Secretariat update Annual Forum 2012

Transcription

1 Secretariat update Annual Forum 2012 Sean Feerick, Director Secretariat Denmark 2012

2 Work Programme Supporting implementation and national reference points Added-value cooperation with VET providers STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES Structured involvement of social partners Building synergies with EQF and ECVET; and LLL

3 Deliverables Supporting implementation & national reference points: - Working Groups on guidelines and indicators, -4 policy briefs - Survey and Secretariat progress report - 2 Information Seminars in NRP virtual forum -Focus of Newsletter Issue 3 Structured involvement of social partners: - 3 Sectoral Seminars, 3 industry sectors, with a focus on WBL and CVET - 3 policy briefs -Involvement of EU social partner associations in the various activities - Focus of Newsletter Issue 4 Added-value cooperation with VET providers: -Working Groups, -further development of the IT tool focuses on VET providers -Involvement of EU VET provider associations in the various activities - Focus of Newsletter Issue 5 Building synergies with EQF, ECVET & LLL: - Reflection Group, 5 meetings, HE in Information Gathering Exercise - Joint Seminar: building synergies; Report & policy brief - Articles Newsletter Issue 3 & 4

4 EQAVET Survey 2011 Key findings to support ongoing work

5 Content 1. National VET policy and the national approaches to QA in-line with the EQAVET reference framework 2. Quality assurance national reference points 3. The use of EQAVET indicative descriptors at system and providers level for IVET and CVET sectors among MS 4. The use of EQAVET indicators for IVET and CVET sectors among MS

6 National VET policy & the national approaches to QA Has a national approach been devised aimed at improving QA systems at national level and making best use of the EQAVET Reference Framework in accordance with national legislation and practice? 31% 8% 61% Yes It is still in preparation We need more time Yes It is still in preparation (planned year of introduction) No, we need more time to devise it DE, EE, IE, EL, FR, LT, LU, NL, AT, RO, FI, SE, UK(Eng, Wls, Nir), HR BG (2012), CZ(2013), ES, IT(2011), CY(2012), HU(2012), SK(2013), UK(Scl) BE (fr), SI No, we do not need it _

7 National VET policy & the national approaches to QA Indicate the extent to which the following stakeholders have been involved in developing the national approach? VET providers Industry/companies Employer associations Employees associations Public authorities Regional or local authorities Students/learners Teachers/instructors/trainers Higher education sector 70% 12% 41% 12% 29% 59% 59% 29% 29% 94% 28% 24% 24% 35% 47% 29% 6% 12% 12% 24% 35% 35% 18% 12% 6% 18% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 24% 12% 6% 6% 6% 12% Always Sometimes Occasionally Never No response

8 National reference points Has a National Reference Point for VET been established in your country? 12% Yes Yes BG, CZ, DE, IE, EL, ES, IT, CY, LT, LU, HU, NL, AT, RO, SI, SK, FI, SE, UK(Eng, Wls, Nir, Sct), HR No 88% No BE(fr), EE, FR

9 National reference points Responsibilities of NRPs as set out by the EQAVET Recommendation RESPONSIBILITIES of NRPs and the EQAVET RECOMMENDATION % Countries Keeping stakeholders informed about the activities of the EQAVET network 96% Providing active support for the implementation of the work programme of the EQAVET network 96% Taking concrete initiatives to promote further development of the EQAVET Reference Framework in the national context 83% Ensuring that information is disseminated to stakeholders effectively 91% Supporting training providers to identify areas for improvement to quality assurance and implement QA systems in line with the EQAVET Recommendation 70% Supporting training providers to introduce or develop selfevaluation systems 65% BG, CZ, DE, IE, EL, ES, IT, CY, LT, LU, HU, NL, AT, RO, SI, FI, SE, UK(Enl, Wls, Nir, Sct), HR BG, CZ, DE, IE, EL, ES, IT, CY, LT, LU, HU, NL, AT, RO, SI, FI, SE, UK(Enl, Wls, Nir, Sct), HR BG, CZ, DE, IE, EL, ES, IT, CY, LT, LU, NL, AT, RO, FI, SE, UK(Enl, Wls, Nir), HR BG, CZ, DE, IE, EL, ES, IT, CY, LT, LU, NL, AT, RO, SK, FI, SE, UK(Enl, Wls, Nir, Sct), HR BG,CZ, IE, ES, IT, LT, NL, AT, RO, SI, FI, SE, UK(Enl, Wls, Nir), HR BG, DE, IE, ES, IT, LT, AT, RO, SI, FI, SE, UK(Enl, Wls, Nir), HR

10 National reference points In which areas does the NRP support the development of the EQAVET Recommendation in the national context? 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 100% 87% 74% 52% 61% 91% 70% 20% 0%

11 National reference points 80% 70% 60% 40% 30% 70% 61% 70% 65% 20% 35% 30% 10% 0% EQF ECVET EU common principles RPL Bruges Communiqué Short term deliverables Bruges Communiqué Strategy objectives EU Quality Charter for Mobility

12 The use of EQAVET indicative descriptors IVET sector 70% 60% 65% 69% 54% 54% 40% 30% 38% 38% 42% System level Provider level 20% 10% 0% Planning Implementation Evaluation Review

13 The use of EQAVET indicative descriptors 70% CVET sector 60% 40% 46% 30% 35% 38% 38% System level Provider level 20% 23% 27% 27% 10% 0% Planning Implementation Evaluation Review

14 The use of EQAVET indicative descriptors Lowest average - At systems level for both IVET and CVET In the planning: Goals/objective of VET are: linked to EU goals (62%; 35%) In the implementation: Mechanisms and procedures have been established to identify training needs (38%; 38%) In the evaluation : Early warning systems are implemented (58%; 27%) In the review: Processes are regularly reviewed and action plans for change devised. Systems are adjusted accordingly (46%; 27%)

15 The use of EQAVET indicative descriptors Lowest average - At provider level for both IVET and CVET In the planning: The local targets set by the VET providers reflect: European VET policy goals/objectives (31%; 12%) In the implementation: Staff undertake regular training and develop cooperation with relevant external stakeholders: to support capacity building and quality improvement (35%;15%) In the evaluation : Self-assessment/self-evaluation is periodically carried out: under regional regulations/framework (12%; 0%) In the review: Results/outcomes of the evaluation process are discussed with relevant stakeholders and appropriate action plans are put in place (35%;27%)

16 INDICATOR 1A INDICATOR 1B INDICATOR 2A INDICATOR 2B INDICATOR 3 INDICATOR 4 INDICATOR 5A INDICATOR 5B INDICATOR 6A INDICATOR 6B INDICATOR 7 INDICATOR 8A INDICATOR 8B INDICATOR 9A INDICATOR 9B INDICATOR 10A INDICATOR 10B The use of EQAVET indicators IVET sector Always used Sometimes used No used No response 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 40% 30% 20% 10% 4% 8% 4% 4% 4% 15% 15% 12% 12% 12% 4% 23% 27% 23% 19% 27% 35% 54% 85% 89% 62% 65% 62% 54% 42% 38% 27% 19% 8% 12% 15% 12% 31% 35% 81% 58% 8% 19% 73% 12% 15% 46% 27% 2% 4% 42% 46% 8% 15% 54% 23% 0%

17 INDICATOR 1A INDICATOR 1B INDICATOR 2A INDICATOR 2B INDICATOR 3 INDICATOR 4 INDICATOR 5A INDICATOR 5B INDICATOR 6A INDICATOR 6B INDICATOR 7 INDICATOR 8A INDICATOR 8B INDICATOR 9A INDICATOR 9B INDICATOR 10A INDICATOR 10B The use of EQAVET indicators CVET sector Always used Sometimes used No used No response 19% 19% 12% 12% 35% 27% 35% 42% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 8% 8% 4% 15% 8% 19% 15% 23% 27% 23% 19% 35% 31% 27% 62% 46% 58% 42% 46% 38% 54% 38% 62% 65% 54% 38% 27% 27% 27% 23% 27% 15% 12% 19% 12% 54% 15% 12% 15% 4% 12% 46% 54% 38% 19%

18 The use of EQAVET indicators Indicators with the lowest values of always used are: - the pure outcome indicators (i.e. indicator 5A, 5B, 6A and 6B); - the indicators which provide qualitative data (i.e. indicators 6, 9 and 10) Lowest average occurs in Indicator 6B for the IVET and CVET sectors

19 Policy implications Importance of stakeholders in deepening a culture of quality management Potential for EQAVET Recommendation to contribute to strengthen approaches to evaluation internal and external More engagement with learners Increased efforts to embed quality assurance approaches at every stage of the Quality Cycle Challenges of diversity

20 Thank you for your attention! Sean Feerick