EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR EDUCATION AND CULTURE

Transcription

1 EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR EDUCATION AND CULTURE Education and vocational training Vocational training and adult education; Leonardo da Vinci, Grundtvig Brussels, EAC.B.2/DCB DGVT Meeting in Ireland May 2013 Agenda item IV a) Document 1 SUPPORTING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EUROPEAN QUALITY ASSURANCE REFERENCE FRAMEWORK RESULTS OF EQAVET SECRETARIAT SURVEY 2012 This note represents an excerpt of the progress report on the development of the national approaches for implementing the EQAVET framework 2012 in the participating countries. The report captures the results of the survey undertaken by the EQAVET network's Secretariat during the summer 2012, building on the work initiated in 2011 on reporting on progress. The full version of the report can be found on the EQAVET website at the following address: The EQAVET network work programme can be found on the EQAVET Website: Commission européenne/europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel Office: J-70 2/91 - Tel. direct line

2 Context and Overview CONTEXT The Recommendation on the establishment of the European Quality Assurance Reference Framework for VET (EQAVET Framework) invites Member States to "devise, not later than 18 June 2011, an approach aimed at improving quality assurance systems at national level, where appropriate, and making best use of the [EQAVET] framework, involving the social partners, regional and local authorities, and all other relevant stakeholders in accordance with national legislation and practice" This Report provides a gathering of information (a snapshot) relating to the development of the national approaches to the implementation of the EQAVET Recommendation, which builds on the process initiated in 2011 by the EQAVET network on reporting on progress. It should be seen as a tool to support the on-going work of quality assurance national reference points (hereafter national reference points or NRPs) 1, policymakers and key stakeholders at both national and European levels. The information presented in the Report will be regularly updated by countries in order to reflect progress in relation to the development of national approaches and the implementation of the Recommendation. This on-going process of updating the Report will provide the EQAVET network and the European Commission with a solid base for pursuing their objective of strengthening a culture of quality assurance in VET across the EU. The Report reflects the state of play relating to the development of national approaches to the implementation of the EQAVET Recommendation in June 2012 and will be an important source of information to support EU-27 Countries in their on-going work on implementing the Recommendation. It is based on the information gathered by the EQAVET Survey 2 which was launched on the 18 June 2011, marking the deadline mentioned in the Recommendation which asks Member States to have agreed their national approaches to the implementation of the Recommendation 2 years after the its adoption (i.e. by June 18, 2011). The exercise was repeated in summer 2012, in order to update information, introduce new questions (in particular in relation to progress made towards the Bruges Communiqué s strategic objectives and short-term deliverables related to quality assurance) and include all EU-27 Countries in this process. The Survey format and questions put to Member States were developed by the working groups on guidelines and indicators and were discussed by the Steering Committee on a number of occasions and the EQAVET Annual Forums in March 2011 and The Progress Report recognises the long tradition and diversity of approaches to quality assurance for VET among EU-27 Countries by reporting through additional notes to the questions of the Survey. The Report has been of particular interest in preparing the EQAVET network work programme and in helping to design a programme of activities which will be responsive to Member State needs, particularly in relation to the national reference points. The Report collates and analyses responses from all EU-27 3 Countries and Croatia; and one EFTA country, Norway as well as three candidate countries: Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro and Turkey As part of the Recommendation, each Member State has been invited to establish a Quality Assurance National Reference Point which could keep stakeholders informed of developments in quality assurance and promote the use of the EQAVET model in a national and/or regional context. The survey can be found at: BE, BG, CZ, DK, DE, EE, EL, IE, ES, FR, IT, CY, LT, LV, LU, HU, MT, NL, AT, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK, FI, SE, UK and HR. Country codes are specified in Annex 2 (page 136). Croatia (HR) is included in the EU-27 Countries as it will become the 28th Member State of the European Union on 1 July

3 The survey was completed by NRPs and the Member State representative in EQAVET. The preparation of the national responses involved close collaboration with all relevant partners in the various national contexts. KEY FINDINGS and TRENDS The Report enables us to identify a number of important trends relating to the development of the national approaches to the implementation of the EQAVET Recommendation. These trends were observed in the survey conducted in 2011, when a process of reporting was initiated by the EQAVET network. However, the information gathered and analysed in 2011 was incomplete, as only 22 EU-27 Countries submitted completed questionnaires, against the survey conducted in 2012 which collates information from all EU-27 Countries (plus Croatia 5 ). For this reason, this report should be considered as a first report of progress made since the adoption of the Recommendation in 2009 and a baseline for future reporting of progress on the development of quality assurance approaches in VET aligned to the EQAVET Framework and the EQAVET related strategic objectives of the Bruges Communiqué. With this in mind, the present report provides an account of some changes/progress observed between the information provided in 2011 and 2012 by countries. However, these changes should not be considered as progress made per se but rather as a consequence of other factors influencing the answers provided by those surveyed, such as: - greater understanding of the implementation process in the national context as a result of the process initiated by the survey and report on progress since 2011; - increased awareness and consideration of the survey by the EQAVET network and other important actors -i.e. the European Commission, Cedefop, ETF 6, etc.- as a valuable source of information, which may stress the need for greater accuracy; - completion by and/or involvement of other national actors in the submission of the survey, who may have a broader picture of the national situation. For these reasons, reported changes/progress between both years should be treated with care, and the information provided in 2012 should be considered as the starting point from which further comparisons will be made in coming years 7. Progress in developing national approaches Chapter 1 shows that significant progress has been made in quality assurance for VET since the adoption of the EQAVET Recommendation in Most VET systems in the EU-27 Countries have developed or are currently developing policies, structures and processes in order to devise and establish their national approaches aimed at improving quality assurance systems at national level and making best use of the EQAVET Framework. A large variety of organisational arrangements and structures exist when it comes to supporting the implementation of quality assurance processes in the national context. In general terms, the majority of countries have devised a national approach: a) at ministerial/central level; b) by developing and publishing a strategy and/or policy document; and c) involving key stakeholders For more information on Candidate Countries and quality assurance: ETF yearbook 2007 quality in vocational education and training: modern vocational training policies and learning processes at Croatia is included in this group as it will become the 28th Member State of the European Union on 1 July For instance, the information analysed in this report will be used by the European Commission in preparing its progress report to the European Parliament and Council in 2013; by Cedefop in Trends in VET policy in Europe Progress towards the Bruges Communiqué, 2012, available at: These circumstantial factors can explain why in some national VET systems there seem to be a regression between the information provided in 2012 in comparison with the one in

4 This suggests a high level political commitment to quality assurance in VET across the EU-27. It also suggests that the relevant ministries are playing a leadership role. This is of crucial importance in the development of a culture of quality assurance in the national contexts. There is a significant involvement of the relevant stakeholders in developing the national approach. Which indicates that EU Countries are putting in place not only the structures and management arrangements which define their quality assurance processes to enhance quality, but also that they are strengthening the culture of quality assurance in the national context by ensuring the development of shared values, beliefs, expectations and commitments towards quality among stakeholders. However, there is a need to ensure improved and sustained involvement of stakeholders in the following areas: - whereas the participation of students/learners is one of the key principles in developing both a quality culture approach, less than one third of all national VET systems in the EU-27 (22 per cent) systematically involve them in the development of the national approach. - The involvement of the higher education (HE) sector also shares a low percentage (30 per cent). This may undermine the importance of creating a holistic strategy to accommodate transversal mobility and permeability. There is also evidence that some national VET systems consider well functioning quality assurance approaches as an essential element contributing to ensuring the quality of teaching and learning, flexibility and the establishment of solid cooperation between VET and HE; all of which ensure permeability and mobility. This has a major role to play in increasing the attractiveness of a learner-centred VET. In this respect, 41 per cent of national VET systems reported that their quality assurance approach is having an impact in facilitating the access to HE. - The level of engagement with employers and the labour market requires more attention. Only 35 per cent of VET systems in the EU-27 have involved representatives of industry/companies in developing their national quality assurance approach. This weakens the responsiveness of VET systems to meeting the challenges of ensuring that VET is responsive to labour market needs. This is particularly important because of their role in delivering work-based training (apprenticeship), ensuring greater cross-fertilisation between VET and industry, and facilitating the transition from school to work. The contribution of employers is important at all levels of VET provision as it considerably enhances the recognition of VET qualifications, thereby increasing employability. - A low percentage occurs also in relation to the involvement of regional and local authorities in the national approach to quality assurance. The involvement of local authorities is important because regionally/locally-based decision-making is more effective and tailored to regional/local needs. It is also interesting to note the level of participation of inspectorates and the national bodies responsible for VET qualifications in the process of developing some of the national approaches. Most national systems participating in the survey have quality standards for VET providers, which are mainly used as a condition for funding, accreditation and/or or they are required as part of legislation. These features are shared by both the initial VET (IVET) 8 and continuing VET (CVET) 9 sectors. However, the CVET sector figures are lower, which may in part be explained by the fact that the CVET sector requires greater levels of flexibility as it interacts with and responds to changes in market conditions and the industry sector requirements. Establishment of quality assurance national reference points (NRPs) 8 9 According to Cedefop s Terminology of European education and training policy, Initial VET is: Learning resulting from daily activities related to work, family or leisure. It is not organised or structured in terms of objectives, time or learning support. Informal learning is in most cases unintentional from the learner s perspective ; Terminology Continuing VET is the education or training after initial education and training or after entry into working life aimed at helping individuals to: improve or update their knowledge and/or skills; acquire new skills for a career move or retraining; continue their personal or professional development. Terminology of European education and training policy, CEDEFOP, Luxembourg,

5 Chapter 2 shows that most VET systems in the EU-27 have established a NRP and that they fulfil the tasks and responsibilities described in the EQAVET Recommendation. This indicates that NRPs are playing an important role within the national VET contexts. However some areas need to be strengthened, for instance in relation to: 1) supporting training providers to identify areas for improvement to quality assurance and implementing quality assurance systems in-line with the EQAVET Recommendation, and introducing or developing self-evaluation systems ; 2) the area of informal and non-formal learning, which are important elements of EU policy for widening access to qualifications, and supporting lifelong learning; and 3) concerning the scope of the NRPs in supporting other EU initiatives, as the European Common Principles for the Recognition of Prior Learning 10 and EU Quality Chapter for Mobility 11. These EU initiatives identify quality assurance as the underpinning principle in the development of arrangements which can facilitate their implementation in national contexts. The support that NRPs can provide in this area is of significant importance. On the other hand, many NRPs are supporting the quality assurance aspects and feeding into the development and implementation of EQF and ECVET in the national contexts. Of particular interest is the increase in 2012 of NRPs reporting that they play a role in relation to ECVET. The Bruges Communiqué and EQAVET Chapter 3 shows the progress made by EU-27 national VET systems in relation to the strategic objectives of the Bruges Communiqué directly related to EQAVET (i.e. objectives 2a -and its shortterm deliverable number 3-, and 2b). These provide a new impetus for the efforts of countries concerning the development of their national approaches to quality assurance of VET in line with the EQAVET Recommendation. The Bruges Communiqué strengthens the perspective that the EQAVET Framework can serve and offer a common quality assurance framework based on EU best practices that can be adapted in accordance to national legislative practices, traditions and cultures. Most VET systems in the EU-27 have established; or they are taking actions and making progress towards the implementation of a national quality assurance framework for VET by 2014 (Bruges Communiqué s strategic objective number 2a); and they have in place or have implemented a common quality assurance framework for VET providers at national level compatible with the EQAVET Framework (Bruges Communiqué s strategic objective number 2b). 20 VET systems in the EU-27 (or 63 per cent) reported that the common quality assurance framework for VET providers compatible with the EQAVET Recommendation established at national level applies to associated workplace learning. This significant progress made in relation to the related EQAVET strategic objectives of the Bruges Communiqué is closely related and may possibly come as a consequence of the long process of consultation and work on European cooperation in quality assurance for VET since Use of the EQAVET indicative descriptors Chapter 4 shows a lower usage of the EQAVET indicative descriptors by VET providers than at system level for both the IVET and CVET sectors. It also shows that on average, national VET systems in the EU-27 are more often always (i.e. in a consistent and systematic manner) using and implementing the EQAVET indicative descriptors in the planning and implementing phases than in the evaluation and review phases within their IVET and CVET systems. This may suggest that, on average, national systems have established more developed quality assurance management systems in the planning and implementation stages than in the evaluation and review stages for both the IVET and CVET sectors (of particular interest is the IVET sector, where the review phase is much lower than the other three stages) Conclusions of the Council and of the representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting within the Council on Common European Principles for the identification and validation of nonformal and informal learning (May 2004); and Cedefop: European guidelines on the validation of non-formal and informal learning, Recommendation (EC) No 2006/961 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on transnational mobility within the Community for education and training purposes: European Quality Charter for Mobility [Official Journal L 394 of ]. 5

6 On the other hand, on average, VET providers in the IVET sector are more often always using and implementing the EQAVET indicative descriptors in the planning than in the other phases of the quality cycle. Also, it is observed that for both the IVET and the CVET sectors, VET providers on average are more often always using the EQAVET descriptors in the evaluation phase than in the implementation and review phases. This appears to suggest that providers are responding or complying with external evaluation or meeting the inspection requirements put in place by the relevant authorities. While this may assure the quality of their provision, high quality education and training is not only a result of formal quality assurance processes; rather it is a consequence of the emergence of a culture of quality assurance and continuous improvement shared by all members of a training institution, which enhance providers internal quality. When the interactions between the IVET and the CVET sectors; and VET systems and providers are analysed (Annex 1, page 130), the results reveal that: the IVET sector may be considered as a multiplier actor, as the CVET sector seems to mirror the actions taken in the IVET sector, at both system and provider levels, which facilitates the development of a culture of quality assurance, cross-fertilisation and mutual learning between the sectors. This relationship is not shared between VET systems and providers: VET providers appear not to be following systems actions when it comes to quality assurance processes and/or the use of the EQAVET indicative descriptors. Trust and empowerment of VET providers in the quality assurance processes are desirable. Setting the scope for autonomous decision-making and reflection based on a common quality assurance reference framework or common standards at national level should ensure that providers are in position to develop a quality culture that is fit for purpose, and takes into consideration the demands of the industry; and the significant diversity of VET provision and training/learning settings (i.e. occupational requirements, work based learning, etc.). This observed autonomy of VET providers which may be determined by the setting up of common quality assurance frameworks or standards at national level is corroborated by the high number of countries making progress towards the strategy objective 2b of the Bruges Communiqué (see Chapter 3 for further information). Use of the EQAVET Indicators Chapter 5 shows more than half of VET systems in the EU-27 have developed and established centralised review procedures for monitoring their quality assurance activities and systems to collect data on VET performance, which are made publicly available. However, it is not clear whether the review process involves a follow-up exercise and whether relevant stakeholders are involved in these processes. Also, it shows that the indicators with the lowest values of always used are: a) the pure outcome indicators (i.e. indicator 5A, 5B, 6A and 6B); and b) the indicators which provide qualitative data (i.e. indicators 6, 9 and 10). The difficulty of measuring, collecting and administering outcome and qualitative data may in part explain the low figures of these indicators. It also shows that national VET systems have established centralised review procedures for monitoring their quality assurance activities and systems to collect data on VET performance, which are made publicly available. The Chapter also gathers information in relation to EQAVET members opinion on increasing EU cooperation regarding the use of the EQAVET indicators: showing that a majority of EQAVET members (75 per cent of members representing EU-27 Countries) would find useful to increase EU cooperation with the view to working towards benchmarking conditions at national and/or at EU level in relation to the EQAVET indicator. These results seems to indicate that the EQAVET network can play an important role in supporting EQAVET members to facilitate the conditions in which the EQAVET indicators can be useful for further cooperation at the level (EU or national) they believe to be appropriate. These results seem to be replicated in the EFTA and Candidate Countries, showing that the EQAVET Framework is serving as a catalyst for the reform and adaptation of quality assurance in these countries VET systems, which will ensure national consistency, greater responsiveness to the needs of the labour market, the economy and the learner. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Need to embed quality assurance culture 6

7 The establishment of formal and structural quality assurance procedures does not always imply the development of a quality assurance culture within the national context. The report highlights the importance of the full participation of stakeholders in the implementation of quality assurance approaches as an essential requirement in the development of a sustainable culture of quality assurance. A culture of quality assurance is closely related to values, beliefs, expectations and commitments and generally requires more time and effort to become embedded in systems. The participation of stakeholders in the implementation of quality assurance processes is shown to be an essential requirement in the development of a sustainable culture of quality. While VET systems in the EU-27 appear to have involved all relevant stakeholders to some extent in their national approaches to quality assurance, further and continued attention is necessary in this area. Greater focus on the learner Quality assurance processes need to be learner-centred. This requires increasing the participation of the students/learners in the quality assurance processes and the promotion and consolidation of EU initiatives which aim to widen the access to qualifications, support lifelong learning and foster transnational mobility. Cooperation with the higher education sector is important in this context, and the quality assurance system should facilitate permeability between VET and higher education. Using the Quality Cycle to support a holistic approach to quality assurance Quality assurance processes at national level within VET systems appear be more developed in the input phases (planning and implementation stages) than in the output and feedback phases. On the other hand, VET providers appear to offer more developed quality assurance procedures in the planning and evaluation phases than in the implementation and review phases. This may suggest that they are responding to comply with external regulation/evaluation, which does not imply that internal quality assurance processes or self-assessment are embedded, and/or a culture of quality assurance have been developed within training institutions. The monitoring process and reporting on quality need to be seen as instruments which strengthen accountability and enable appropriate adapting and change as a way of improving performance. Greater focus on continuous improvement More effort is required to promote the importance of internal and self-evaluation processes -in combination with external evaluation among VET providers at national level. The challenge is to strike a balance between the autonomy and empowerment of VET providers and the needs of the VET system in terms of ensuring sufficient levels of consistency across all VET related policies. The EQAVET Framework can play an important role in this respect and/or in relation to the development of national standards. Respecting diversity It is important to bear in mind the significant diversity and complexity of quality assurance internal processes and frameworks put in place and developed by national VET systems and providers across the EU. This diversity together with the financial constraints faced by institutions should not be undermined when considering the adaptation/development of the national approach to quality assurance in-line with the EQAVET Recommendation. 7