Annexes to COM(2014)30 - Implementation of the Recommendation on the establishment of a European Quality Assurance Reference Framework for Vocational Education and Training - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2014)30 - Implementation of the Recommendation on the establishment of a European Quality Assurance Reference Framework for Vocational ... |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2014)30  |
| date | January 28, 2014 |
An appropriate development of the EQAVET model, possibly with a stronger focus on the quality of learning outcomes, is a measure suggested by the European working group on quality in adult learning (therefore also in continuing VET), with a view to an overarching lifelong learning quality assurance approach in a longer term[32].
3.2. Governance
While the EQAVET recommendation calls for the involvement of all stakeholders throughout the whole cycle of quality assurance, at European level the governance structure appears to be composed mostly of representatives from the initial VET sector. When it comes to national governance structures, the EQAVET secretariat survey indicates a need to ensure improved and sustained involvement of certain stakeholder categories, notably learners, higher education sector, employers and labour market actors as well as regional and local authorities.
To the extent that EQAVET has contributed to better quality assurance in VET national systems, it has also facilitated communication and exchange between them, promoting the consistency of VET developments across countries. This to some degree contributes to the general objective of promoting transparency of, and consistency in, VET policy developments between Member States.
However, this has not led to easily comparable descriptions of national quality assurance measures, which often are not presented in comprehensive documents and do not necessarily adopt the EQAVET structure. Countries mostly describe their quality assurance systems by making reference to internal and external evaluation of VET providers, system level evaluation for policy development purposes, and the quality of qualification design and award.
To some extent this is due to the flexible approach of the EQAVET Recommendation, which allows countries and VET providers to select tools and elements from a wider array and to adjust them. This has on the one hand proven effective in spreading the use of such tools, but on the other hand it has not resulted in the cross-country adoption of a common approach to describe quality assurance measures and VET developments.
Direct use of EQAVET as a reference to describe national measures may also prove difficult because EQAVET proposes different terminologies for quality of the VET system and at VET provider level[33]. This does not fit with practice at national level, where a classic measure such as inspections can address both the system and the individual provider.
4. Conclusions and next steps
4.1. Evaluative conclusions
The considerations in the previous sections can be summarised as follows:
– EQAVET has contributed to advancing a quality culture in VET in European countries, as well as to its practical implementation, through the development notably of quality operational measures within the EQAVET network[34].
– However, such measures have focused on institutional, school-based provision (most of initial VET and part of continuing VET), with less visible impact on work-based learning and non-formal provision (which makes up most of continuing VET but could also play a key part in Initial VET in dual systems);
– The flexible approach of EQAVET, making available tools for selection and adjustment, has facilitated its use, but at the same time has reduced its potential as a common language and conceptual framework across countries.
A clear need emerges therefore for enhanced cooperation with other European instruments for quality assurance and transparency.
EQAVET implements a reference framework that allows a flexible use. It may be explored to what extent the framework dimension is needed to organise quality criteria, descriptors and indicators – as their use is flexible anyway. The experience of the European standard and guidelines for quality assurance in higher education (ESG) could be taken into account, also as concerns the scope (the ESG specifically support the quality of institutions, not the system), while being aware of some of the ESG shortcomings.
4.2. Completing EQAVET
The final aim of quality measures in education and training is the quality of the outcomes of the learning process – that is, VET learners should acquire good vocational and transversal skills. The relevance of skill levels has been recently highlighted by one specific finding of the Survey on Adult Skills (PIAAC): across countries, adults holding qualification at the same level demonstrated skills at significantly different levels[35].
More explicit attention to the quality assurance of qualification design and award, liaising to the EQF, ECVET and the Europass Certificate Supplement, might allow EQAVET to better address non-formal and work-based VET but also tackle the emerging issue of open education resources (OER) or massive open online courses (MOOCs) and improving its impact on transparency and mutual recognition, taking into account the principles set out in the Council Recommendation for the validation of non-formal and informal learning[36].
The Commission plans to undertake, involving the relevant national authorities and stakeholders, the following action towards a more comprehensive implementation of EQAVET:
– Develop descriptors, indicators and related guidelines to better address the quality and the appropriate proficiency level of outcomes acquired by learners in VET. This requires coordination with other quality assurance initiatives and transparency instruments, and cooperation with the relevant bodies and networks.
– Develop and test guidelines for policy makers and providers, along with supporting checklists, descriptors and indicators geared to the diverse reality of continuing VET and to the specific features of work-based learning. This requires cooperation with diverse stakeholders and coordination with developments related with quality in adult learning.
– Test the opportunity for European arrangements to make national quality assurance measures more transparent across countries. This could include developing an information supplement to facilitate common understanding of national accreditation processes of VET providers, promoting common guidelines on how to describe quality assurance procedures compatible with EQAVET, or go towards a common template for accreditation of VET providers also drawing on the experience of the European quality assurance register for higher education (EQAR)[37] and the national reports on referencing to the EQF[38].
Through Erasmus+, the EU will provide:
· Support for cross-border cooperation in QA in VET through strategic partnerships and sector skills alliances that support meaningful involvement of broad range of stakeholders, and enhanced cross-sectoral dialogue with higher education and adult learning on the theme of QA
· Support for further dialogue at European level through:
– the EQAVET network on developing quality culture by supporting working groups, seminars, Peer Learning Activities involving interested stakeholders in quality assurance in VET;
– the development of support materials such as IT tools and manuals;
– innovative projects to enhance the capacity of quality assurance to support improvement of VET.
Through Horizon 2020, the EU will:
· Advance knowledge about the effectiveness of public policies on CVET and other forms of adult education (including quality assurance aspects) in the EU and their complementarity with the dynamics of the private markets.
Finally, the Commission notes that a certain number of countries are aiming to use a share of the European Structural and Investment Funds for financing reforms of VET systems. It is vital that in taking forward these initiatives, strengthening the quality assurance of VET plays a central role.
4.3. Beyond EQAVET
Citizens increasingly move between systems – both in the traditional initial education pathway and to upgrade and widen their knowledge and skills throughout their lives. More and more learning opportunities no longer fit in conventional classification arrangements. Learners are increasingly offered – and rightly so – the chance of assembling their learning pathway by selecting opportunities from different sub-systems and forms of delivery, including via learning resources delivered through ICT, and they need to be able to trust their quality.
The emergence of quality assured qualification frameworks for lifelong learning, strongly promoted by the EQF, calls for reflections on a sector-based approach to quality assurance and on whether it is possible to identify some basic principles and guidelines valid across sectors and applicable to all qualifications. To address such challenges, it would be valuable to discuss EQAVET within a comprehensive context of all instruments for transparency and quality assurance. The case for closer coordination of all European instruments for transparency and quality assurance is being explored by the Commission as a way to achieve a full European area of skills and qualifications[39].
In that light the Commission plans to undertake the following actions towards better European cooperation in quality assurance for lifelong learning:
– Consulting stakeholders on the findings of this report and on the need for and feasibility of improving coherence between quality assurance in different education sub-sectors, as part of the forthcoming public consultation towards a European area of skills and qualifications, seeking further synergies and convergence of EU transparency and recognition tools.
– Examining how the objectives of EQAVET could be pursued through a comprehensive approach to quality assurance for lifelong learning:
– In coordination with other quality assurance initiatives and with transparency instruments, exploring the practical requirements related with the development of cross-sector principles and guidelines for quality assurance of lifelong learning and the conditions to safeguard specificities proper to sub-systems or national situations.
[1] Communication from the Commission, 'A stronger European Industry for Growth and Economic Recovery', COM(2012)582 final of 10.10.2012.
[2] Cedefop, Roads to recovery: three skill and labour market scenarios for 2025, June 2013.
[3] OJ C155, 8.07.2009, p.1.
[4] E.g. for the planning stage at system level the descriptors provide milestones such as describing long and medium term objectives of VET system in consultation with stakeholders, defining targets and indicators for monitoring, identifying training needs.
[5] Commission Staff Working Document, SWD(2012)375 of 20.11.2012, p.38.
[6] EQAVET, Supporting the implementation of the European quality assurance reference framework: Results of the EQAVET Secretariat Survey, 2012, p.20. Available in the website of the EQAVET secretariat, http://www.eqavet.eu/gns/what-we-do/annual-forum.aspx
[7] ICF GHK, Evaluation of implementation of EQAVET Final report, (hereafter External Evaluation ) 2013 p.51.
[8] "Vocational education and training carried out in the initial education system, usually before entering working life" inspired by Cedefop, Terminology of European education and training policy, Luxembourg, OP, 2008
[9] "Education or training after initial education and training – or after entry into working life […]", Cedefop,idem above.
[10] EQAVET, Secretariat Survey, cit. , p. 29.
[11] Ibid, p. 68: BE (nl), BG, DK, DE, EE, IE, ES, LV, LT, NL, AT, PL, RO, SK, FI, SE, UK, HR.
[12] EQAVET Secretariat Survey, cit. Ch. 5.
[13] External Evaluation, cit., p.32.
[14] EQAVET Secretariat Survey, cit. p. 61 and p. 72.
[15] Cf. http://euskillspanorama.ec.europa.eu/.
[16] Several FP7 research projects addressed CVET and adult education. Cf: “Adult and continuing education in Europe. Using public policy to secure a growth in skills”, European Commission 2013.
[17] SWD(2012)375, cit. p. 38.
[18] AT, BE nl, CY, CZ, DK, EE, FI, HU, IE, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, UK, HR, IC and FYROM, EQAVET Secretariat Survey, cit. p. 24.
[19] External Evaluation, cit.p.25
[20] http://www.peer-review-education.net/
[21] EQAVET Secretariat Survey, cit. p.104.
[22] The word "accreditation" in this document is to be understood as educational accreditation and not in the sense of "accreditation" as used in the Reg. (EC)765/2008.
[23] Cf. http://eqavetprojects.eu/
[24] Cf. Bruges Communiqué on enhanced European cooperation in vocational education and training, 7.12.2010, strategic objective 2b.
[25] Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April, OJ 2008/C 111/01 of 6.5.2008.
[26] Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009,OJ 2009/C 155/02 of 8.7.2009.
[27] Decision 2241/2004/EC, OJ L390/6 of 31.12.2004.
[28] EQAVET, Serban Iosifescu, Quality assurance procedures in the processes of certification, curricula setting, accreditation and training of trainers in European VET systems, 2011.
[29] Cedefop, Trends in VET policy in Europe 2010-12,2012, p. 59.
[30] ENQA, European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area, 2005.
[31] Though EQAVET did not yet exist as such, there existed already a Common Quality Assurance Framework for VET.
[32] Final report of the Thematic Working Group on quality in adult learning. Cf. the parallel study on quality in adult learning, http://ec.europa.eu/education/adult/doc/qualityannex_en.pdf.
[33] This marks a significant difference between EQAVET and the ESG which only address the institution level.
[34] http://www.eqavet.eu – See in particular the Quality cycle IT tool.
[35] OECD, Skills Outlook 2013, in particular p.204.
[36] Council Recommendation (2012/C 398/01).
[37] Cf. http://www.eqar.eu/.
[38] Cf. http://ec.europa.eu/eqf/documentation_en.htm.
[39] Communication of the Commission, Rethinking Education: Investing in skills for better socio-economic outcomes, COM(2012) 669 final, 2012.