Study on VET policy instruments - note on scenarios for future development

Transcription

1 Study on VET policy instruments - note on scenarios for future development 15 June 2018 Submitted to: DG EMPL, European Commission Ali Zaidi, Monika Auzinger, Daniela Ulicna ICF Consulting Services

2 Contents 1 Purpose of the assignment Purpose of this note Headline preliminary findings Summary of future scenarios Initial analysis of the scenarios Improved status quo Limited scope only focus on those aspects that work well Implementation through EU programmes only Absorption into other existing instruments New European strategy for lifelong learning through VET Discontinue ECVET and EQAVET Mandate for a European body in the area of qualifications and quality assurance Instruments are aligned to similar instruments in HE, with an ambition of converging systems across HE and VET Draft ii

3 1 Purpose of the assignment In January 2018 the European Commission contracted a study to: Assess the progress made in implementation of ECVET and EQAVET Identify which aspects of these instruments are seen as most influential and which ones need to be reviewed; and Analyse scenarios for future development of these initiatives. The methodology for the assignment combines: 2 Purpose of this note This note summarises the emerging findings from the assignment to inform interested stakeholders. It was written at a stage when the data collection was still ongoing. By the time of drafting this note the following activities have been completed: The findings presented in this note are therefore preliminary and subject to change subsequent to the remainder of the data collection and analysis. Draft 1

4 3 Headline preliminary findings The preliminary findings give a mixed picture of the state of play of implementation of these instruments. This is summarised below, with findings in white refer to positive findings and those in grey to areas for improvement. Both instruments are associated with different types and degrees of changes at national and institutional level. The interviews and literature review provided concrete examples of influence. Some of the examples identified were: Improving quality of mobility experience and recognition of learning outcomes achieved during mobility VET providers using learning outcomes to define training processes and for assessment Supporting national reforms to render VET more flexible Keeping a focus on the importance of flexible learning pathways Aligning national QA systems to a European reference framework Adoption of requirements for institutional self-assessment (in countries where this was not the case) Adoption of new indicators in national QA measures Networking between national QA agencies at international level Keeping focus on the importance of quality assurance Selected examples of key ECVET achievements at national level: ECVET has significantly contributed to introducing and strengthening efforts towards learning-outcomes based systems, and the transparency and comparability of VET systems. From the preliminary findings, a particular strong influence of ECVET on national strategies and plans could be identified for Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta and Romania. In Romania, for instance, ECVET, in conjunction with the EQF, has been the main pillar for the revision of qualifications in the TVET system. Also in Latvia, ECVET is considered a very important part of ongoing reforms in VET, in particular with regard to the implementation of the learning outcomes based approach and the module-based system. ECVET has contributed to the development of a better-quality mobility experience, though more effective documentation for the mobility, especially by using the common language for KSC, and through its defined credit transfer process. In Croatia, a major achievement of ECVET is that now also the competences achieved abroad can be recognised, whereas previously only a certain time abroad was recognised. In Slovenia, for instance, ECVET was reported to have had an important influence on the quality of mobility of learners in VET, especially in terms of work placements. Draft 2

5 ECVET has significantly contributed towards supporting more flexible vocational pathways in a number of countries. Finland is known to have had flexible learning pathways already before the launch of ECVET. Still ECVET has been credited to have helped fine-tune the system and make the system more flexible, by making them think the concept of lifelong learning more seriously, and by drawing the attention to education and training taking place outside the formal system. In Malta, ECVET has helped to improve permeability between different segments of the system, improving permeability between VET and higher education. In Austria, pilot projects have been implemented to explore how ECVET can be used to improve permeability and make learning pathways more flexible. Selected examples of key EQAVET achievements at national level: Many of the countries reported that they had refined or introduced new QA systems since the introduction of EQAVET. In countries such as Croatia, Latvia and Romania, these systems were reported to be specifically designed to adhere to the EQAVET recommendations. In other countries, most notably FR and SE, revisions to QA are not seen as being directly attributable to the EQAVET recommendation, but in these instances, they were used as a reference framework to ensure national QA systems conformed with general EU trends and developments in QA. For Ireland, EQAVET has supported the country to develop an integrated national framework for IVET and Higher VET. The EQAVET network allowed the country to identify sub-networks of experts that could create a consistent QA system across these types of VET. In some countries such as Italy which have not yet introduced changes, it was felt to have helped drive forward developments by helping to started a conversation about quality assurance within their country and raise the profile of QA The level of influence of these instruments depends on the necessary distance to travel to the portrayed model, which varied depending on their starting position. European VET systems are based on several strongly different models. Consequently, it can take time for convergence. This is major challenge for implementation of instruments which are touching core issues of VET qualifications and systems. Therefore the level and degree of influence varies greatly between countries depending on the national systems. Some systems were more ECVET ready and the level of influence/ alignment perceived was greater. Others were too different and the image of ECVET as a credit point system created resistance and thus diminishing the potential influence. With regard to EQAVET the level of influence varies greatly depending on the maturity of national QA systems. Countries with strong pre-existing QA systems saw fewer concrete developments. Draft 3

6 Overall, the degree of influence of both instruments gives a mixed picture. While both instruments are associated with positive developments, their influence is largest when they respond to national objectives, and take place alongside strong national or institution-level drivers for change. The instruments have developed growing European (and also national) communities of practice among experts with similar responsibilities at national level. This is strongly apparent in the case of EQAVET but also visible for ECVET. The existence of these communities has several effects: Circulating knowledge about different models through peer learning - sharing and learning at policy level enables the exchange of more deep information on what works; Country capacity building by giving professionals tools and ideas on what works in other contexts, as well as by providing them with European level tools and materials; and Empowerment. By the sole fact that these initiatives exist at European level, they offer certain legitimacy for actions at national level. The fact that there is a document that sets the common standards at EU level is valued as it helps to: a) keep a given issue on the national agenda b) benchmark national arrangements c) nurture national discussions. The initiatives act as catalysts and provide additional justification for taking action for those working on issues of quality assurance, mobility or flexibility of provision. This is however more notable in countries where the systems are not too dissimilar from the expected model. On the other hand, the approach to implementation of these instruments means that they are too often seen as working in closed circles with too closed communities. The level of awareness and understanding of these instruments varies greatly between policy makers and stakeholders. Several key respondents identified as potential interviewees acknowledged having little awareness of one or both of the instruments. A significant number of VET stakeholders did not agree to be interviewed either because they did not feel comfortable talking about a topic on which they only had superficial knowledge or because they considered that the level of influence of these instruments in their countries was low. Low direct reach of most EU level activities to practitioners. The main exception being the use of ECVET for international mobility where the Erasmus + programme and the VET mobility charter succeed in reaching out to the level of users. Draft 4

7 In the initial stages of the development of these instruments there was a clear logic which linked ECVET, EQAVET together with other European tools and instruments in the area of lifelong learning. Levels and qualifications based on learning outcomes (EQF) Flexibility of provision and pathways (ECVET, Validation of NFIL) Documentation (Europass) Quality assurance (EQAVET) Together these tools were designed as a model for systems enabling lifelong learning. Unfortunately, the narrative explaining the coherence of these tools was lost by some stakeholders with the fragmentation of the tools. There is currently limited interaction between the instruments in their governance and EU-level activities supporting these tools. This was regretted by several interviewees. The current governance structures do not have a clear mandate nor do they have any decisions to take. They are therefore rather working as platforms for exchange. If that is their main mandate they could be organised differently and be more open. These instruments were developed in the 2000s at a time where the EU policy in training was focused more on systemic issues to enhance lifelong learning and foster quality. However the policy agenda at EU level has moved on and more recent initiatives such as the work on apprenticeships or the work around upskilling pathways focus on more specific objectives or target groups. There may be an opportunity for linking existing EU tools (ECVET, EQAVET) to these new initiatives. For both instruments, influence has been stronger in some areas: Organised international mobility, in particular through the Erasmus + programme adopted the language and the tools of ECVET (learning agreements, MoU, processes for recognition). Erasmus+ was a key trigger to familiarise providers with the core principles and to enable them to put in place one form of flexible The main achievement of EQAVET was the strengthening of quality assurance measures in initial VET. The principle of using internal and external evaluations are now common practice. The use of agreed set of key indicators as part of national Draft 5

8 pathways in a relatively simple and safe context. Supporting increasing use of unit-based or modular approaches in both initial and continuous VET Although there has been a general trend towards more unit-based 1 or modular approaches in VET among Member States, the extent to which this approach is mainstreamed into VET provision varies. Some countries mainstreamed use of modules and assessed units well before ECVET, others use units or modules in some types of initial VET pathways and not in others while a few countries make no use of unit-based or modularised approaches in initial VET. quality assurance systems has also become common practice. These indicators are overall well aligned with the EQAVET indicators even though some EQAVET indicators are more commonly used than others. According to experts, EQAVET contributed to foster quality assurance thinking whereby quality assurance is a cyclical process seeking continuous improvement. However this form of influence is hard to measure and takes time to become widespread. This raises an important question: Is it possible to achieve further systemic changes with these tools? In those countries where opportunity windows existed, the tools have contributed to inform national developments (in some cases even large scale ones). Further changes in these countries will be incremental and focus on the implementation of reforms put in place. In countries where systems were aligned prior to the adoption of these tools, the tools are offering limited opportunities for deepening developments in the area of flexibility or quality assurance. In some countries there is resistance to change (issue more notable in the case of ECVET than EQAVET), despite the countries signing up to the recommendation. Here there is a risk that the tools appear to not be sufficiently convincing to overcome this resistance. This could mean that the tools, in their current form and with the current support and governance structures, have reached their limits for some Member States in terms of catalysing broader/ system level changes. However, it may also reflect that in some countries the tools require longer to gain traction. Beyond the above more generic observation, there are specific aspects of each of the instruments which are seen as being in need 1 The ECVET Working Group on discussing the possible revision of the ECVET Recommendation (operative in 2016/2017) suggested using the term 'groups' instead of 'units' of learning outcomes, in order to reflect a broader notion of the concept. Draft 6

9 of revisions. Each of the groups has already developed documents which define clearly the aspects of these instruments that would need improvement in the future ECVET is not a credit transfer system but a set of principles for flexible learning pathways The role of units: currently units are presented in the documentation as parts of qualifications that can be accumulated. A more flexible approach is needed. It is important that individuals pathways are flexible. To achieve this the groups of learning outcomes that have been assessed do not need to be certified in their own right. Role of credit points: Beyond systems that have already been using credit points there is no appetite for adopting this part of the ECVET Recommendation. Furthermore, the use of the concept creates misunderstandings. Simplify the instrument by leaving the detailed tools (e.g. LA, MoU, transcript) for the specific contexts where they are needed. These do not need to be defined in a Recommendation. Need to engage more with organisations in charge of quality assurance in CVET and to dedicate more time to exchanges about this part of VET. Similarly strengthen the exchanges about implications of work-based learning models for quality assurance. While on paper most quality assurance measures at national level are aligned with EQAVET there is still need for deepening implementation at institutional level. The current set up at EU level does not enable effective reach out to VET providers. There are areas which are insufficiently covered by current activities, in particular the quality of the learning environment and the practices of teachers and trainers. The topics at the core of these instruments remain relevant for national developments. Quality assurance of VET provision, flexibility of VET pathways to enable people with diverse profiles to build on what they have achieved and international mobility in VET and its recognition are topics that countries continue to work on. That is why stakeholders believe it is important to maintain some form of EU-level references and activities in these areas. However, findings also suggest that the instruments could benefit from a change in discourse, by highlighting the political objectives which the instruments are trying to help. The image and understanding of these instruments is not helped by their technicity. The technical elements should be left for the expert level cooperation or as back-office documentation. Draft 7

10 4 Summary of future scenarios Based on the above findings the study identified eight initial scenarios, which are summarised below. Most of the scenarios can be applied to one or both of the instruments. The exceptions are Scenario 7 (although this could be applied to one instrument if its scope was narrowed) and Scenario 5, which is around collating both instruments (and others) into a broader VET policy strategy. It is important to note that the scenarios have been selected to provide a long-list of possible scenarios. Consequently, we include extreme scenarios deliberately to ensure coverage of as broad range of alternatives as possible. The scenarios will be tested in a Delphi consultation and through a stakeholder workshop. Consequently, some of these scenarios may be change following the consultation. Moreover, there is also the possibility that elements of some scenarios may be combined. For example, it may be possible to combine Scenario 7 with other scenarios, and similarly it may be possible to combine Scenario 3 with Scenario 5. Scenario 1: Status quo Continuation of two separate recommendations with related brands, governance structures and activities The content of the specific instruments may be modified to adjust to obvious shortcomings but the main modalities of each instrument are maintained Comment: The adjustment for obvious shortcomings such as use of credit points in ECVET or better coverage of work-based learning EQAVET are integrated into all other scenarios, even if not explicitly written below. Scenario 2: Limited scope only focus on those aspects that work well Responding to the criticism that the instruments are trying to achieve too many things and therefore they are confusing, the instruments are refocused on more specific issues those where their use is greatest. For example: ECVET focuses on quality and recognition of transnational mobility. As such it becomes compulsory for VET mobility under Erasmus + programme. EQAVET becomes a community of quality assurance experts exchanging about strengths and weaknesses of different QA models rather than a framework for national and institutional quality assurance systems. Draft 8

11 Scenario 3: Implementation is limited to EU programmes Scenario 4: Instruments become absorbed by another EU instrument There are no EU level Recommendations and related governance structures but only tools that are promoted through EU programmes. For example: VET mobility charter makes it compulsory for Erasmus + beneficiaries of mobility actions to use aspects of ECVET (LA, MoU, transcript, assessment and recognition) and for providers to have EQAVET compatible quality assurance measures in place; ESF conditions contain clauses about preconditions for investing ESF money into VET. These conditions require existence of EQAVET-compatible quality assurance measures. They also require existence of mechanisms that make VET flexible and enable individuals to progressively build on what they achieved in other contexts. EQF, Europass, ESCO and the Recommendation on VNFIL all have aspects which are relevant to ECVET and EQAVET. Under this scenario there are no EU Recommendations and governance structures on ECVET and EQAVET. The relevant features of other instruments are instead highlighted and enhanced in other existing instruments. For example: EQF contains principles for quality assurance of national qualifications frameworks. These could be strengthened to also embrace quality assurance of provision. The Recommendation on validation of NFIL contains principles for flexible pathways reflecting non-formal and informal learning. It could be enhanced to cover flexibility in formal learning. ESCO has a pillar on learning outcomes and qualifications. This replaces ECVET focus on qualification design. Europass documents learning achievements for mobility as well as lifelong learning. This replaces documentation envisaged as part of ECVET. Draft 9

12 Scenario 5: Instruments become part of a broader VET policy strategy Scenario 6: Discontinue ECVET and EQAVET Scenario 7: Mandate for a European body to review national QA arrangements and other aspects of qualifications design, aware and training provision An overarching Recommendation on VET for lifelong learning is developed which reintroduces the initial logic and linkages between the different EU instruments (see the diamond shape above). This Recommendation has building blocks and the building blocks are described as frameworks or principles in the Annexes of the Recommendation in more generic terms than currently the case (in particular for ECVET). There is no separate governance and activities for each of these pillars. Instead there is an overarching governance for example at the level of the DG VT (possibly with subgroups) which decides on a multiannual programme of peer-learning and exchange activities. There is only one monitoring arrangement and that is at the level of the overall framework rather than for each of the pillars separately. Under this scenario the two Recommendations are recalled without any change to the other instruments such as EQF, ESCO, Europass and Validation of NFIL. The references to quality assurance and flexible pathways that exist in other EU documents are maintained and are pursued through these tools. The references to quality assurance and recognition in Erasmus + programme, in particular in the VET Mobility Charter, are maintained. In the higher education sector there are two bodies (EQAR and ENQA) which support quality assurance in higher education and provide peer-reviews of QA measures. Comparable model could be envisaged for quality assurance in VET. The role of this organisation could be broader and go beyond EQAVET. It could also have a role with regard to EQF (referencing processes) as well as international qualifications. The mandate of this organisation would be to foster transparency and the quality of national qualifications systems and underling arrangements for training provision. As an alternative to the creation of a new body, the competences of the current EQAVET Secretariat could be enlarged to carry out reviews of national QA arrangements in order to provide Member States with specific advice on how to improve national QA arrangements and to foster mutual trust between Member States. Draft 10

13 Scenario 8: VET instruments are aligned to similar instruments in HE, leading to an ambition of converging systems across HE and VET To have principles on flexibility of learning and credit systems for lifelong learning in more general terms that do not refer to VET or HE, but qualifications referenced to the EQF via NQFs External QA agencies for VET are incorporated in EQAR with appropriate monitoring systems being put in place. Existing peer-groups would continue but with increased liaison with ENQA. 5 Initial analysis of the scenarios The analysis of the above scenarios is still underway, but the current state of play is presented below. At this stage the analysis does not reflect the feasibility, political desirability or costs. Moreover, it considers each as a standalone scenario, and therefore does not factor in that some scenarios could be combined Improved status quo Strengths Weaknesses and risks Likely effects Stability - stakeholders who are familiar with the instruments continue strengthening their approaches and deepening cooperation Continuity in developing awareness of the instruments and their brands Opportunity to adjust weaknesses of current technical specifications without confusing the audience Linkages with the Erasmus + programme concerning ECVET in particular continue bringing the instruments and concepts to the level of providers Lack of ambition and related loss of stakeholder commitment. It is necessary to take the objectives these tools were aimed to support to the next level. This new ambition cannot be met through the current approach which has possibly reached its limits in terms of influence Overall the effects of this scenario are likely to be about continuation of effects already achieved Countries and organisations that have taken up these tools will continue using them and probably deepening their implementation. However this scenario will not convince resistant countries or stakeholders or those which are too dissimilar to the proposed model It is likely that in the area of international VET mobility implementation will continue which in the long term may have bottom-up effects on other aspects of VET systems Draft 11

14 5.2 Limited scope only focus on those aspects that work well Strengths Weaknesses and risks Likely effects compared to improved status quo Giving the instruments greater focus and thus clarifying their purpose (particularly relevant for ECVET) Opportunity to focus resources on aspects of the instruments where there is greatest stakeholder interest and potential to achieve change Facilitating communication about these instruments and thus disseminating them The initial ambition is scaled down. There was clear expectation initially that ECVET should support not only mobility but also lifelong learning. By focusing on mobility only there is a risk that the message would be seen as disengagement from the lifelong learning objective. Lost opportunity in the context of growing importance of unit-based or modular approaches, integration of IVET and CVET and the need for upand reskilling. EQAVET was expected to be a reference framework that national QA systems benchmark themselves against. By reducing the framework to a platform for cooperation and exchange this ambition of transparency of national VET systems would be lost. Stronger implementation in selected areas for example mobility using ECVET. Clearer objectives making it easier to monitor progress, thus greater visibility over the positive contribution of these instruments. At EU level this scenario would create a certain gap in the logic of instruments for lifelong learning. Draft 12

15 5.3 Implementation through EU programmes only Strengths Weaknesses and risks Likely effects compared to improved status quo Strong connection between the instruments and funding support, thus strengthening the concrete support for implementation Possibility for bottom-up actions. In countries where there is no system-level support to ECVET/ EQAVET, institutions can still get support for implementation through EU programmes. Strong opportunities to reach out to practitioners and VET institutions More likely to be effective in countries where there is already proximity with the model promoted Absence of systemic effects beyond those already achieved in the past Risk that the implementation of these instruments becomes a box-ticking exercise as they are linked to access for Erasmus+ and ESF funding Country coverage: link with ESF is likely to create stronger effects in those countries which receive substantial funds, rather than in others Stronger implementation in those areas where there is a clear link with Erasmus +. For example, if use of a QA system compatible with EQAVET is a requirement for the mobility charter, providers would have to demonstrate that they have internal QA processes in place which cover a range of EQAVET indicators. If ECVET is explicitly required in the VET mobility charter, this would create a real push for its implementation at provider level. Much stronger push for system-level implementation if there is a link with ESF Draft 13

16 5.4 Absorption into other existing instruments Strengths Weaknesses and risks Likely effects compared to improved status quo Partial streamlining of European instruments in the area of qualifications and lifelong learning Stronger connection with these instruments Quality assurance and measures for flexibility of VET provision would be embedded in a stronger European instrument that has a lot of traction the EQF Need to revise the legal bases of other instruments. The connection between instruments would be only partial as there would remain several instruments without an explicit umbrella strategy/ framework, each having separate governance and implementation approaches. As the EQF is an overarching instrument that goes beyond VET, there would be a need to formulate principles that are more generic and therefore suitable for other sectors. Subsequently some specificity would be lost. With loss of specificity there is a risk that the principles and reference standards would be watered down and would no longer offer sufficient stimulation for national developments EQF is strongly focused on qualifications while EQAVET has important implications for provision of VET. Hence there is a certain mismatch. Associating ECVET principles with the EQF would probably reinforce the image of ECVET as a credit system. This image is one of the strong misunderstandings and barriers to ECVET take up. Through the link with EQF, there would be a link to EQF referencing criteria. Countries would be pushed to clearly report about flexibility of pathways and how this is ensured as well as more specifically about quality assurance. This reporting requirement would provide a push for national discussions and reflections on these issues. Draft 14

17 5.5 New European strategy for lifelong learning through VET Strengths Weaknesses and risks Likely effects compared to improved status quo Clarity of political ambition. Fresh ambition for the principles that are at the core of these instruments. Streamlining of European instruments and reintroduction of a coherent narrative about their interlinkages Linking the technical instruments more clearly to policy priorities and objectives. Restoring the role of ECVET and EQAVET as tools (not as ends in their own right) serving concrete policy objectives. Opportunity to fully review the governance structures and implementation measures to achieve a more efficient framework for cooperation on these issues. There is a risk of possible loss of specificity of these instruments. With loss of specificity there is a risk that the potential for stimulation of national developments is watered down. Perception of discontinuity among providers and stakeholders. Need to reexplain the rationale behind changes and the advantages of moving to a new approach In some areas for example mobility in VET the loss of brand (ECVET) could mean that the adherence to the message would be weakened Through the fresh impetus and new governance approach, there would be opportunity to get on board stakeholders who were previously resistant and therefore achieve change in countries/ organisations where no breakthrough has been achieved so far Political gains in terms of credibility and reactiveness stemming from the streamlining of these instruments. This would have broader effects on the level of engagement in EU cooperation in VET. Draft 15

18 5.6 Discontinue ECVET and EQAVET Strengths Weaknesses and risks Likely effects compared to improved status quo None in terms of implementation of ECVET/ EQAVET Resources are freed up to focus on other issues Opportunity to tackle quality assurance and flexibility in education and training in a transversal manner without sectorial focus. The core elements of these instruments that are common to other sectors could be reflected in a new initiative that goes beyond VET Discredit of European cooperation in VET and loss of stakeholder confidence Gap in European architecture around qualifications and lifelong learning in particular when it comes to quality assurance in VET, as flexibility of pathways is partly addressed by other instruments No positive effects compared to status quo (other than the positive effects that would arise from the adoption of new initiatives for which resources would be freed up) The incremental changes that could be achieved through the status quo would not materialise through this scenario Progressive disentangling of expert networks and loss of common understanding and trust around quality assurance and qualifications systems Draft 16

19 5.7 Mandate for a European body in the area of qualifications and quality assurance Strengths Weaknesses and risks Likely effects compared to improved status quo Streamlining of instruments governance processes Dedicated body able to drive forward developments, in consultation with Member states and other relevant stakeholder groups. Possibility to reach out directly to providers/provider associations to explore practical issues for implementation as well as to continue working with MS authorities on system changes Clear offer of services towards organisations and Member States interested in getting support Revision of other legal Given the possibility to bases, namely for the EQF, work on one-to-one basis would be necessary. with willing organisations or Member States, there Highly likely that MS would would be more concrete raise questions of and deeper effects on subsidiarity. The body national systems or couldn t have an oversight organisational practices role but solely an advisory role or a role of provision of expertise (possibly capacity building) Change in arrangements could disrupt countries and providers that are already willing to go further in using these tools and their principles. A body established at European level, rather than created by a bottom up initiative, would likely be perceived as an interference with national issues. If a critical mass of beneficiaries are reached from the support of this body, it could also create a bottom-up movement in resistant Member States over time. Draft 17

20 5.8 Instruments are aligned to similar instruments in HE, with an ambition of converging systems across HE and VET 2 Strengths Weaknesses and risks Likely effects compared to improved status quo Streamlining of instruments Simplification of instruments in HE and VET, which will improve transparency and potentially raise awareness of the instruments Could improve coordination between HE and VET QA systems in Member States Builds on well-established processes in HE, with strong governance and political buy-in May limit the instruments interconnectivity with other VET policy developments (e.g. UP) May reduce country commitment to the tools, as there is less of a specific focus on the instruments May be political resistance to manage VET processes alongside HE systems Some specifics to both tools may be lost May encourage take up and use of the instruments, as it is seen as part of a broader QA/unit system More perceived strategic alignment of the instruments, which could foster greater buy-in Oversight by EQAR could improve increase synergy between VET QA systems, which in turn will increase mutual trust In the longer-term, could improve permeability between HE and VET 2 This scenario has been added only recently. I.e. unlike the other scenarios, we were not able to test it in the brainstorming session or stakeholder group, so some of the details still need to be worked up. Draft 18