Expert Group on Human Resources Development in Sport
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
EU Work Plan 2014-
for Sport
2017
Expert Group on
Human Resources Development
in Sport
Report on the state of play concerning the
inclusion of sport qualifications in NQFs with a
reference to EQF
Acknowledgements:
Under the chairmanship of Guy Taylor, the Expert Group
work on these recommendations was coordinated by Andy
Grant and supported by Sergio Lara-Bercial as well as the
European Commission (EAC/Sport).
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Overview of Member States NQF, EQF and Non-formal Systems
3. General Developments in NQFs and engagement with the EQF
4. Sport Qualifications included in NQFs
5. Non-formal sports education system
6. NQF and non-formal System Aligned
7. Sports Qualifications aligned with EQF
8. Engagement with International Federations
9. European classification of skills/competences, qualifications and occupations (ESCO)
10. Recommendations
11. Conclusions
12. References and Bibliography
13. Annex
May 2017 21. Introduction
This is a report on the state of play concerning the inclusion of sport qualifications in National Qualification
Frameworks (NQFs), with a reference to European Qualifications Framework (EQF). This was an objective of
the Expert Group in Human Resource Development in Sport which was outlined in the EU Work Plan for
Sport 2014-17. The approach taken by the Expert Group was to review and update the “Inclusion of Sport
1
Qualifications in National Qualification Frameworks (NQF’s) Mid-term Report ” produced by the previous
2
EU Expert Group (Education and Training in Sport) as part of the EU Work Plan for Sport 2011 -2014 . This
3
fits in with the EU Work Plan for Sport (2014-2017) principle ‘to build on the achievements of the first EU
Work Plan for Sport’. The specific task that was set in the EU Work Plan for Sport (2014-2017) is to have an
‘Exchange of best practices, and report on the state of play, concerning the inclusi on of sport qualifications
in the NQFs with a reference to the EQF’.
This task sets out the ambition for the the European Union to have more sports qualifications recognised
through their NQFs and therefore aligned to the EQF. The report also raises the potential for qualifications
delivered through formal or informal systems that are not on Member State’s NQFs to be aligned to the
EQF. The Expert Group were all requested to share best practice in this regard for the benefit of supporting
future development of sports qualifications for Member States. Collaborative learning across Member
States such as sharing best practice is one of the benefits of having expert groups established.
The report also provides further analysis regarding the ongoing relati onship of sports education
programmes and the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) showing the on -going commitment of
Member States to a consistent and systemic approach to EU-wide referencing and alignment of their
qualifications.
This report is largely developed using data that is available from two core documents:
Inclusion of Sport Qualifications in National Qualification Frameworks (NQF’s) Mid -term Report,
1
European Commission, 2013 (referred to in this report as the 2013 Report)
Study on Sport Qual ifications Acquired Through Sport Organisations and (Sport) Educational
4
Institutes, European Commission 2016 (referred to in this report as the 2016 Report)
It should be noted there have been a variety of contributions to the final version of both documen ts from
education and sport experts, CEDEFOP and other supporting agencies.
A major challenge for a study that covers all the EU Member States is finding consistent measurements and
definitions that all Member States can recognise. The Commission contracted Price Waterhouse Cooper
(PwC) to gather the required information and it should be noted that they provided a detailed report ( the
2016 Report) that has been extremely useful for providing the evidence for the conclusion and
recommendations in this paper. To ensure consistency this paper uses the definitions and categories
adopted in the PwC report, however this also means that this report is also susceptible to the different
interpretations used by Member States.
Another challenge for the EU Member States ambitions to have their sports and fitness qualifications
aligned to EQF has come from a recent Council Recommendation on the European Qualifications
Framework for Lifelong Learning. On 22 May 2017 the Council adopted the Recommendation that prohibits
international qualifications from having a direct relationship to the EQF. Instead, the Commission will now
look to ‘support the setting up of voluntary procedures on the levelling of international qualifications
through national qualification frameworks or systems and information exchange and consultation between
Member States on those procedures to ensure consistency’. It is early stages in this new development but
Member States need to be aware of this Council Recommendation and its implications for sport and fitness
qualifications. The Recommendation did serve to consolidate the EQF as a common reference framework
of eight levels serving as a translation device serving between different national qualifications frameworks.
Therefore, future work in this area should continue to reference EQF as the Council has shown its
commitment to the long-term adoption of the framework.
May 2017 32. Overview of Member States NQF, EQF and Non-formal Systems
The following table provides an overview of the current Sta te of Play of Member States inclusion in NQF
with reference to EQF:
Table 1: Overview of current State of Play for sports qualifications inclusion in NQF with reference to EQF
Member State Education sector Is there a non- NQF and non- Sports
NQF Status 1 Formal System?2 formal System Qualifications
Aligned3 aligned with
EQF4
Austria Full Yes Partial Yes
Belgium (French) Full Yes Partial Yes
Belgium (Flemish) Full (HE Only) Yes Included Yes
Bulgaria Full Yes Pending Yes
Croatia Early Yes Pending Yes
Cyprus Design Stage Yes No Planned
Czech Republic Full Yes No Yes
Denmark Full Yes Partial Yes
Estonia Full Yes Included Yes
Finland Legislative Stage Yes Partial Planned
France Full Yes Partial Partial
Germany Partial Yes Pending Partial
Greece Early Yes Partial Yes
Hungary Full Partial No Yes
Ireland Full Yes Partial Yes
Italy Design Stage Yes No Yes
Latvia Early Yes Partial Yes
Lithuania Full Yes Pending Yes
Luxembourg Full Yes Pending Yes
Malta Full Yes Partial Yes
Netherlands Full Yes Pending Yes
Poland Legislative Stage Yes Partial Planned
May 2017 4Portugal Full Yes Partial Yes
Romania Design Stage Yes Pending Yes
Slovakia Early Yes Pending Yes
Slovenia Legislative Stage Yes Partial Planned
Spain Legislative Stage Yes Partial Planned
Sweden Full Yes Partial Yes
United Kingdom Full Yes Partial Yes
For the purposes of this report the following definitions have been used:
1
Education sector NQF Status – This identifies the current stage of development with each Member
States’ NQF across the whole education sector
2
Non-formal system – This identifies if the Member State has acknowledged the existence of a non-
formal system of sports education system in one or more of the sports segments defined (coaching,
management, officiating and instructing)
3
NQF and non-formal system aligned – This shows there is evidence that non-formal systems can be
informally aligned to the Member States’ NQF
4
Sports qualifications aligned with the EQF – This identifies where, in general terms, the sports
qualifications are aligned with the EQF through the medium of the NQF. (Note that there are some
cases, notably within Fitness Instructing qualifications, where alignment to the EQF is made without
being included in NQF).
May 2017 5The 2016 Report categoris ed the formal education system of sport as a “sport education system regulated
by general education legislation”, and non-formal system as one “in which the education and training is not
under specific legislation”. Whilst not categorised in the 2016 Report, it may also be useful to consider that
those programmes in the non-formal system may be regulated by a national organisation (such as a
National Olympic Committee), or self-regulated (for example by the awarding federation) without the
qualifications being included in the NQF.
The 2013 Report was explicit that a follow up report would be inevitable due to the complex and dynamic
nature of the area. It is recommended in this report that a similar follow up report will be required around
2019 - 20.
This paper describes the developments in the categories identified above since the 2013 Report, and
provides an overview of the current state of play. It summarises the state of play of the inclusion of sport
qualifications in national qualification frameworks, including international qualifications and recommends
to the Council further actions by the Member States, and the Commission.
3. General Developments in NQFs and engagement with the EQF
The 2013 Report highlighted that all Member States were committed to the development of their own NQF.
Of the Members States, 16 had completed their NQFs and mapped them to the EQF [Austria, Belgium (FL),
Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta,
the Netherlands, Portugal and the UK]. There were several countries with NQFs which were not yet
mapped to the EQF.
The current stage of development as shown in the 2016 Report can be identified as in one of four stages:
Full operational NQF (Full)
Early Operational NQF (Early)
Ongoing Formal Legal Adoption (Legislative Stage)
Working on the Design of the NQF (Design)
The current situation of NQF engagement across member states can be shown in the following figure taken
from The 2016 Report, and based on the br iefing note produced by Cedefop, Qualifications and
5
Frameworks in Europe, 2016 . It should be noted Bulgaria have now moved to a Full Operational NQF.
May 2017 6Figure 1: Current state of NQF development in the EU Member States
Whilst there is some discrepancy regarding the perceived stages of development, possibly down to the
terminology used, there are some key general messages from the progression in this area:
There appears to be an ongoing commitment to the engagement across the Member States. This
is evidenced by their ability to articulate their current stage of development with all Member
States working towards the NQF in some way.
There has been progress towards the engagement with NQFs, and the associated mapping to the
EQF. Sixteen Member States in 2013 has increased to 19 Member States currently.
Twenty one countries have also aligned their national qualifications to the EQF Levels. This would suggest
that a number of countries [Austria, Italy] have already aligned their n ational qualifications with the EQF
without their NQF being legally adopted.
There also appears to be a continued commitment from all member states to a learning outcomes
approach. The progression offered by the increased engagement with NQFs based on learning outcomes,
would suggest this commitment is still there.
May 2017 74. Sport Qualifications included in NQFs
The specific focus for the sport engagement with the EQF came through the EU Belgium presidency in 2010.
Sport ministers of all EU Member States expressed their support to the EQF in the field of sport and called
upon the Member States to bring all qualifications in sport in line with each other within this framework by
2012. To do this they highlighted the importance of including sport-related qualifications in national
qualification systems.
Information requested in 2015 to support the production of the 2016 Report gave rise to 13 updates from
member states regarding the inclusion of sports qualifications with the NQFs or related national systems.
Additionally, 10 Member States have provided written updates to the Expert Group in October 2016.
An additional challenge is that in the 2013 Report the categories used were trainers / coaches; referees /
officials, medical practitioners and sports mana gers / board members. There was also the option for an
‘other’ if there were sports qualifications which didn’t fit those categories. The 2016 report gathers data on
coaching, management, officiating and instructing. This mismatch makes it more challenging to explore
trends in progression, however there are some elements which seem to offer an opportunity for
commentary.
As the 2016 Report identifies, from the information provided by the Member States:
Progress on sports qualifications being formally included in NQFs has been limited over the last
two years, potentially indicating that the qualifications that needed to be on the NQF had been
done by 2013
There is an ongoing development of sports qualifications based on learning outcomes
The 2016 Report also identified that one of the challenges to sport qualifications and NQF engagement
appears to have been matching the employment skills, and the associated qualifications, with the needs of
the labour market. Whilst this is worth noting, this paper will continue to focus on the NQF, EQF, and non-
formal elements of the sport education and training process.
The following snapshots are based on commentary offered by Member States through the 2016 Report,
through discussion at the Expert Group in Human Resource Development in Sport meetings and via written
communication between expert group members. There might be a slight mismatch in information provided
due to timing (e.g. an NQF might now be agreed / amended which wasn’t agreed when the commentary
was originally provided). This is inevitable with an ongoing process.
Summary of Member State sports qualification status
Austria –The Austrian EQF Referencing Report was published in 2012 which gave an overview of recent
developments. In 2013 and 2014 the NQF coordinating body supported the political implementation
process and there was a focus on creating a NQF register. The register will enable the general public to
make various national and European qualifications and their skill requirements comparable. The
register should also offer general information on the topic of EQF/NQF. In 2015 the Federal Ministry of
Education and Women (now: Federal Ministry of Education) included all stake holders which are also
part of the NQF steering group to draft a law. Thus in autumn 2015 the government bill was introduced
to the National Council which adopted it in spring 2016. The law was published in the Federal Law
Gazette on 21st March 2016. With this legal basis the implementation of the QNF can be finalised also
in formal areas. The first references of qualifications may be expected in autumn 2016 at the earliest
May 2017 8 Belgium (Flemish) – There are both sport professional qualifications, and sport educational
qualifications (only delivered by education institutions and mai nly in sports science and sports
management). There is a hybrid collaborative structure which offers training for sports coaches and
outdoor instructors. There is a drive to acknowledge informal and formal learning as part of the NQF.
The qualifications are being phased into the NQF. The NQF is aligned to the EQF. Referral to the CNC
for the qualifications issued by the Ministry of Sport is under preparation.
Belgium (French) – Referral to the CNC for the qualifications "sports professions" emanating fr om the
Ministry of Education is developed and implemented
Bulgaria – The current NQF does not embrace all sports qualifications (just levels 6 to 8), but the
intention is for the emerging NQF to encompass all sports qualifications
Croatia – The development of new, and amendments of existing, legislation will allow for more
engagement with sports qualifications, focused on the ones aimed at professional staff (coaching and
sport management). For over 10 years Croatia have exclusively recognised formal qualifications that
can be acquired through post-secondary education. The NQF is learning outcome based, and will be
the basis for accrediting non-formal and informal learning. It has clear alignment to the EQF. This will
require stronger cross sector co-operation (especially with the education sector).
Cyprus – There is now a robust framework which incorporates vocational training, which appears
would allow sports qualifications to engage with the NQF. However, it appears that this is not yet
planned.
Czech Republic – Currently no NQF, although there are two operational frameworks. The sports
qualifications are not learning outcome based.
Denmark – There is a separate sport qualification framework with a formalised link to the NQF, and is
based on learning outcomes. It is aligned to the EQF. This is particularly for coaching and sports
management. The non-formal system linked to the Federations is not currently aligned to the NQF but
discussions are taking place.
Estonia – Coaches qualifications at six l evels (NQF = EQF from 3 to 8 level) are completely integrated
into the NQF. This includes almost all sports federations (58) and specialisation on 100 sports and
disciplines. All licenced coaches (with respective NQF qualifications, this totals number 3500 ) are
entered into the Estonian Sports Register. Preparations for manager’s qualifications are currently
underway. Learning outcomes are basic for all approved qualifications
Finland – Coaches, trainers and instructors (in sport disciplines) are directly i ntegrated into the NQF,
which in turn is linked to the EQF. Referees, officials and sport managers are not currently included in
the NQF
France – There are two main frameworks (RNCP and the QAI) which make up the NQF. Qualifications
for coaches, teachers, instructors and managers are embedded whereas referees and officials are
currently not. The skills to be a manager are developed in two state diplomas: (1) DESJEPS issued by the
Ministry of Sports - Diploma registered at the RNCP (level 6 EQF) and (2) the "Sport Management"
license issued by the university - Diploma registered in the RNCP (Level 6 EQF).
Germany – Non-formal qualifications are not yet connected to German Qualification Framework (DQR).
That means also, that the Qualifications managed by the DOSB and the Federations (e.g. Trainer
Qualifications) are not yet connected with the German Qualification Framework (DQR), or aligned to
the EQF. The integration of all sports qualifications (managed by the DOSB) into the NQF (DQR) is
currently underway. The Formal (Sports) Education (done by Universities; eg PE teachers education) is
fully integrated. The key issue in Germany is not the Education Sector but the classification of
qualifications as formal (ie fully approved) and non-formal (ie not approved). German Sports
Authorities are in discussions with the ministry who is in charge of the process but no approval for
sports qualifications at the time of publication.
May 2017 9 Greece – Formal sports qualifications are embedded into the NQF, however others are not.
Hungary – Formal sports qualifications are fully embedded in the NQF, and linked to the EQF. Non -
formal ones are not.
Ireland – There is a formalised link between the sports qualifications framework, and the NQF which
encompasses coaches, leaders and sports instructors’ qualifications. Currently there is no link with the
referees / official’s framework.
Italy – Most sports qualifications will be embedded in the emerging NQF. Certain regional
qualifications (mainly sports management) will require further engagement on a region by region basis.
Latvia – Formal sports qualifications are fully embedded in the NQF, and linked to the EQF. Non -formal
ones are not.
Lithuania – Plans are underway to formalise a link between the sport qualification framework an d the
NQF
Luxembourg – For the last two years all ENEPS (Ministry of Sports) / Brevets d’ Etat Diplomas have
been referenced to the NQF and EQF.
Malta – Coaches, trainers and sport instructor qualifications are completely integrated into the NQF.
Referees and managers appear not to be.
Netherlands – The formalisation of the link between the sports qualifications (coaches, trainers, sports
instructors) and the NQF is underway. The qualification standards for formal (universities/vocational
qualifications) and informal (sport federations) are completely in line with EQF standards and consists
of levels 1-6. Levels 3-5 have been accredited by the Netherlands national accreditation body (NLQF).
Sport Federations are responsible for levels 1-4 certificates/licenses. At vocational colleges, Level 1-4
courses are provided in specific sports, specifically the ones with professional career potential such as
soccer, tennis, judo, fitness and skiing.
Poland – Formal qualifications will be encompassed in the NQF when it is agreed and implemented.
Non-formal qualifications such as those for coaches, trainers and sports instructors may be embedded
in the emerging framework. A sectorial qualifications framework, the Qualification Framework in Sport
Sector (QFSS), was launched in 2015.
Portugal – There is currently no direct link between the sports qualifications and the NQF as they are
self-regulated. Work is underway to ensure the regulation of sport licences.
Romania – Formal sports qualifications are integrated into the NQF. Coaching qualifications are linked
to a sectoral framework.
Slovakia – The alignment of all formal and informal sports qualifications is underway to ensure full
alignment with the newly agreed NQF.
Slovenia – Coaches, trainers, sports instructors, referees and official qualifications are all embedded in
a framework with a formal link to the NQF. Managers are missing.
Spain – The formal sports qualifications are integrated into the NQF. Non-formal sports training is not.
Sweden – Whilst there is currently no link between the sport qualification framework, it is hoped that
once the formal education system has been engaged the non-formal activities could be included.
UK – There are five frameworks across the four UK home nations with most popular sports
qualifications being embedded in one or more of them. The exception would be officiating and some
national federation coaching qualifications.
As can be seen above there are varying levels of engagement of sports qualifications and the NQFs.
From the narrative provided in updates and factsheets, this is partially down to the Members States’
existing programmes and whether there is a general desire to change the way programmes are delivered.
Part of this may be a lack of political will to use the move to NQFs to formalise the Members States’ sports
qualifications offering, and part of it may be down to the historical non -formal delivery mechanisms used.
From the data available it is difficult to draw specific conclusions across the different categori es of
qualifications (coach, official, instructor and manager). However, in broad terms it appears that sport
science, management and higher-level coaching programmes are more likely to be embedded in the NQFs
May 2017 10as these have traditionally been offered through higher education institutes, many whom have been
involved in the development of the Member States’ NQF.
The officiating, instructing and more entry-level coach education programmes seem to be delivered through
more non-formal education networks.
5. Non-formal sports education system
In the information provided all Members States advised there is some form of non -formal education system
which sport qualifications and training programmes are engaged with. Whilst this is no surprise, it is still
worth noting that non-formal sport education features across the EU. There does not appear to be a
Member State where there is sports education delivered solely through the formal mechanisms. This again
is worth noting as it may provide an opportunity to expl ore the benefits of the non-formal system and how
it can best align to the formal sports education systems and NQFs. One of these benefits might be the
acknowledgement of informal and non-formal learning as part of the achievement of the qualifications.
This is almost certainly a discussion the formal systems could benefit from.
6. NQF and non-formal system alignment
As expected there is a direct link between the level of engagement of sport qualifications within an NQF,
and whether there is a relationship between the NQF and the non-formal sports education system. It has
been necessary to understand how the two systems fit, especially when there are categories of
qualifications which are delivered partially in each system (for example coaching in ma ny Member States).
Whilst in many cases it seems the direct alignment is not agreed, it is clear there are discussions taking
place to help unpick the relationship between the qualifications, and hence the relationship between the
two systems (formal and non-formal). This should be identified as a success of the current developments.
Ensuring there is an acknowledgement of both systems, and how they are able to exist together, will help
understand the benefits of each and look to transfer these across systems.
There seems to be some benefit to those Member States who are adopting NQFs later in the process as
they are able to articulate, and be intentional about the relationship between the formal and non -formal
systems. This currently seems to be moving towards three forms:
Embracing the sports qualifications fully within the formal NQF or providing a direct link (for
example Estonia)
Aligning the with the NQF using a mixed economy of formal and non-formal qualifications (for
example Finland)
Supporting the sports qualifications being completely delivered through non-formal mechanisms
(for example Cyprus)
7. Sports Qualifications aligned with EQF
As identified above it is important to note where, in general terms, the sports qualifications are aligned with
the EQF, either explicitly or through the medium of the NQF. As mentioned previously there appears to be
countries [Austria, Italy] who have already aligned their national qualifications with the EQF, without their
NQF being legally adopted. This s hould support the smoother transition of the qualifications as and when
the NQFs are operational.
May 2017 118. Engagement with International Federations
As with much of the data provided to date it proves difficult to identify any specific trends across Members
States regarding their engagement with International Federations.
The data providing in 2016 suggests there continues to be specific relationships with most Member States
across a range of sports, and this relationship is linked to the need of the Member State in that sport. This
is most evident in sports coaching.
The relationship follows a range of different models:
International Federation qualification is delivered and recognised in the Members State (Croatia -
skiing)
Members State qualifications and International Federation qualifications area delivered at the
same time and acknowledged by each other (for example, in football UEFA will license national
qualifications)
International Federation qualification is delivered but not recognised in the Members State
(Denmark – football, handball, softball)
Member State’s federation qualification is delivered but is mapped to the requirements of the
International Federation (Belgium (Flemish) and Belgium (French)– most sports)
Member State’s federation qual ification is delivered but there is no direct reference to the
International Federation qualification (UK – most sports)
From the data provided there is clearly a need to keep an ongoing dialogue with the Global and European
Federations, and that currently Members States are choosing a mixed economy on how to engage with the
International Federations. This will be compounded as the NQFs mature, and the discussion turns to the
engagement with informal and non-formal learning. Further information on the subj ect of national and
international federations qualifications can be found in the 2017 EU Report ‘Practical guidance on
compliance of national qualifications with international qualification standards of international sport
6
federation’ .
In the case of fitness and the outdoor sectors, through the work completed through the European Skills
Competencies Qualifications and Occupations (ESCO) referencing, there is an informal referencing of their
qualifications and standards to the EQF. The fitness and outdoor s ectors (active leisure) present their main
occupations within the term of an “international sectoral qualifications framework” (see Section 9 for
further information on ESCO).
7
The recent ICF Study on International Sectoral Qualifications Frameworks and Systems highlighted that
there is a demand from international sectoral organisations to establish a direct link between international
sector qualifications with EQF. However, whilst the findings from this study indicated that it could be worth
examining the feasibility of creating a direct link with EQF without the need for inclusion on NQF, the recent
Council Recommendation on the European Qualification Framework (adopted 22 May 2017) states that it
won’t be possible to reference EQF without going through Member States’ NQFs. In addition, there is the
cautionary note that for some Member States that accessing EQF directly may be in conflict with their
current position and advice being provided to organisations. For example, this is the current situation in
Germany where the federations providing non-formal sports qualifications are being advised to follow
procedure and await ministerial change to the inclusion of non-formal sports qualifications in the German
NQF.
9. European classification of skills/competences, qualifications and occupations (ESCO)
The European Commission is presently working with the Member States on establishing a new reference
system (ESCO) making possible the classification of competences, qualifications and occupations at a
European level. ESCO classifications are mapped to ISCO (International Skills, Competencies, Occupations)
The contents and modalities for implementation of project are currently being negotiated with the Member
States and the European services concerned. ESCO is a project in the final stages of construction, the final
version in all 26 languages will be released in July 2017. In addition to occupations and skills, it will contain
May 2017 12qualifications coming from national qualifications databases and from international or private awarding
bodies. ESCO will be available as Linked Open Data and will be free of charge for all stakeholders.
The ESCO project is to create a database and directory at a European level of all occupations and the
skills/competences required in those occupations and to present the qualifications which provide access to
the jobs. This would be used as a central resource by the careers and employment services in member
states to help the young and the employed to find work. In the most recent draft version released just prior
to this report, a range of skills and competencies relating to sport were released (Annex 1)
For the sports sector, groups of volunteer (unpaid) experts have been recruited to contribute to this work.
The scope of the sector to be covered was defined by the international statistical (NACE). In this context,
work has been done on the leisure sector (fitness/outdoor). Thus, the fitness and outdoor sectors (active
leisure) present their main occupations within the term of an “international sectoral qualifications
framework”. The idea is to improve understanding, transparency of qualifications in the active leisure
sector. This framework was presented to the XG HR as a diagrammatic representation of the sector
coverage.
This current active leisure sector qualification framework has an informal referencing to EQF levels. It is a
unitary framework with no legal status and no direct connection to the EQF or NQFs.
Following discussions in the Expert Group on Human Resource Development in Sport, there are several
important points:
The adviser/expert group for sport is very small and voluntary and it is not possible to properly consult
or undertake the necessary research outside the ESCO working group - there is no real mechanism,
time or resources to do so.
Sport is not in a position to present an agreed position on entry qualifications to all its occupations at
an EU level. Further research, development and consultation work would be necessary to enable this to
happen.
The progress on linking to the EQF is at a different stage in each Member States and there are
differences in the legal requirements for employment between countries and sometimes between
different sports. There has been no scope to do this work thoroughly within the ESCO consultation
process.
However, the representatives of EHFA and EC-OE have been able to draw on their past EU project outcomes
and achievements in the occupations of fitness instructors and outdoor animators as a basis for the
occupation descriptors, standards and qualifications in fitness and the outdoors. In coaching, the inputs
reflect the thinking of the International Council for Coaching Excellence (ICCE) and European Coaching
Council (ECC) as proposed in the International and European Sport Coaching Fra meworks (2013; 2017). To
date, there have not been similar EU projects covering other occupations in the sector and it is proposed
that this may be worth further exploration in the future.
Consequently, because of these concerns and future challenges linked to ESCO, it seems necessary that the
work on ESCO be taken into account in the future EU Work Plan on Sport, with the support of the Member
States and the DGE EAC Sport Unit.
10. Recommendations
Not unexpectedly for a report of this nature, a robust a nalysis of the current situation proves to be
challenging due to the collection of consistent data across all Member States, and for the wide range of
types of sports qualifications. In addition to this, there still seems to be different interpretations o f various
terminology and changes of approach to data collection in this area. This has added to the complexity of
the task.
May 2017 13Even within the data available there seems to be different understandings of what is meant by an NQF.
Some Member States seem to interpret it as an agreed framework across sport domestically, some define it
is a government led education framework, and some are defining it as a framework aligned to the EQF.
Whilst it is important for each Member State to define its own sport and education frameworks, for
Member States and the Commission to allocate support and resource appropriately there needs to be a
common understanding for the purposes of data collection. This features as a recommendation for any
further studies undertaken on sports qualifications.
For the achievement of the objective of this report, the Expert Group in Human Resource Development in
Sport provides the following recommendations:
The XG HR recommends that the Member States should:
Gather the evidence of sports qualifications through a systematic and consistent data collection process.
This needs to be harmonized and comparable. This should include both quantitative and qualitative data. It
should highlight the impact sports qualifications have in these areas such as economic benefits,
volunteering, good governance and employability.
Two examples where sports qualifications can add value were featured in two EU documents:
Recommendations on the contribution of sport to the employability of young people, includi ng young
8
professional sportsmen and women, and the creation of jobs in the sport and sport-related labour market
9
and from Grassroots Sport - Shaping Europe .
Continue to promote the benefits that sports qualifications bring to the EU
This would be through evidencing engagement of increased employability, economic growth, social
inclusion and increased physical activity as outlined in the EU Work Plan for Sport 2014 -17. One example
could be to reference, where applicable, to the statistical code of economic activities (NACE) and the
nomenclature and classification of professional units (ISCO).
Promote the benefits of national, international and member state sports federations working
collaboratively
This would reinforce the benefits of sports persons being trained, qualified and employed in a collaborative
manner and should align with recommendations in the EU Expert Group report on Practical guidance on
compliance of national qualifications with international qualification standards of international sp ort
federations.
Promote the benefits of engaging wider stakeholders, such as the National Contact Points
(recommendation for EQF), policy makers and relevant national authorities, sector skills councils, education
institutes and social partners when developing qualifications.
Promote the benefits of the learning experience and gaining the qualifications for developing wider skills
for employability and personal well-being as well as supporting the growth of the community. This should
include National Strategies
Promote best practice in sports qualifications that provide personalised and meaningful learning
experiences, are quality assured and are delivered with a skilled workforce
Recognise the value of informal and non-formal learning and training (as defined by CEDEFOP). This
should be done through the adoption of systems that can accredit and validate these experiences and are
recognised across Member States and their sports organisations.
May 2017 14Produce an EU Sport Qualifications Action Plan and Guidelines Document
The Member States should lead on producing an EU Sport Qualifications Action Plan and Guidelines
Document and, with the support of the Commission, to implement the recommendations in this report
The Guidelines Documents should include information on the tools that are currently available for Member
States to use to support qualification development such as Europass, ISCO, ECVET, EQAVET, and other work
in this area such as European Coaching Council’s CoachLearn and Romanian Goalkeeper. It shou ld also
include support for the gathering and dissemination of core data and examples of good practice.
It is important to recall that the application of the principle of subsidiarity must irrigate all of these
recommendations. That is, every Member State should retain the right to adopt the recommendations
based on their individual situation and requirements.
11. Conclusions
The evidence provided in the 2016 Report indicates that sports qualifications are highly regarded across the
EU. There are differences across the Member States in terms of their sports qualific ations alignment to the
NQF, however it remains a realistic objective for all sports qualifications to one day be levelled against
Member States’ national frameworks and the EQF.
10
The Europe Strategy 2020 outlines the many benefits that sport can provide such as tackling health and
obesity and creating social inclusion. From this we can state that sports qualifications have a similar role to
play. Achieving sports qualifications can help ta ckle employability and raise self-esteem, improve the
standards of sporting experiences and consequently have more people taking part in sport and improve the
mobility of the sport workforce across the EU. It is important we continue to generate evidence to show
this impact.
Considerable progress has been made by Member States around their development of sports qualifications
and the European Work Plan for Sport 2017-20 supports the continuation of this. It is recommended that
for future reports that amendments to definitions shall be approved by Member States to ensure accuracy,
in order to promote a collaborative approach to developments of NQFs, the EQF and non -formal sports
education systems.
Member States should use the data and insight featuring in the PwC report to promote sports qualifications
and their wider benefits to national and international stakeholders, at every opportunity, to influence the
policy and strategy makers to ensure this area of work remains a priority at national and EU level. This
information should be built upon further.
In the light of the available information, whilst there is Member State clarity, the NQF / EQF landscape
across the EU remains disconnected. This is to be expected due to the specific nature of the sport an d
education systems in each Member State, however there are certainly areas which could be explored
further through the recommendations. It is unlikely there is a critical path which will cover every Member
State, however learning could be gleaned from Members States experiences at each stage.
This may require further work exploring the potential of qualifications being able to reference EQF without
the requirement to be included in Member State’s NQF and aligns with recommendation from the ‘ICF
Study on International Sectoral Qualifications Framework’. This conflicts with the recent Council
Recommendation (22 May 2017) that qualifications cannot be directly referenced to the EQF, however
exploring the other recommendations from the Council such as implementing a common training
framework and a common test and recognition (of qualifications) through professional cards could prove
beneficial for Member States.
May 2017 15Further long-term collaboration between Member States could provide standardisation of the size o f similar
sports qualifications at each level. This would be a challenge for Member States, however it would enhance
the mobility of the workforce by smoothing the equivalency of qualifications across the nations and sports
federations, and allowing for recognised prior learning to be integrated.
Further information is required from Member States to support this proposition, and to help opportunities
to learn from experiences across Member States. Mechanisms should be developed to share information
more regularly, and in more detail, to support a collaborative approach both on national and EU level.
12. References and Bibliography
1. European Commision (2013) Inclusion of Sport Qualifications in National Qualification Frameworks
(NQF’s) Draft Mid-term Report
2. EU Work Plan for Sport 2011-2014
3. EU Work Plan for Sport 2014-2017
4. European Commission (2016) Study on Sport Qualifications Acquired Through Sport Organisations and
(Sport) Educational Institutes
5. Cedefop (2016) Qualifications and Frameworks in Europe
6. European Commission (2017) EU Report on Practical guidance on compliance of national qualifications
with international qualification standards of international sport federation
7. ICF Study on International Sectoral Qualifications Frameworks and Systems
8. Recommendations on the contribution of sport to the employability of young people, including young
professional sportsmen and women, and the creation of jobs in the sport and sport-related labour market
9. Grassroots Sport - Shaping Europe
10. Europe Strategy 2020
11. International Sport Coaching Framework v1.2 (ICCE, ASOIF & LBU). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics
12. European Sport Coaching Framework (Lara -Bercial et al.). Leeds: CoachLearn Consortium
13. Annex
Annex 1: ESCO Sport Skills and Competencies Jun 17
Annex 2: Member States Individual Factsheets on Sports Qualifications Acquired through Sports
Organisations and (Sport) Educational Institutes
May 2017 16You can also read
