# EUR-Lex - 52014DC0030 - EN

*|*

# 52014DC0030

**REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the 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 /* COM/2014/030 final */**

			*

			*

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

on the implementation of the
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

(Text with EEA relevance)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1........... Introduction.................................................................................................................. 3

2........... Achievements in quality
assurance for vocational education and training................... 4

2.1........ Quality assurance mechanisms at
VET system level.................................................... 4

2.2........ Quality assurance mechanisms at
VET provider level.................................................. 5

3........... Challenges to be overcome........................................................................................... 7

3.1........ EQAVET contribution to
transparency in VET........................................................... 7

3.2........ Governance................................................................................................................... 8

4........... Conclusions and next steps........................................................................................... 8

4.1........ Evaluative conclusions.................................................................................................. 8

4.2........ Completing EQAVET.................................................................................................. 9

4.3........ Beyond EQAVET...................................................................................................... 10

1.           Introduction

In order to exit the economic crisis Europe needs smart growth[1],
which requires better skilled people. The Cedefop forecasts confirm that the
demand for low skilled will decrease, while the demand for higher skills will
increase, and the highest demand will be for medium skilled people[2].

In this context, vocational education and
training (VET), has a crucial role to play as highlighted in a series of recent
strategy papers of the Commission. Despite the strong political focus that has
been put on VET, the challenges are still significant: increasing its
attractiveness, embedding stronger work based learning, enhancing labour market
relevance, developing stronger career and education guidance, implementing
teachers and trainers professional development, and improving recognition and
transparency of VET learning outcomes between countries and across different
education pathways.

Quality assurance (QA) has an important
role in addressing these challenges, in particular overcoming skills mismatches
and improving employability of young people so that a shared understanding of
VET excellence can finally emerge, facilitating mutual recognition of learning
acquired in various countries and thus enabling more mobility and a better
response to economic and societal challenges.

This is the first report on progress of
quality assurance in VET in the European Union, following the adoption of the
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[3] (hereafter the EQAVET
Recommendation). It summarises the experience gained and presents the
Commission proposals for the way ahead.

The EQAVET recommendation establishes a
reference instrument to help Member States to promote and monitor continuous
improvement of VET systems. The framework should contribute to quality
improvement in VET and to increased transparency of, and consistency in, VET
policy developments between Member States, thereby promoting mutual trust,
mobility of workers and learners, and lifelong learning.

The framework comprises a cycle of four
phases (planning, implementation, evaluation and review); each supported by
quality criteria and indicative descriptors[4],
to be applied at the VET-system, provider and qualification awarding levels. It
provides a systemic approach to quality and gives strong emphasis to monitoring
and improving quality by combining internal and external evaluation, review and
other processes for improvement, supported by measurement and qualitative
analysis.

The framework should be regarded as a
"toolbox", from which the various users may choose those elements
that they consider most relevant to their specific systems. The indicators proposed
for measuring VET quality improvement concern data such as investment in
training of teachers and trainers, participation, completion and placement rate
in VET programmes, utilization of acquired skills at work place, unemployment
rate, prevalence of vulnerable groups, mechanisms to identify training needs in
the labour market and schemes used to promote access to VET.

The Recommendation invited Member States to
devise a national approach aimed at improving quality assurance systems at
national level, designate a Quality Assurance National Reference Point (NRP)
and participate in the European network (EQAVET network).

2.           Achievements
in quality assurance for vocational education and training

2.1.        Quality
assurance mechanisms at VET system level

VET excellence at system level implies a strategy
of continued skills development, targeting high quality learning outcomes,
mobility, mutual recognition and permeability, as well as putting in place
evidence based policies which improve effectiveness and efficiency of the
system; it also implies cooperation and co-investment and integrating VET in
the general education and training system[5].

According to the results of the EQAVET
secretariat survey[6]
and of the external evaluation[7],
more than 20 countries have consolidated their quality assurance approaches and
EQAVET has directly contributed to shape the national system in 14 countries
(BG, CZ, EL, HU, HR, MT, RO, FYROM, and BE fr, ES, IT, LV, LT, SI where reforms
are underway). The majority of approaches cover both initial VET[8] and continuing VET[9], and mostly publicly
funded, institutional provision. Some countries already had EQAVET compatible
approaches and therefore did not need to significantly modify these.

As of today most EU national education and
training systems have quality standards for VET providers[10] which are mainly used
as a condition for funding, accreditation and/or are required as part of
legislation.

Almost all Member States collect data to
improve effectiveness and efficiency of their systems and have devised for this
appropriate data collection methodologies e.g. questionnaires and
indicators/metrics. However, this does not automatically mean that processes
are regularly reviewed and that action plans for change are devised, as the
survey shows that only about a third of the countries always carry out regular
reviews and devise action plans. In most cases Member States publish
information on the outcomes of available evaluations[11].

As regards the use of indicators, practices
across countries are quite varied. While some indicators appear to be used by a
majority of Member States (e.g. participation and completion rate in VET
programmes) other key outcome oriented indicators, such as 'utilisation of
skills at the workplace' or 'share of employed learners at a designated point
in time after completion of training' are less used, even though they could
provide key evidence on how to ensure a better alignment with labour market
needs. In general, these indicators are the ones for which data are the most
difficult to retrieve.

According to a recent survey among the
National Reference Points for EQAVET, 75 % of them would find it useful to
increase EU cooperation with the view to working towards benchmarking
conditions using one or more EQAVET indicators[12].

The same survey notes that EQAVET indicative
descriptors are used for quality management in 22 systems of initial VET. The
external evaluation mentions the difficulty of comparing national QA measures
with the EQAVET descriptors because the descriptors are very general and often
cover aspects that are not covered by specific QA measures but feature rather
in VET policies and policy-making approaches.[13]
However this global approach also helps to move away from the toolbox approach
towards a quality improvement culture.

A VET system of high quality is also
facilitating continuing skills development, mobility and permeability between
VET and higher education (HE). Around half of the countries claim that quality
assurance in their VET systems does help to gain access to higher education
through different mechanisms: quality assured VET qualifications are either
recognised as a normal entry qualification to HE (e.g. IE, NL) or have a double
status, educational and vocational (e.g. PT). However, this also points to the
fact that in many countries permeability is still just an objective and
significant efforts need to be made to put this into practice.

The vast majority of countries have
established mechanisms and procedures to identify training needs in Initial
(IVET) and most of them do have such mechanisms also for Continuing VET (CVET)[14]. However, an in-depth
analysis is needed to assess the efficiency of such systems, their synergies
with the EU Skills Panorama[15]
and whether the involvement of the professional field (in particular
professional organisations and enterprises) occurs in a
collaborative/deliberative way[16]
as this has proven to be important for designing high quality learning outcome
based qualifications answering labour market needs.

2.2.        Quality
assurance mechanisms at VET provider level

High-quality learning support and teachers
and trainers, and efficient leadership by a skilled school leader are all
important factors, but VET providers are better at delivering excellent VET
also when there are strategic linkages and networking with the broader economic
community at regional, national and international level.[17]

Most countries do have or are in the
process of acquiring a common quality assurance framework for VET providers
that would be compatible with the European reference framework for quality
assurance in VET. Almost all countries have in place statutory external
evaluation of VET providers, while 22 countries[18] require VET providers
to have internal quality-assurance mechanisms and in further six countries (BE
fr, BG, FR, IT, LT, SK) this is voluntary but encouraged.

The most frequent form of external review
is inspection. In general these are schools inspection services and cover both
IVET and general education. There are other forms of external evaluation used, but
most typically in CVET and there are less common in IVET. For example some Länder
in Germany require providers to implement quality management systems such as
Q2E, EFQM, QZS or ISO 9001. Malta requires providers to undergo quality audits
by external experts. Some countries have specific quality assurance or
evaluation agencies, e.g. in the Flemish Community of Belgium, the Agency for
quality assurance in education and training covers the whole education and
training except higher education, the Danish evaluation institute – covering
the whole of the education system, and the Spanish National Institute for
evaluation of education and training.

In many countries legislation requires VET
providers to evaluate systematically their activities, as well as the quality
and effectiveness of the training they offer. In BG, HR, the CZ, DK, EE, HU,
RO, SI and SK this includes mandatory self-assessment reports and plans for
improvement that inform external evaluations. Although not mandatory,
self-assessment is widely used by IVET providers in Austria.

A key rationale for self-assessment at
provider level is the development of a culture of quality within education and
training institutions. There are also positive effects in terms of
accountability and governance of VET providers, who are made responsible for
delivery of quality outcomes. Since the context of each VET provider is
different, self-assessment enables each organisation to develop a framework and
a set of measures that are suitable to its context and reality.

There is great variety of practices
regarding internal review in the Member States. Some countries require VET
providers to focus the internal review on specific areas of activities. Others
give no guidance as to how quality assurance should be undertaken, while
several countries have developed manuals, methodologies or web-sites to support
this process[19].
Some countries have in place a form of peer review/learning among VET
providers, in most of the cases based on a European methodology developed under
a Leonardo da Vinci project[20].

In general VET providers tend to make less
use of the descriptors than is evident at system level[21]. VET providers often
go through an accreditation[22]
and external or internal reviews process, but widespread use of the EQAVET
cycle is not common. This shows that there is still room for improvement in
reaching the VET provider level, notably through multipliers. In that sense the
EQAVET projects could serve as good practices. As an example, the Maltese
QA-VET project resulted in guidelines for VET institutions to apply the
indicators; a Dutch project developed a bottom-up approach towards QA by
working with VET providers and promoted a quality culture[23].

One significant challenge for quality
assurance is the work based learning dimension. The training of trainers is
often not guaranteed and there is often poor overview of such arrangements.

The EQAVET criteria, descriptors and
indicators do not provide specific guidance on quality assurance for work-based
learning. This relative weakness has been addressed at political level through
the Bruges Communiqué which invites participating countries to develop by 2015
a common quality assurance framework for VET providers, applicable also to
associated workplace learning and compatible with EQAVET[24]. The EQAVET network
has set up a working group and is currently developing guidelines in this
respect.

3.           Challenges
to be overcome

The EQAVET survey and external evaluation
show that some features of EQAVET are well embedded in the QA cultures of the
Member States. However, significant room for improvement remains for reaching a
shared understanding that would greatly facilitate mutual recognition of
qualifications and increased mobility.

3.1.        EQAVET
contribution to transparency in VET

That the potential of EQAVET for
transparency purpose – supporting mutual trust, mobility across countries and
lifelong learning – is not yet fully exploited can be seen from the limited
synergy with European tools specifically addressing the transparency of
qualifications and competences: the European Qualification Framework (EQF)[25], the European Credit
transfer system in VET (ECVET)[26]
and the Europass framework[27],
which focus on the outcomes of the learning process – what people know and are
able to do. While quality of the outcomes is the final criterion to decide
about the quality of a learning opportunity, this aspect is not really
addressed by EQAVET, which does not specifically cover the quality assurance of
qualification design, assessment and certification, though the Recommendation provides
that the framework should be applied also at qualification-awarding levels.
This, points to the need for a closer relationship with qualification
frameworks at national and European level.

Arrangements for facilitating mutual
recognition exist for VET (international certifications for some occupations)
and HE (ENIC/NARIC networks). However, it is clear that these arrangements have
not yet reached maturity. Another potential area of development would be
tightening the links between EQAVET and ECVET. Indeed one of the aims of EQAVET
originally was to support the setting up of ECVET. However, only a few
countries have developed VET credits systems (FI, IE, UK, EE, SE, SL and LU, IT for IVET)[28]
and ECVET is in most countries still at a development stage[29].

The issue of mobility between education
subsectors is crucially important. Permeability towards higher education represents
a major element for VET attractiveness and in view of striving towards VET
excellence. As of today, there is still room for development in this respect. The
European standards and guidelines (ESG) for quality assurance in the European
higher education area[30]
contain common principles, but allow for different operational approaches and
little coordination between the tools is to be observed. Nevertheless, dialogue
and cooperation have increased recently with the organisation of several joint
events. The EQF annex 3 proposes common quality assurance principles for both
higher education and VET but refers explicitly neither to the ESG nor to EQAVET[31].

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.