can cut across different sets of existing educational attainments and yet be acceptable by stakeholders. How to develop such level descriptors? Should there be new qualification specifications and new learning programmes? Will the degree-awarding system remain in the premises of universities and educational institutes or move to industries? What will be the level of acceptance of QFs in India, where education is the joint responsibility of the centre and the states? The questions are many, and, at this initial stage, any assessment will be rather blurry. However, a revisit to some of the basic premises of the NQF in the context of India can shed some light on this discourse.

Rethinking National Qualification Framework

From our earlier discussion, it seems that although the drive towards QFs is on the rise in India, there is no evidence that it could bring sustainable educational changes. At present, studies on the international QFs suggest that they promote a higher degree of ‘intransparency’ (Cort, 2010), where narrowly defined descriptors and a prescriptive approach make the framework too rigid to govern education. The NHEQF or the comprehensive NQF have a problem that is even deeper, as education in general, and higher education in particular, represents a diverse picture and has varied epistemological concerns. How to make an NQF out of the amalgamation of different education systems in a country with widening socioeconomic and educational inequalities where the evidence suggests that it has failed to provide the desired results in other countries is a serious policy concern. Nevertheless, the policy thrust to form NHEQF and an NQF in the near future seem prominent: but, why is that so?

Here, it seems important to understand that with the move towards a market-centric model of operation, the policies of India are tied to neoliberal ideas of decentralisation. An NQF (or any QF) promotes itself as a ‘miracle policy mechanism’ (Allais, 2007) which is embedded in the double-sided discourse of ‘social inclusion’ and ‘global competitiveness’ (Cort, 2010). QFs, therefore, talk about inclusion, recognition of informal and non-formal learning and stresses on outcomes instead of the process of acquiring competence. In a way, it is empowering to those out of the formal education systems, and thus promotes a welfare-centric populist policy agendas. The present initiatives of outcome-based skill training scheme under the umbrella ‘Skill India’ initiative and its linkages with the vocational QFs provide evidence in this direction. The projection that more skills will provide the nation a competitive edge, not just in the domestic market but also in the international one provides policies the necessary motivation to move forward. In other words, QFs appear to be fulfilling the mandates of an individual, the society, the corporations, the nation and the market. No doubt, it appears as a win–win scenario, where education and training are placed as a foundation for the future, a panacea to educational and economic crisis. However, it also makes the policy premises of QFs hard to question.

A clear empirical base of a national QF in India (and in other countries) appearing as a neutral solution to many problems seems appealing to many stakeholders. However, inherently, it helps promoting a ‘quasi-market’, which bypasses the control of the central and state governments and instead relies on the market. This brings not only students (or educational consumers) but also the educational institutions and states to an unstable ground where the market rule of compete or perish applies. This ‘education–growth’ nexus, as explained by Wolf (2002) and Cort (2010), therefore, exemplifies its ‘double-sidedness’ (Morrow & King, 1998) and appears as a modish packaging of neoliberal agendas in the guise of educational reforms.

Conclusion

This article began with the argument that India is facing a situation where the demands of reforming education through QFs coexist with an equally intrinsic dilemma—whether or not a QF is the solution. Nevertheless, this did not stop policies to surge ahead and suggest changes in the popular international direction of forming QFs.

The changing nature of jobs, global interconnectedness and the upsurge of a knowledge economy also indicate that it is time for much needed reform in the Indian education system. This article, however, clearly shows that there is much to rethink before promoting NQF as a ubiquitous solution. It should be questioned starting from its basic rationality, which seems based on outright market centricity. How these market-centric reforms are beneficial to people belonging to diverse socio-economic educational strata are a matter for rigorous micro-level studies.

In this initial stage, when the NHEQF and NQF are still in the pipeline, any suggestion would be premature. Nevertheless, the article can try to speculate on certain pertinent areas where an effective solution needs to be found. No matter how eccentric it sounds, it seems that the NQF in India should not be done in a hurry and with skyrocketing ambitions. The discussion suggests that it is rather easy to fall into the trap of ‘policy transfer’ in the name of ‘policy learning’ for nation-building. And although India is aiming to be a global knowledge and skill hub, it seems important to have realistic targets. Firstly, an NHEQF or a bigger, all-encompassing NQF cannot be regarded as an elixir as evidence suggests that this high-resource-consuming exercise will yield minimal benefits: besides the whole idea of a QF is under the scanner in many counties which once vouched for it (Allais, 2003, 2007; Brown, 2011, among others). It could rather be regarded as a management tool, in both policy and practice terms, within the national education system (Cort, 2010). This ‘downsizing the glory’ of NQF is important as it does not provide the basis of strengthening core educational activities such as teaching and learning.

The cumbersome deliberation of learning outcomes and level descriptors also need further revision as, in the existing QFs, it makes the process even more rigid instead of making it flexible. Therefore, promoting NHEQF or the NQF as a flexible, learner-friendly framework would be rather naïve. This hegemonic discourse, largely promoted by neoliberal market principles, needs to be reviewed critically to understand its pragmatic intentions and usability in the Indian context. The alluring proposition of achieving a high quotient of humanistic and economic development with drastic development in inequality within a short span of time seems too far flung, if not flamboyant, at least in the context of India. Therefore, claims should be judged against the criterion of how far the QFs support lifelong learning and human development not merely theoretically but also in practice. More than anything, the whole exercise of devising policies and QFs, irrespective of its nature of being sector specific or comprehensive, should, therefore, be strongly rooted in the context of specific empirical evidence aiming to devise more meaningful and sustainable educational reforms.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.