WP2 Synthesis Report Intercollege FINAL November 2013

This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication (communication) reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

DELIVERABLE TITTLE: SYNTHESIS REPORT

“State of Affairs regarding Quality Assurance in VET in the Project Consortium Countries.”

Work Package/Deliverable Number: WP2: Analysis Phase Deliverable Tittle: Synthesis Report Delivery Date: 04/11/2013 Lead Partner (Pn): Intercollege Project Number: 2-‐12-‐1-‐PL1-‐LEO05-‐27444 Agreement Number: 2-‐12-‐1-‐PL1-‐LEO05-‐27444

LOQUET WP2: Analysis Phase/ Synthesis Report

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................... 3 1. THE EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK ..................................................................................................................... 4 1.1. EUROPEAN QUALITY ASSURANCE REFERENCE FRAMEWORK FOR VET ..................................................... 4 1.2. WHAT IS EQAVET? .................................................................................................................................... 5 1.3. THE EQAVET WORK PROGRAMME ............................................................................................................. 6 1.3.1. OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................................................................... 7 1.3.2. IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................................................................. 7 1.3.3. ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................................. 8 1.4. THE EQAVET WORK PROGRAMME 2013-2015 ............................................................................................. 9 1.4.1. THE EQAVET FRAMEWORK ..................................................................................................................... 9 1.4.2. THE STRATEGY FOR 2013-2015 ............................................................................................................. 10 2. GENERAL COUNTRY ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................. 13 2.1. PART 1– STATUS OF THE INTRODUCTION OF EQARF RECOMMENDATION IN THE PARTNER COUNTRIES . 14 2.1.1. CYPRUS (ANNEX I) ................................................................................................................................ 14 2.1.2. FRANCE (ANNEX II) ............................................................................................................................... 16 2.1.3. GERMANY (ANNEX III) ........................................................................................................................... 17 2.1.4. GREECE (IV) ......................................................................................................................................... 18 2.1.5. POLAND (V) .......................................................................................................................................... 19 2.1.6. SWEDEN (VI) ......................................................................................................................................... 20 2.1.7. HUNGARY (VII) ...................................................................................................................................... 22 2.2. PART 2 – RELEVANT QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE POSITION OF QUALITY MANAGER AT VET INSTITUTIONS IN THE PARTNER COUNTRIES .................................................................................................................... 24 2.2.1. GENERAL QUALITY MANAGER PROFILE ................................................................................................ 24 3. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................... 28 3.1. ANALYTICAL TOOLS ............................................................................................................................... 28 3.2. QUALITATIVE RESEARCH ........................................................................................................................ 28 3.3. QUALITATIVE FINDINGS .......................................................................................................................... 28 3.4. QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH FINDINGS ...................................................................................................... 38 3.5. CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 53 APPENDIX 1 ..................................................................................................................................................... 56 ANNEXES ......................................................................................................................................................... 61


Introduction This report is the outcome of Work Package 2 of the Learning Outcomes in Quality in Education and

Training (Loquet) Project. The purpose of this work package is to:

Ø outline the “state of affairs” regarding Quality Assurance in VET for each consortium

country (Poland, Greece, Cyprus, Sweden, France, Hungary and France), especially

with regards to the implementation of relevant EU tools such as EQARF, EQF, ECVET

etc.

Ø present the requirements of EQARF;

Ø identify good practices, as well as, the general framework for the position of VET

Quality Manager.

This document contains the summary and main conclusions arising from desk and field research data.

The main part of this report includes the country reports followed by a general conclusion. Included in

the report is also the methodology used for the country comparisons.

All partners, submitted a country report, which provided general information on the country’s VET

system regarding Quality Assurance in particular, and also a qualitative analysis of the data from the

questionnaire administered to the VET institutions. All country reports follow the same format so as to

facilitate country comparisons. The reports have the same table of contents and for the administered

questionnaires the answers were grouped by each thematic area.


1. THE EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK

1.1. European Quality Assurance Reference Framework for VET1

The European Quality Assurance Reference Framework is a new resource tool used in

assisting the authorities of Member States, to advocate and audit the progress of their

systems in the area of vocational education and training (VET).

Quality assurance can be used as a methodological process, in the modernization of

education systems and more importantly in the advancement of training. It should therefore

be placed at the heart of every policy initiative for VET.

Member States are called to develop and use this instrument on a voluntary basis. The main

users of the reference framework will be national and regional authorities, as well as, public

and private bodies responsible for quality assurance and improvement of VET.

Implementation

As a reference instrument, the framework makes system recommendations that will support

Member States to assess clearly and consistently whether the measures, necessary for

improving the quality of their VET systems, have been applied and whether these need to be

reassessed.

The process suggested by the framework includes the following:

• a cycle consisting of four phases (planning, implementation, assessment, review)

described for VET providers/systems;

• quality criteria and characteristic description for each phase of the cycle

(Recommendation of the European Parliament and the Council of 18 June 2009 /

Annex I);

1 http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/education_training_youth/lifelong_learning/c11108_en.htm


5

• common indicators for assessing targets, methods, procedures and training results.

Some of these indicators are based on statistical data while others are of a

qualitative nature (Recommendation of the European Parliament and the Council of

18 June 2009 //Annex II).

The Recommendation supports a culture of quality enhancement and responsibility at all

levels, i.e. at the VET-system, VET-provider and qualification-awarding levels. The European

Quality Assurance Reference Framework for VET attaches significance to systematic self-

assessment. It includes internal and external assessment processes to be defined by the

Member States. This will enable feedback on the progress made.

Using the framework, Member States should have developed approaches to improve their

national quality assurance systems by 18 June 2011, at the latest. All stakeholders should

be involved in this work advancement.

European network for quality assurance

The Recommendation2 encourages Member States to take active part in the European

network for quality assurance for VET, using the framework as the foundation for further

development of common principles and tools in VET quality improvement at national,

regional and local levels.

In an effort to encourage the collaboration amongst competent bodies and to get all players

at national and regional levels actively involved, the Recommendation suggests that

Member States should nominate Quality Assurance National Reference Points for VET.

These reference points will foster the active and practical development of the framework at

national level, support Member States’ self-evaluation, as well as the Network's work, and

disseminate the knowledge to all stakeholders.

1.2. What is EQAVET3?

The European quality assurance in vocational education and training (EQAVET) project

brings together the Member States, the Social Partners and the European Commission all in

2 Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the establishment of a European Quality Assurance Reference Framework for Vocational Education and Training [Official Journal C 155 of 8.7.2009]. 3 http://www.eqavet.eu


6

an effort to develop and to practise a culture of quality assurance within national vocational

education and training (VET) systems and at European level.

EQAVET should be considered in the broader frame of European cooperation in education

and training (ET 2020) and the Copenhagen Process, which calls for a deeper collaboration

in the area of VET where countries work in developing common responses to shared

challenges.

EQAVET works under a collaborative structure designed to support Member States to

enhance the quality of their VET systems and to assist them with the implementation of the

Recommendation on the establishment of a European Quality Assurance Reference

Framework (Reference Framework), adopted in 2010.

The Reference Framework objective is to improve transparency, market relevance,

consistency and transferability of VET qualifications across the European area. It uses a

common framework, under the national/institutional context of Member State VET systems

and VET providers and provides the tools, to improve, monitor and evaluate the quality

assurance policies and practices.

The successful application of the Reference Framework requires Member States to

participate in the EQAVET Network, its work programme and to support well-organized

Quality Assurance National Reference Points (National Reference Points).

In every Member country, a National Reference Point enables access to information in the

Reference Framework and brings together existing bodies, involving the Social Partners and all stakeholders at national and regional levels. The National Reference Points play a central

role in EQAVET.

1.3. The EQAVET work programme

The aim of the EQAVET work programme is to:


7

1.3.1. Objectives

By achieving the following objectives, the work programme aims to support and facilitate the

implementation of the Reference Framework:

1. Increasing collaboration amongst stakeholders (EU Member States, VET providers,

Social Partners, EU and national organisations, business, civil society, decision

makers) in order to support their capacity to advance and manage VET provision.

2. Improving capacity at international, national, regional and sectoral levels, to further

identify and understand best practices in VET quality assurance, in order to: (a)

effectively formulate guidelines and instruments, and (b) select and implement

practical, efficient and priority adaptation actions/plans.

3. Enriching and improving the level and quantity of information and advice on quality

assurance in VET-related issues.

4. Spreading and applying the knowledge acquired from the applied adaptation of

activities/initiatives, towards the implementation of the Reference Framework.

5. Integrating the information and knowledge accumulated into sustainable national

development plans, by providing technical and content support to National Reference

Points.

1.3.2. Implementation

The work programme is divided into two phases interlinked to the two deadlines set by the

Recommendation:


8

o Adapting phase: includes the development of national approaches in using the

Reference Framework, by 18 June 2011.

o Reporting phase: requires national review/report, on the implementation of the

Reference Framework, to be submitted by 2013.

The following activities are required to support each of the two phases:

The main responsibility in implementing the work programme at national level lies with the

National Reference Points.

1.3.3. Activities

The EQAVET work programme, in which National Reference Points are active participants,

is implemented through the following five types of activities, designed to address a number

of strategic issues:

Those participating in the activities are required to meet on a regular basis and to be in open

communication using the on-line resource tool developed within the EQAVET initiative.


9

The activities of the work programme will produce a variety of materials (expert reports,

policy briefs, technical papers, web-based information, forum discussions, video reporting,

webinars, surveys and studies) that are of interest to policymakers and VET providers. The

materials provide guidance on how to improve quality in VET and how to best implement the

Reference Framework under specific national and/or institutional contexts. All materials are

made available on the website at www.eqavet.eu. Twice a year, EQAVET also circulates a

newsletter, which provides updates and technical information on current developments in

quality assurance for European VET. The newsletter is published on-line in English, German

and French and a synopsis of it is available in another 20 European languages. To receive

this newsletter by email interested parties can register at www.eqavet.eu.

1.4. The EQAVET work programme 2013-2015

The current economic crisis has given vocational education and training (VET) a key role in

guiding individual countries, and the European Union as a community, to address the

challenges of unemployment and the skills-mismatch issue that has emerged. VET is

promoted in order to help countries, and the Union, return to sustainable growth and offer

full-time employment opportunities to the labour force. Countries, participating in the

European Quality Assurance in Vocational Education and Training (EQAVET) network, are

working persistently to support those powerful approaches in quality assurance that will

establish the quality, relevance and attractiveness of VET as a learning and career pathway,

not only for young people, but also for those currently at work who wish to upgrade their

skills and knowledge. The EQAVET Framework has been the guiding principle to VET

policymakers, as they assess and reform their VET systems and establish quality assurance

frameworks for VET providers.

THE

1.4.1. The EQAVET Framework

Through the EQAVET Framework, VET is enhanced as authorities and VET providers are

supplied with the tools for quality management in VET.

Given the diversity and complexity of approaches to VET quality, within and across Member

States, the Framework provides a common reference point to safeguard transparency, to


10

offer consistency and to promote mutual trust in approaches to VET policy and practices

across Europe.

The Framework was developed by Member States in cooperation with the European

Commission and adopted by the European Parliament and the Council in 2009. It is a key

element in the follow-up of the Copenhagen Declaration, which calls for closer cooperation in

the field of VET, and for continuing to work towards renewing Europe’s education and

training systems.

1.4.2. The Strategy for 2013-2015

The focus of the EQAVET network for 2013-2015 is to support the use and implementation

of the EQAVET Framework in the national contexts, taking into consideration:

1. The importance of national reference points (NRPs), as key actors in the implementation

process;

2. The new momentum provided by the Bruges Communiqué, especially in relation to the

strategic objectives: establishing at national level (a) quality assurance frameworks in

accordance with the EQAVET Framework by 2014, and (b) a common quality assurance

framework for VET providers compatible with EQAVET and applicable to workplace learning,

by 2015.

3. The need to support the EU agenda in making lifelong learning (LLL) and mobility

(transversal and geographical) a norm and in rising to the challenges of “Rethinking

Education”.

4. The need for a systematic, structured and permanent dialogue with social partners, as

they contribute an important part in improved responsiveness of VET systems; and in the

delivery of continuing vocational education (CVET) and workplace learning.

The EQAVET network creates an environment in which Member States, and national

reference points, become committed, but are also supported, to ensure that the EQAVET

Framework is implemented in a way which ingrains a culture of quality assurance within and

among Member States.

The work programme: (a) promotes the development of national approaches to the

implementation of the EQAVET Framework and (b) works towards achieving the strategic

objectives of the Bruges Communiqué. It is built upon experience gained and lessons learnt

during almost ten years of EU cooperation on quality assurance under VET and takes into

account the unfolding requirements of Member States and the EU policy context.


11

The programme focuses on two key areas and one transversal area:


12


2. General Country Analysis

The study includes two distinct, yet interrelated parts:

a) Part 1: Status of the introduction of the EQARF Recommendation to the partner countries.

This includes the following information:

o recent developments at European level (EQARF Recommendation, EQAVET, policy

papers and studies), and

o developments at national level, legislation, regulatory and institutional arrangements,

stakeholders’ involvement, methods, practices developed, results and future trends.

b) Part 2: Relevant qualifications for the position of quality manager at VET institutions in the

partner countries.

This part will include a list of qualifications, not only specific to quality assurance, but also

applicable to a VET quality manager position. These qualifications will have been attained

under education and training and from working experience. The learning outcomes, from this

list of qualifications, will be assigned transferable credit units at a later stage in the project.


14

2.1. Part 1– Status of the introduction of EQARF Recommendation in the partner countries

For each country, Part 1 provides a short summary that contains the following information:

o developments at national level,

o legislation,

o regulatory and institutional arrangements,

o stakeholders’ involvement,

o methods and practices developed, and

o results and future trends.

2.1.1. Cyprus (Annex I)

This is a brief overview of the main developments in the area of Quality Assurance in

Vocational Education and Training in Cyprus, especially in relation to the adoption of current

European tools such as EQARF, EQF, ECVET etc.

Regarding the VET system, it is noted that Cyprus is steadily moving towards the

introduction of specific European tools and major work is being carried out towards the

development of a National Qualification System (NQF).

In Cyprus, the Ministry of Education and Culture (MoEC) and the Ministry of Labour and

Social Insurance (MLSI) are amongst the main players responsible for VET in Cyprus, along

with the Planning Bureau, the Ministry of Finance and the Human Resource Development

Authority (HRDA). HRDA is also working towards the development of a quality assurance

system for assessing and certifying training providers.

Regarding the European Qualification Framework for lifelong learning (EQF), a number of

systems have been introduced in the last few years and considerable progress has been

made, even though more concentrated effort is needed to promote these tools to the VET

community.

The development of an NQF system, to push for the recognition of academic and vocational

qualifications, is a government priority. Therefore, Cyprus is currently in the last stages of the

development of an overarching national qualifications framework (NQF), which will include

all types of qualifications, in line with the qualification framework for European Higher

Education Area (QF-EHEA) and the EQF for lifelong learning.


15

Moreover, the development of a competence-based system of vocational qualifications will

form an integral part of the developed NQF system

Cyprus is an active participant in the European Network for Quality Assurance in VET

(ENQA-VET) and has held a workshop on the Common Quality Assurance Framework

(CQAF), in order to promote its application.

Cyprus has also established a Quality Assurance in Vocational Education and Training

Reference Point that is charged with the development of ENQA-VET activities at national

level, including offering support for the implementation of ENQA-VET programmes and

disseminating information to other national stakeholders.

Furthermore, the European Credit System for Vocational Education and Training (ECVET) is

increasingly implemented in most EU countries, as part of the overall project for developing

European cooperation in the field of vocational education and training, making it one of its

operational tools. In this regard, ECVET complements EQF. The ECVET tool is being

implemented in Cyprus on a pilot basis through European co-funded projects.

Regarding Europass, the Cyprus Productivity Center (CPC), an institution under the MLSI,

has been appointed as the Cyprus National Europass Centre (NEC). CPC is responsible for

the coordination, management and promotion of all activities related to Europass and for the

provision of information regarding the Europass documents. Additionally, CPC is responsible

for cooperating with other organisations in the area of mobility and for the transparency of

qualifications.

As far as the National Academic Recognition Information Centres (NARIC) are concerned,

the appointed Cyprus Academic Recognition Information Centre is the “Cyprus Council for

the Recognition of Higher Education Qualifications”.

The legal framework regulating the provision of VET in Cyprus can be summarised in

several categories as follows:

o Those relating to pre-primary, primary, secondary education, secondary general and

secondary technical and vocational institutions, Nos: 5/71, 56/83, 123/85 and 154

(I)/99.

o Those relating to higher education include: Law 67 (I) 1997, Law 234 (Ι)/2002 relating

to the establishment of the Open University, Law No 198 (Ι)/2003 the founding of the

Technological University of Cyprus and law No 109 (I)/2005 regarding the formation of

the Council for Educational Assessment and Accreditation for overseeing quality and

the establishment of private universities.

There are two bodies responsible for quality assurance, accreditation and recognition in

Cyprus. These are: (1) The Cyprus Council for the Recognition of Higher Education

Qualifications (Κυπριακό Συµβούλιο Αναγνώρισης Τίτλων Σπουδών), an independent body

responsible for the recognition of diplomas awarded by higher education institutions, and (2)


16

The Council for Educational Assessment and Accreditation, (Συµβούλιο Εκπαιδευτικής

Αξιολόγησης και Πιστοποίησης) an independent body, that advises the Minister of Education

and Culture on issues concerning the establishment, control and operation of tertiary

education institutions in Cyprus.

The stakeholders involved in quality assurance in education and/or VET are the Ministry of

Education and Culture (MoEC), The Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance (MLSI), the

Human Resource Development Authority (HRDA) as well as social partners. It is worth told

that HRDA has launched the Assessment and Certification of Training Providers System

(ΑξιοΠιστοΣυν).

2.1.2. France (Annex II)

As far as Quality Assurance in Vocational Education and Training in France is concerned,

the Ministry of Education in France is the competent body defining strategies, policies,

framework and learning and teaching programs and ensures staff recruitment and

management of training activities. The Ministry is also responsible for Vocational education

at secondary level, including a national curriculum, exams and diplomas, recruitment,

training and other related activities.

Furthermore, the Department under the name “High Council for Evaluation” evaluates the

performance and activities of teachers, covering the field of secondary vocational training.

The French national framework is made up of the National Register for vocational

certification, conforming with the provisions set out in the French Education Code and the

French Labour Code. In recent years, France has taken many initiatives to introduce quality

criteria for its VET system.

Initial vocational training relies on competences shared between the French State (several

ministries are in charge of education, higher education, employment, agriculture, youth and

active solidarity, health and sports, social affairs, and culture), the Regions, the vocational

organizations and the social partners. The French State and the Regions are responsible for

implementing vocational training.

The National Register of Vocational Certification (RNCP) set up in 2002, under the terms of

the French Law of social modernization (dated 17/01/2002), continues on the work of an

earlier Committee, the Technical Homologation Committee (CTH). Τhe RNCP provides

legibility concerning the criteria and qualification indicators adopted by the French State. The

RNCP constitutes the reference tool for all players involved in the job/training area at


17

national and international levels and for public and private companies, by providing the

necessary legibility for the certification landscape in France.

The French Law (17 January 2002) confers on the CNCP (National committee for

professional certification) the responsibility for drawing up and updating the RNCP. CNCP

supervises the coherence, complementarities and renewal of diplomas and qualification

documents.

There are numerous certification systems in France. The certifying bodies involved are:

o The French State (and in particular the ministries for Education, higher education and

research, Employment, Agriculture, Youth and active solidarity, Health and Sports,

and Social affairs, together with the ministry for Culture concerning certain

qualification documents

o The social partners via the vocational branches;

o Public establishments, issuing certificates under their name;

o Private establishments, issuing certificates under their name;

o Consular establishments, i.e. establishments placed under the aegis of the chambers

of trade and crafts, the chambers of commerce and industry, and the farmers’

associations;

o The certifying institutions that have been authorized by any French ministry to issue

certifications

o Firms in their own name

2.1.3. Germany (Annex III)

The Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and the Standing Conference of

the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder (KMK), work together to

develop the German Qualifications’ Framework for Lifelong Learning (Deutscher

Qualifikationsrahmen, DQR).

As it concerns the European Quality Assurance Reference framework for Vocational

Education and Training (EQAVET), DEQA-VET, the German Reference Point for Quality

Assurance in Vocational Education and Training at the Federal Institute for Vocational

Education and Training (BIBB) has been established in Bonn, on behalf of Federal Ministry

of Education and Research (BMBF) which actively engages in networking VET actors and

institutions in Germany


18

Moreover the European Credit system for Vocational Education and Training (ECVET) is

currently being piloted in order to bring about the mutual comparability of the knowledge,

skills, and competencies acquired at different types of institutions in Germany. As far as

Europass is concerned, this was established in 2005 and in January 2007 it was placed

under the responsibility of the National Agency for Education for Europe at BIBB.

The legal framework regulating the provision of VET in Germany refers to the Vocational

Training Act (BBiG) that forms the basis for VET in Germany, as well as, the Continuing

Training Recognition and Admission Ordinance (AZWV).

The bodies responsible for quality assurance, accreditation and recognition in Germany are

the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and the Federal Institute

for Vocational Education and Training (BIBB).

The stakeholders involved in quality assurance in education and/or VET are the following:

o The German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF)

o The State Institute for School Quality and Educational Research (ISB)

Good practices refer to:

o the Quality management in vocational schools in Bavaria (QmbS)

o the Quality Assurance Systems in Germany (vocational schools), based on the quality

cycle

o the Quality Assurance in Adult Education (Adult Education Centres/VHS) whereby the

EFQM system being introduced in adult education sector was adapted to the needs of

institutions active in the field of adult and vocational education.

2.1.4. Greece (IV)

In Greece, the framework for Lifelong Learning is placed under the responsibility of the

Ministry of Education, Lifelong Learning and Religious Affairs and in particular under the

General Secretariat for Lifelong Learning, that acts as the executive authority for

Lifelong Learning in Greece.

The Hellenic Qualifications Framework has already been planned. The Hellenic Quality

Assurance Reference Point for EQAVET in Greece is the National Organisation for the

Certification of Qualifications and Vocational Guidance (EOPPEP). EOPPEP emerged from

the merger of the National Accreditation Centre for LLL providers (EKEPIS), the National

Organisation for Vocational Guidance (EKEP), and the National Organisation for the

Certification of Qualifications (EOPP) and it operates under the supervision of the Ministry of


19

Education, Lifelong Learning and Religious Affairs (Joint Ministerial Decision 119959/Η -

Official Governmental Gazette 2351/20-10-2011).

The law (Law Nr. 3879/2010) on Lifelong Learning that was voted by the Greek Parliament

in September 2010, sets the basis for the planning and implementation of a national holistic

strategy on lifelong learning and for the creation of the National Network of Lifelong Learning

(NNLL), which encompasses all LLL governing bodies and LLL service providers operating

under the auspices of different ministries.

The LLL policy and activities presented are implemented by the following LLL governing

bodies:

o General Secretariat for Lifelong Learning (GSLL)

o Regional LLL department units (Attica, Central Greece, Central Macedonia, East

Macedonia and Thrace, Western Greece, Western Macedonia, Epirus, Thessaly,

Ionian Islands, Crete, Peloponnese)

o Municipal LLL department units (Athens, Thessaloniki)

o National Organisation for the Certification of Qualifications and Vocational Guidance

(EOPPEP)

o National Centre for Public Administration and Local Government

There are also LLP providers by area such as the Ministry of Education, the General

Secretariat for Youth, the Youth and Lifelong Learning Foundation (INEDIVIM), the

Manpower Employment Organization (OAED) etc.

Moreover, the methods and good practices developed reflect the national strategy for

education aiming to increase the quantity, quality and efficiency of investment in human

capital in order to upgrade the Greek system of education and vocational training.

2.1.5. Poland (V)

The Polish VET system, for which the Minister of National Education is responsible, is

offered at upper-secondary and post-secondary, non-tertiary level of education. For higher

education level, VET is placed under the responsibility of the Minister of Science and Higher

Education.

The management and administration of the VET system in Poland is structured at three

levels: national (Ministries), partially regional (school superintendent – curator, mostly in the

area of pedagogical supervision), and district authorities (governing upper secondary

schools). The social partners are involved in the development of the VET system, by giving

their opinion on any changes planned to be introduced to VET.


20

Regarding any guidelines, both general and vocational, on assuring quality of education in

Poland, these are set in the following regulations:

o the regulation of the Minister of National Education of 7th October 2009 on

pedagogical supervision, (OJ of 9th October 2009);

o the regulation of the Minister of National Education and Sport of 20th December 2003

on accreditation of establishments and centres providing continuing education in the

out-of-school forms (OJ of 30th December 2003).

As far as other parties are involved with quality, the National Centre for Supporting

Vocational and Continuing Education (KOWEZiU) is a central, public, at national level

institution, subject to the Ministry of National Education. It provides professional

development services for teachers and gives support to the implementation actions and

initiatives related to VET. The Polish Quality Assurance National Reference Point was

established in KOWEZiU in September 2012.

Regarding methods and practices developed, a project co-financed by ESF, titled «A

vocational school, the school of a positive choice», was designed to develop «The quality

standards for vocational education», following the recommendation of the European

Parliament and the Council of 18 June 2009 on the establishment of a European reference

framework for quality assurance in education and training. The main objective of these

standards is to guide and support school headmasters and teachers in developing internal

quality assurance systems and preparing internal quality audits. The quality standards for

VET provide a comprehensive document covering all aspects of training. They are presented

in ten thematic areas and contain direct references to all legal acts regulating education and

training, including any changes made since September 2012. The document also identifies

the desired target status to be achieved in each thematic area. As a result, this tool supports

directors and teachers of VET schools/centres in the implementation of changes resulting

from the modernization of the VET system in Poland. It is acknowledged, that the said

standards are the national approach to implementing the EQARF / EQAVET initiative in

Poland. It is expected that “The quality standards for VET”, despite their current voluntary

use, will contribute to the improvement of quality in education in both IVET and CVET

schools and centres.

2.1.6. Sweden (VI)

The Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket) is the central administrative

authority for the Swedish public school system for children, young people and adults. The

Swedish Schools Inspectorate has been appointed as the national reference point in


21

Sweden (Quality Assurance National Reference Point, QANRP) conducting regular

supervision of all municipal and independent schools, from pre-school to adult education. At

advanced level the Authority for Advanced Vocational Education (KY) has the task of

assuring the quality of qualified training.

Concerning the development of Quality Assurance Management, the Swedish National

Agency for Higher Education evaluates the outcomes of courses and programmes.

A new quality assurance system started in January 2011. In Focus on knowledge — quality

in higher education (Government Bill 2009/10:139), the Government proposed changing the

direction of the national quality assurance system for higher education institutions,

strengthening the incentives for achieving high standards in the learning outcomes of study

programmes.

In Sweden, the parliament (Riksdagen) and government have legislative responsibility for

education. Respectively all public education comes under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of

Education and Research (Utbildningsdepartementet). The vast majority of vocational

education and training systems in Sweden fall under the responsibility of the Ministry of

Education and Research.

The School Inspectorate's core activities are conducted in five regional inspection

departments placed under the headquarters’ umbrella, consisting of a business support

section, an analysis and statistics secretariat, a legal secretarial and a communication

Secretariat. BEO, Child and School Student Representative, is a part of the Schools

Inspectorate, but they can also make independent decisions. ÖKN, The Board of Appeal for

Education, is an independent authority with the Schools Inspectorate's host agency.

As it concerns methods and good practices, supervisory and quality activities encompass

regular maintenance, notifications and quality control. The Swedish National Agency for

Education has also developed a tool named “BRUK” to support the assessment and

development of quality. The Swedish National Agency for Higher Education's quality

assurance policy has been developed in accordance with the European Network for Quality

Assurance's (ENQA).


2.1.7. Hungary (VII)

Under Hungary’s new structure of public administration, the Ministry for National Economy

(Hungarian name and abbreviation Nemzetgazdasági Minisztérium, NGM), is responsible for

VET and adult training. NGM is in charge of the VET content regulation and issues relating

to decrees with the consent of the Minister of Human Resources (Hungarian name and

abbreviation Emberi Eroforrás Miniszter, EMMI). Other ministries responsible for some of the

sectors are also involved in the development of VET content. The National Labour Office,

Directorate for VET and Adult Education (Hungarian name and abbreviation Nemzeti

Munkaügyi Hivatal, Szak- és Felnottképzési Igazgatóság, NMH SZFI) and the economic

chambers assist the NGM in this development. NMH, as the back-office of the Ministry for

National Economy, also gives support in the form of coordination, research, information and

counseling tasks related to VET and adult training.

The LLL policy and activities established are implemented by the following bodies:

o National Economic and Social Council (Hungarian name and abbreviation Nemzeti

Gazdasági és Társadalmi Tanács, NGTT) and the National Vocational and Adult

Training Council (Hungarian name and abbreviation Nemzeti Szakképzési és

Felnottképzési Tanács, NSZFT), serving as a forum for interest reconciliation

regarding strategic questions for VET (national level).

o Adult Training Accreditation Body (Hungarian name and abbreviation Felnottképzési

Akkreditáló Testület, FAT) performs tasks related to institution and programme

accreditation and quality assurance in adult training (national level). This body will

cease to exist in 2013 and will be replaced by a new procedure and committee on

licencing.

o County development and training committees (Hungarian name and abbreviation

megyei fejlesztési és képzési bizottságok, MFKBs) play an increasingly important role

in VET administration (prepare the county VET strategies, ensure the link between

school-based VET and labour market demands on county level etc.).

o Regionally integrated, vocational training centers’ objective (Hungarian name and

abbreviation térségi integrált szakképzo központ, TISZK) is to harmonise the regional

VET tasks to be executed by the state and the municipalities, to enhance the

efficiency of training and resource utilization, to optimize the performance of VET


23

tasks, as well as, to eliminate parallel training programmes and developments, and

assert the demands of the labour market for formal VET.

o Non-governmental organizations, such as the Hungarian Chamber of Commerce and

Industry (Hungarian name and abbreviation Magyar Kereskedelmi és Iparkamara,

MKIK) and the Hungarian Chamber of Agriculture (Hungarian name and abbreviation

Magyar Agrárkamara, MA), play a major role in the development of the professional

and examination requirements of OKJ qualifications (Hungarian name and

abbreviation szakmai és vizsgakövetelmények, SZVK), in the organization of

vocational examinations and in the quality assurance functions related to school-

based IVET (monitoring apprenticeship and other forms of practical training) etc.

Recently, using European and Hungarian funds, VET providers have introduced quality

assurance systems in keeping with the quality cycles of common European quality

assurance frameworks for VET, i.e. the Common Quality Assurance Framework (CQAF) and

the European Quality Assurance Reference Framework (EQAVET).

Hungary is among the first EU Member States to align, the already existing quality

assurance systems in the VET school system and adult training, with EQAVET. In the period

from 2009 to 2011, the Common Quality Management Framework for VET, an integrated

approach to quality management in the entire Hungarian VET sector (comprising school-

based VET, CVET, adult VET and higher level VET) compatible with EQAVET, was

developed and piloted with 1,100 VET providers. With this development, Hungary has made

a considerable step towards meeting the Strategic objective 2b of the Bruge Communiqué,

namely “Participating countries should – by the end of 2015 – establish at national level a

common quality assurance framework for VET providers, which also apply to associate

workplace learning and which is compatible with the EQAVET Framework”.


24

2.2. Part 2 – Relevant qualifications for the position of quality manager at VET institutions in the partner countries

2.2.1. General Quality Manager Profile

Quality managers help their organizations produce products and services of the highest

quality. Whether in health care, in retail or the manufacturing sector, VET quality managers

are called upon to ensure that companies produce the level of quality that their customers

are expecting.

Quality managers aim to establish the product or the service an organisation provides, is fit

for purpose, is homogeneous and meets both external and internal requirements. This

includes legal compliance and meeting customer expectations. Quality managers coordinate

the activities required to meet established quality standards. They monitor and advise on the

performance of the quality management system, gather data and report on performance

measured against the set standards. They liaise with other managers and staff throughout

the organisation to ensure that the quality system is functioning properly. Where appropriate,

the quality manager advises on changes and on their implementation and provides the

training, tools and techniques to enable others to achieve this standard of quality.

Education

• Typically quality managers have a bachelor's degree. Those who pursue further

education might earn an MBA with a major in project management. Having this

educational background helps quality assurance managers to know how to effectively

run procedures and protocols for quality control. Their education helps them use the

right techniques and processes for solving any problems in quality.

Management Experience

• QA managers must be qualified to lead and manage all aspects of the quality

assurance and control process for their organizations, as well as, train the workers

who report to them. A quality manager is expected to run programmes that ensure all

specifications for a product or service are met, and monitor progress and compliance

by conducting regular inspections. Leadership and management skills enable them to

maintain control and prepare employees to becoming accountable for the work they

produce.


Analytical Skills

• The nature of the job, requires quality assurance management to have the ability to

be observant and analytical. Quality managers must analyze data and procedures to

ensure compliance with established quality requirements.

Documentation

• Quality managers need to create and update numerous written reports and

documents outlining and detailing all planned goals, protocols, procedures,

processes, solutions and results relating to the implementation and monitoring of

quality assurance measures. This task requires that QA managers be able to

communicate effectively in writing, so that accurate records are produced and made

available for review by their QA staff and company administration.

A quality manager does:


27


3. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

3.1. ANALYTICAL TOOLS LOQUET has used two different tools for analysis in order to achieve the best possible

results. Among them we find primary and secondary sources of data. Questionnaires and

personal interviews were used to examine institutional and legal frameworks, as well as,

practices and needs of VET providers in the following consortium countries: Poland, Greece,

Cyprus, Sweden, Germany, Hungary and France.

3.2. Qualitative research This is an account of the descriptive study for Quality Assurance in VET in six of the

consortium countries, namely: Poland, Greece, Cyprus, Sweden, Germany and Hungary.

The study was a qualitative one involving interviews with a convenience sample of VET

Managers as well as Staff of Training Centres.

The aim of the study was to investigate national VET policies and implemented approaches

to quality assurance, in line with the EQAVET Reference Framework in each of the above

mentioned countries.

A sample of 5 Vocational Educational and Training Managers in each country, was invited to

take part in the study. Intercollege suggested sample sizes ranging from 5 (refs) to 10 (refs).

It was believed that the minimum group of 25 respondents would be able to supply varied

and detailed accounts for the purpose of this study.

All managers were interviewed by the researchers of each of the consortium country.

Interviews lasted between 30 and 45 minutes. All the data generated was placed under six

category headings.

3.3. Qualitative findings


29

This section presents the findings from the analysis of the interviews carried out in the six

countries. In total 27 interviews were conducted using the structured questionnaire below. In

interview mode, participants had the opportunity to expand on their answers, discuss and

give more information on each topic.

QUESTIONNAIRE:

A. Awareness Level

1. Are you familiar with the EQAVET quality assurance indicators?

B. Quality Assurance System

2. Do you apply any of the EQAVET principles at your organization? What kind of

evidence you can provide?

3. Which quality assurance principles do you use in your organization? (e.g. EQAVET,

ISO 9001, EFQM)

4. Do you follow certain QA standards required by the law?

5. Do you publish any issues related to the QA of your organization?

C. Training

6. Do your teachers/instructors get any kind of training regarding QA?

7. What is the annual budget allocated for training in your organization?

8. Does any of the training promote teachers and trainers’ ownership of quality

development in VET?

9. What is the percentage of teachers/instructors who have formal qualifications and/or

professional development?

10. Do these trainings respond to the changing VET demands of labour market?

D. Attractiveness of VET

11. What is the percentage of annual cohort (learners) completing lower secondary

school/compulsory education participating in IVET programmes at upper secondary

level (which lead to a formal qualification) in your organization? (if any)

12. What is the percentage of active population (15-74 years old) entering CVET

programmes (which lead to recognition) in your organization? (If any)

13. What is the percentage of VET drop-outs annually in your organization?


30

E. Utilisation of acquired skills at the work place

14. What mechanisms do you provide to your students so that they can get a job?

15. What mechanisms do you have to evaluate and/or assess employers’ satisfaction, by

the programme completers?

16. What mechanisms do you use a) to identify the training needs of your

teachers/instructors and b) to align the VET programmes to the future labour market

needs?

F. Demographics

17. What is your position at the organization?

18. How long have you been holding the current position at the organisation?

19. Do you hold any management degree or hold a QA qualification?

Interview participants by country:

The number of interviews carried out in each country was as follows:

Cyprus, 2 interviews (7.4%)

Greece, 5 interviews submitted in one summarized report (18.5%)

Poland, 5 interviews (18.5%)

Sweden, 5 interviews (18.5%)

Hungary, 5 interviews (18.5%)

Germany, 5 interviews submitted in one summarized report (18.5%)

Total, 27 interviews (100%)


31

In the analysis that follows, information collected from each question is presented and

results are grouped. If it was deemed necessary, individual answers were highlighted.


Most of the respondents (67%) stated that they are familiar with the EQAVE quality

indicators. However, in their answers many respondents mentioned that they are not well-

informed about the indicators and/or do not apply them. In Germany out of the five

participants only one mentioned that they are familiar with the EQAVET principles.

2. Do you apply any of the EQAVET principles at your organization? What kind of evidence can you provide?

The majority of respondents for most countries could not provide any evidence that the

EQAVET principles are applied at their organizations. The few mentions of evidence (8)

seem to derive from reports produced because of regulations on national QA policies. The

replies are in compliance with the previous question where respondents claimed to be

familiar with the indicators but at the same time mentioned they did not use them. The one

exemption was the respondents from Hungary. Four out of five respondents said that they

use a number of EQAVET principles/indicators especially in regards to self-evaluation. One

of the Hungarian respondents mentioned “After having prepared the national adaptation of

European Quality Assurance Reference Framework for Vocational Education and Training

(Unified Quality Assurance Framework for VET and the Unified Model of Self-Assessment),

we made an institutional self-assessment in 2011”.

3. Which quality assurance principles do you use in your organization? (e.g. EQAVET, ISO 9001, EFQM)

Only some interviewees from Greece and Hungary remarked as applying EQAVET

principles. One of the Hungarian respondents mentioned regarding the quality system they

“The Unified Quality Assurance Framework’s Unified Self-Assessment Model for VET is

based on EFQM”.

Almost half of the respondents mentioned that they use the ISO quality system. It is noted

that one interviewee from Sweden stated that they use internal and external quality audits. In

Germany, the quality assurance indicators used most frequently by the respondents included


32

the ISQ, EFQM, ISO 9001 and the qualifications and evaluation of the Bavarian ministry of

education and cultural affairs.

4. Do you follow certain QA standards required by the law?

The answers seem to be split in three groups. In the first group respondents from Cyprus,

Poland and Germany seem to have stringent national quality laws which they follow. In the

other group respondents from Greece and Hungary answered that no national Quality

standards exist so these are used on a voluntary basis. Finally respondents from Sweden

were a bit divided. Three respondents said that they follow national standards while two

gave a negative answer. Also here it is important to add that some respondents from

Hungary and Germany mentioned that they follow quality standards from different projects

and programmes.

5. Do you publish any issues related to the QA of your organization?

It does not appear that publishing any data on QA issues is a widespread practice in most

consortium countries other than in Germany and Hungary. One interviewee from Poland

declared that they publish reports on QA at their organization. Three of the Swedish

interviewees hinted at information published but only for internal use. In Germany all of the

respondents agreed that they publish issues related to the quality assurance of the

organization by using the means of mailings, team meetings and certifications. In Hungary

two of the respondents said that results from QA surveys are published on the organization’s

website.

6. Do your teachers/instructors get any kind of training regarding QA?

Interviewees from Sweden mentioned that their organizations have manuals available for

their operations but they did not specify any kind of training on these. Interviewees from

Poland remarked that any training is done at national level and therefore it is not specific to

their teachers/instructors. Similarly, Cypriot interviewees claimed that training is happening

as and when needed. In contrast, replies from the Greek participants indicated that three out

of the five organisations provide QA training, but no further information is available. In

Hungary four out of five respondents indicated that current budgetary concerns prohibit them

from offering such training at the moment. In Germany, four of the VET managers said that

their teachers / instructors receive some kind of training regarding quality assurance through

the means of workshops, team meetings, internal evaluations and reflections. Four of the


33

VET managers said that the training promotes the teachers’ and trainers’ ownership of

quality development in VET.

7. What is the annual budget allocated for training in your organization?

Regarding budgets for training, many of interviewees were not in a position to give a specific

sum allocated. Additionally, none of them described any mechanism they knew of for such a

budget allocation, e.g. as a percentage of staff cost. In fact, most of them listed that the

budget is minimal or non-existent. From the interview discussions, it appears that in some

countries, staff has access to national grants for training and/or use personal funds. The

exception was respondents from Hungary which all of them were able to list an amount or

range either that was available in the past but not at the moment due to budgetary concerns

(1 respondent) or that is available from different projects. The amounts vary from 1,000

Euros to 26,000 per year for the whole organization. In Germany, the responders replied that

the budget allocated for such training varies depending on the numbers of participants and

the needs of the training, but two institutions said that they have about 1000 Euros available

for training.

8. Does any of the training promote teachers and trainers’ ownership of quality development in VET?

Following from the previous question, it appears that training in general is not a priority for

these organisations. Therefore, in reply to the above question, participants mostly gave

negative answers or stated that they were not sure. Very few of the interviewees mentioned

informal discussion of the issues only.

9. What is the percentage of teachers/instructors who have formal qualifications and/or professional development?

Almost all participants interviewed stated that 100% of their teachers/instructors have formal

qualifications and/or professional development. Only two respondents stated that on

average 70%-75% only have formal qualifications and/or professional development.

10. Do these trainings respond to the changing VET demands of labour market?

Interviewees from Cyprus, Hungary and one Polish interviewee were the only ones to either

not reply to this question (Cyprus) or reply negatively. In Hungary two out of five respondents


34

responded negatively. One respondent noted “Absolutely not, and thus that is a big problem

that the students do not get the appropriate and up-to-date knowledge.

All other interviewees claimed that trainings do respond to the changing VET demands of the

labour market. In Germany and Sweden and Greece all participants agreed that the training

responds to the changing VET demands of the labour market and one responded by saying

it is authentic and practice oriented. However, no further evidence of this was offered.

11. What is the percentage of annual cohort (learners) completing lower secondary

school/compulsory education participating in IVET programmes at upper

secondary level (which lead to a formal qualification) in your organization? (if any)

In Germany, the percent of annual cohort completing lower secondary school participating in

IVET programmes at the upper secondary level which leads to a formal qualification was

zero percent by two respondents. In Poland was 50% for Poland while in Cyprus was 100%

for Cyprus. In Hungary the results ranged from 44% to 100%.

12. What is the percentage of active population (15-74 years old) entering CVET programmes (which lead to recognition) in your organization? (If any)

This question was answered very poorly by participants. For example in Germany, none of

the participants answered this question. Overall, the majority of responders were not in a

position to give any information on this. Possibly, in-depth knowledge of the national data on

this would have been helpful in order for interviewees to be in a position to give

comprehensive and reliable answers. In Greece the overall ranged was 100%. In Hungary

all of the respondents replied – their answers ranged from 0% to 66%.

13. What is the percentage of VET drop-outs annually in your organization?

Respondents from all consortium countries claimed that drop-outs were at a very small

percentage. Answers varied from 0% to 20%. In Germany, the percentage of drop-outs

annually in regards to three individual institutions ranged from three-to-ten percent while

two responders did not reply.

14. What mechanisms do you provide to your students so that they can get a job?


35

The interviewees mentioned a variety of mechanisms that they provide to students in

assisting them to find jobs. The most common mechanism mentioned was keeping in close

contact with employers and creating a network for their students. Mechanisms mentioned

also included:

• Apprenticeship;

• Posting job vacancies;

• Job fairs;

• Coaching on job interviews;

• Practical workshops on CV writing, job hunting, setting up a business, etc.; and

• Personal networking.

15. What mechanisms do you have to evaluate and/or assess employers’ satisfaction, by the programme completers?

In comparison to the previous question, it seems that interviewees in most partner countries

have not done well in setting up mechanisms to assess employers’ satisfaction. The majority

do not have in place any formal mechanism to collect this information. At best, they contact

employers and have informal discussions. One interviewee mentioned that they find it

difficult to gather this data because estimations of satisfaction seem to vary greatly which

does not result to any useful conclusions. On the contrary all of the responders in Germany

stated that they use some kind of mechanism to evaluate and /or assess employers’

satisfaction of those completing the programmes. The use evaluation systems and feedback

from the employers visit the employers and receive GAO formula feedback. Some of this is

conducted face-to-face other times it may require written materials to collect evaluations.

16. What mechanisms do you use a) to identify the training needs of your

teachers/instructors and b) to align the VET programmes to the future labour market needs?

Regarding the first part of this question, the majority of respondents mentioned having

informal discussions with their teachers/instructors in order to identify training needs. Greek

& Hungarian participants also mentioned evaluating courses and using the results to identify

future courses needed. Some Hungarian and one of the Polish interviewees mentioned that

training needs derive from law regulations depending on the professional requirements and

suggestions by the Ministry of Education. In Germany, in order to identify the training needs

of teachers / instructors and to update the VET offers to the future labour market, VET


36

managers consider the individual needs of each subject and course and look at the

expectations. Sometimes this may require a new course syllabus. They also take a look at

the job market and the lawful standards that relate to certain programmes.

Regarding the second part of this question, a number of interviewees mentioned following

developments in the labour market and holding regular development meetings to discuss

these developments. Some countries like Poland, Sweden and Hungary mentioned

government published data as a main source for predicting future labour market needs. One

respondent from Hungary stated, The Self-evaluation model has a well-built indicator system

which reflects and mod»ifies the supply. The central Governmental Statute also contains the

scarce professional areas. The QA staff of the institute also checks the number of applicants

to each faculty year by year, and also asks the practice areas about their opinion: 1) what is

appropriate, 2) what is unnecessary, 3) what is missing and 4) what would be useful in the

future».

17. What is your position at the organization?

The interviewees came from a variety of backgrounds all involved in VET. Specifically the

positions listed were as follows:

• College director or school manager, 14 persons

• Education/Academic officer, 2 person

• Training center manager/VET manager, 4 person

• ICT teacher, Quality Assurance leader, 1 person

• School spokesperson, 1 person

• Consultant trainers, 2 persons

• VET teacher, 2 persons

• Manager for industry programmes, 1 person

Total, 27 respondents

18. How long have you been holding the current position at the organisation?

The answers varied with most people having over 7-10 years of experience. The shortest

period a respondent has been on the job was for 15 months while the longest time was for

22 years.

19. Do you hold any management degree or hold a QA qualification?


37

Only one of the interviewees holds a QA certification and another one has completed over

150 hours in Quality Assurance in VET development. Five respondents hold management or

educational management degree. The interviewees had a range of qualifications including a

PhD in chemistry, and a Masters in Art. One participant from Cyprus mentioned being an ex-

member of the ENQA-VET network and EQAVET.


3.4. Quantitative research findings

This report is based on findings from a survey carried out in each consortium country,

namely Poland, Cyprus, Germany, Greece, Sweden, Hungary and France. All numerical

data was collected from questionnaires administered by Intercollege. The overall objective of

this quantitative research was to identify the national requirements and practices for Quality

Assurance in VET especially in relation to the EQAVET framework.

In total 109 questionnaires were completed. The questionnaire used was of approximately

15 minutes in length and was jointly developed by Intercollege (see Appendix 1).

The target audience for this research was Vocational Education Training (VET) staff,

members and managers. As already mentioned, all the data generated was placed under six

category headings.

3.4.1. Quantitative findings

The information that follows give the results from the 109 completed questionnaires. The

questionnaires were submitted by the countries as follows:

Cyprus, 4 questionnaires

France, 14 questionnaires

Germany, 11 questionnaires

Greece, 20 questionnaires

Hungary, 20 questionnaires

Poland, 20 questionnaires

Sweden, 20 questionnaires

Total, 109 questionnaires


3.4.1.1. Awareness level


3.4.1.2. Quality Assurance System

2. Which supervisory authorities regulate the VET system in your country?

50% 48%

2%


Yes

No

Don't Know / No Answer


40

28%

3% 12%

3%

9%

3%

9%

21%

3% 3% 3% 3%

2.1. Which supervisory authori@es regulate the VET system in your country?

YH-‐myndigheten

Skolverket

VET Authority

VocaKonal educaKon organizaKon

Human Resurce Development Authority and Ministry of EducaKon and Culture

55%

6% 5%

1%

3%

3%

2%

2%

2%

2%

13% 6%

2.2. Which supervisory authori@es regulate the VET system in your country?


Ministry of EducaKon

Government and Ministry of EducaKon


3. Do you use any of the following in your organization: a. EQAVET b. ISO 9001 c. EFQM

4. Do you have a Quality Assurance System at your organisation?

9%

42%

6% 5%

26%

12%

3. Do you use any of the following:

EQAVET

ISO 9001

EFQM

EQAVET & ISO 9001


None of the above / Other

X


42

5. Is there a Quality Assurance manager at your organisation?

3.4.1.3. Training

6. What is the percentage of teachers and trainers that participate in further education in your organization?

68%

31%

1%

4. Do you have a Quality Assurance System at your Organisation?

Yes

No


71%

28%

1%

5. Is there a Quality Assurance Manager at your Organiza@on?

Yes

No



43

7. Do you have a budget allocated for training for your staff members?

24%

19%

21%

35%

1%

6. What is the percentage of teachers and trainers that par@cipate in further

educa@on?

<25%

25-‐50%

51-‐75%

>75%


68%

31%

1%



44

8. Do your teachers/trainers participate in training programmes related to Quality assurance?

3.4.1.4. Attractiveness of VET

9. What is the size of cohorts (students) in your organization in the last 3 years? (approximately)

58%

40%

2%

8. Do your teachers/trainers par@cipate in training programmes related to Quality

Assurance?

Yes

No



45

24%

12%

6% 6% 8%

22%

22%

9.1. What is the size of cohorts for the period 2010-‐2011?

0-‐100

101-‐200

201-‐300

301-‐400

401-‐500

500<


24%

15%

6% 7% 7%

21%

20%


0-‐100

101-‐200

201-‐300

301-‐400

401-‐500

>500



46

10. What is the percentage of students completing a VET programme in your organization?

30%

14%

10% 7% 6%

18%

15%


0-‐100

101-‐200

201-‐300

301-‐400

401-‐500

>500


11%

30%

52%

7%

10. What is the percentage of students comple@ng a VET programme?

<50%

50-‐75%

75-‐100%



47

11. What is the percentage of students acquiring a formal qualification in your

organization?

3.4.2. Utilisation of acquired skills at the work place

12. What is the percentage of your students that are placed in work places for practicum,

during their studies?

21%

31%

40%

8%

11. What is the percentage of students acquiring a formal qualifica@on in your

organiza@on?

<50%

50-‐75%

75-‐100%


20%

19% 57%

4%

12. What is the percentage of students that are placed in work places for prac@cum,

during their studies?

<50%

50-‐75%

75-‐100%



48

13. What is the percentage of your students that get a job after completion of their studies?

14. What is the percentage of VET programme completers working in a relevant to their programme, occupation?

31%

39%

23%

7%

13. What is the percentage of students that get a job aWer comple@on of their studies?

<50%

50-‐75%

75-‐100%


38%

36%

19% 7%

14. What is the percentage of VET programme completers working in relevant

to their programme, occupa@on?

<50%

50-‐75%

75-‐100%



49

15. Do you get feedback from employers regarding their satisfaction/dissatisfaction of the VET programme completers, as per their skills and competences acquired during their studies?

16. Do you provide your VET programme completers any assistance regarding their employability?

58%

40%

2%

15. Do you get feedback from employers regarding their sa@sfac@on/dissa@sfac@on of the VET programme completers, as per their skills and competences acquired during their

studies?

Yes

No


70%

26% 4%

16. Do you provide your VET programme completers any assistance regarding their

employability?

Yes

No



50

17. Do you have any mechanisms to identify training needs in the labour market?

18. Do you provide access to VET training to disadvantaged groups?

3.4.2.1. Demographics

19. Are you a registered VET provider?

60%

37%

3%

17. Do you have any mechanisms to iden@ty training needs in labour market?

Yes

No


56%

43%

1%

18. Do you provide access to VET training, to disadvantaged groups?

Yes

No



51

20. What is the year of your organization’s establishment?

21. How many teachers/trainers do you employ?

91%

8%

1%


Yes

No


16% 1%

6%

6%

12%

23%

22%

1% 13%

20. What is the year of your organiza@on's establishment?

1940-‐1950

1951-‐1960

1961-‐1970

1971-‐1980

1981-‐1990

1991-‐2000

2001-‐2010

2011-‐Today

Before 1940


52

22. How many VET programmes do you offer?

26%

17%

22%

5%

6%

6%

18%


0-‐10

11-‐20

21-‐30

31-‐40

41-‐50

51-‐60

61<

50%

18%

7%

11%

2% 1%

6% 5%


0-‐5

6-‐10

11-‐15

16-‐20

21-‐25

26-‐30

31<



53

3.5. Conclusions

Having analyzed the findings from the administered questionnaires, it is noted that although

at a government level EQAVET has been adopted by all seven consortium countries - the

degree of adoption though varies as shown by the individual country reports – in practice

only 50% of the VET institutions surveyed stated that they are familiar with the EQAVET

principles, while 48% state unfamiliarity with the EQAVET principles and framework (Chart

1). In Chart 3, it is shown that although the majority of the VET organizations applies some

quality principles only 9% use the EQAVET framework while the majority 42% uses the ISO

system, which seems to be the quality system of preference by the VET institutions

surveyed. In addition, the majority of institutions 68% stated that they have a quality

assurance system at their organization, while 71% stated that they have a quality manager

at their organization although no further information is available about the exact duties and

responsibilities of the quality manager. It is also important to note that the majority of the

VET managers that participated in this survey work in registered, well-established VET

institutions, where 21-30+ teachers-trainers are employed, offering on average five VET

programmes.

When it comes to the training budget available for staff training regarding further education,

68% have respondent that there is such budget available (Chart 7) even though the

percentage of teachers and trainers continuing with further education varies (Chart 6). On

the other hand 40% of the VET institutions stated that their teachers/trainers do not

participate in any training programmes related to quality assurance (Chart 8). According to a

definition by the CEDEFOP, Quality Assurance in VET is delivered through "activities

ensuring that education and training meet the quality requirements expected by

stakeholders" (Glossary Quality in education and training, 2011).

A further analysis into key quality indicators reveals a number of common practices between

the VET systems in the countries surveyed. For example the majority of the VET institutions

surveyed seem to place a lot of emphasis on assisting their students/learners finding a job.

For example 70% of the VET institutions offer some form of employability assistance to their

students/learners while 57% of the VET students/learners are placed for practicum during

their studies (Chart 16 & Chart 12 respectively). Even though interviewees did not define

what kinds of employment services are offered, it appears from the Qualitative results in the


54

previous section of this report that a procedure similar to job counseling is at place. It is

further noted that the majority of students/learners who complete their qualification

programme find a job after the completion of their studies and the majority of them find a job

in a field relevant to their qualification programme (Chart 13 & 14). In a time of economic

hardship for many of the countries surveyed, employability is one of the most critical

economic factors for both Member States and the European Union at large and such

practices constitute key practices for upgrading the services of VET institutions in general

while helping with the economic recovery of the Members States. The fact that the VET

institutions surveyed already employ such practices is very positive and one can expect that

further familiarity and engagement with the EQAVET principles and indicators will further

highlight the importance of such practices. Another related key indicator is that the majority

of institutions 60% have stated that they have a mechanism to identify the training needs of

the labour market (Chart 17). It is therefore safe to state, that the VET programs

implemented by the majority of the VET organizations surveyed are directly linked to the

labour market, supporting the development of lifelong learning strategies at European and

national level, while further improving access to the labour market.

Charts 10 & 11 indicate that although the majority of students/learners at the VET

organizations surveyed complete their VET programme and acquire a formal qualification,

about 20% of the VET institutions stated that less than 50% of the students/learners acquire

a formal qualification. Based on the survey results it is not possible to draw any conclusions

regarding the reasons as to why these students do not obtain formal qualifications, however

it is recommended that a new survey investigates these reasons so rectifying actions can be

made.

Finally, although the majority of VET institutions surveyed 56% stated tat they offer VET

programmed for disadvantaged groups on the other hand about 43% do not offered such

programmes, an indicator that must be investigated further as to the reasons why and what

can be done so as more VET institutions offer programmed fro disadvantaged groups.

Summing up, Quality Assurance and VET are at the core of the new strategy proposed by

the European Commission namely Rethinking Education. It encourages Member States to

take action for reforms in education so that VET becomes a more attractive and a higher

quality learning option, providing young people with ways to gain the right skills in order to

find appropriate jobs and providing adults with an opportunity to update the skills they will

need throughout their working lives.


55

The importance of high quality education and training as the essential drivers of economic

recovery is reflected in the recently published Commission Communication Rethinking

Education report, which invites Member States to promote excellence in VET in cooperation

with the Social Partners by developing quality-assured VET systems with a strong work-

based learning component. These concerns are at the centre of the EQAVET work

programme for 2013-2015 which supports Member States in developing responses to the

strategic objectives of the Bruges Communiqué and builds and monitors effective quality

assurance approaches, deepening and strengthening the culture of quality assurance across

the continuum of lifelong learning. The EQAVET Framework is designed to promote VET by

supplying authorities and VET providers with shared tools for the management of quality in

VET.

The results of this survey clearly show that the Member States represented here i.e. Poland,

Greece, Cyprus, Sweden, Germany, Hungary and France, need to intensify their efforts in

informing the national VET institutions about the EQAVET quality principles and indicators.

Quality gains for both the national VET system as well as the individual VET providers can

be expected from the adoption of the EQAVET framework which will further aid the VET

students/learners by offering them higher quality and better targeted training and eventually

be spread to the economy and society at large.


56

Appendix 1

Questionnaire – Vocational Education Training (VET) Staff Members/Managers (Quantitative Research)

Note: Insert ‘X’ next to the box.

A. Awareness level


Yes

No

B. Quality Assurance System

2. Which supervisory authorities regulate the VET system in your country?

3. Do you use any of the following in your organization:

a. EQAVET b. ISO 9001 c. EFQM

4. Do you have a Quality Assurance System at your organisation?

Yes

No

X

X

X


57

5. Is there a Quality Assurance manager at your organisation?

Yes

No

C. Training

6. What is the percentage of teachers and trainers that participate in further education in your organization?

a. <25% b. 25-50% c. 51-75% d. >75%


Yes

No

8. Do your teachers/trainers participate in training programmes related to Quality assurance?

Yes

No

D. Attractiveness of VET

9. What is the size of cohorts (students) in your organization in the last 3 years? (approximately)


58

a. 2010-2011 ………………………….. b. 2011-2012 ………………………….. c. 2012-2013 …………………………..

10. What is the percentage of students completing a VET programme in your organization?

a. <50% b. 50-75% c. 75-100%

11. What is the percentage of students acquiring a formal qualification in your organization?

a. <50% b. 50-75% c. 75-100%

E. Utilisation of acquired skills at the work place

12. What is the percentage of your students that are placed in work places for practicum, during their studies?

a. <50% b. 50-75% c. 75-100%

13. What is the percentage of your students that get a job after completion of their studies?

a. <50% b. 50-75% c. 75-100%


59

14. What is the percentage of VET programme completers working in a relevant to their programme, occupation?

a. <50% b. 50-75% c. 75-100%

15. Do you get feedback from employers regarding their satisfaction/dissatisfaction of the VET programme completers, as per their skills and competences acquired during their studies?

Yes

No

16. Do you provide your VET programme completers any assistance regarding their employability?

Yes

No

17. Do you have any mechanisms to identify training needs in the labour market?

Yes

No

If yes, state which one/s:

18. Do you provide access to VET training to disadvantaged groups?

Yes

No

If yes, state how:


60

F. Demographics


Yes

No

20. What is the year of your organization’s establishment?




61

ANNEXES National Country Reports:

I. Cyprus II. France III. Germany IV. Greece V. Poland VI. Sweden VII. Hungary

WP2 Synthesis Report Intercollege FINAL November 2013

Documents

Transcript of WP2 Synthesis Report Intercollege FINAL November 2013