Assuring the quality of VET systems through the definition of the expected outcomes: A cross country analysis in seven countries

1
Assuring the quality of VET systems through the
definition of the expected outcomes A cross
country analysis in seven countries
Giorgio Allulli, Kim Faurschou, Tina Bertzeletou
2
Reasons for a study on outcome standards

• Standards are technical specifications,
  measurable, drawn up by consensus and approved by
  a recognised organisation. In VET, they serve to
  optimise the inputs and/or outputs of learning.
• Output standards set the level of performance to
  be attained by a VET system, a provider or an
  individual.

3
Reasons for a study on outcome standards

• Working with the standards allows for
• clearly stated objectives
• inclusive processes involving (all or most of)
  the stakeholders
• motivation of actors to achieve concrete results
• evaluations (since they are stated in unambiguous
  terms)
• comparisons
• general acceptance (since they are generally
  acknowledged and shared)
• confidence that quality requirements have been
  fulfilled
• responding to the general tendency observed to
  move from an input logic to an output approach to
  VET systems and funding.

4
Reasons for a study on outcome standards

• Quality assurance includes also the accreditation
  of a VET provider/training programme or service,
  by the relevant legislative and professional
  authorities, of having met predetermined
  standards.
• Outcome standards will be used to help define
  (and verify) the learning outcomes of the
  national qualification frameworks to be developed
  on a voluntary basis by the Member States within
  the context of the European Qualifications
  Framework (EQF) once the Recommendation adopted
  (Spring 2007).

5
Reasons for a study on outcome standards

• In the past, the debate around the public
  services centred just on how much governments
  were investing both in terms of money, and in
  terms of other resource inputs, including the
  number of doctors, nurses, teachers and police
  officers. Since the introduction of PSAs, the
  debate has shifted. Now we can measure how
  effectively resources are being used and whether
  services are delivering the outcomes that will
  really make a difference to peoples lives.
• (Foreword to the Public Service Agreements white
  paper 2005/ 2008)

6
Purpose of the study

• The study investigates how targets and standards
  are set in 7 countries
• Danemark
• France
• Germany
• Ireland
• Italy
• Netherlands
• United Kingdom
• for the entire system
• for the providers
• for the individual learners

7
Field of application

• Seven Member States have been investigated by the
  two experts contracted by Cedefop (Giorgio
  Allulli and Kim Faurschou) with the active
  participation of
• Anne Marie Charroud, Sylvère Chirache, Pierre Le
  Douaron (France)
• Philip Pedersen, Ken Thomassen (Denmark)
• Stephen Haxton, Steve Hunter, Grace Proudfoot,
  Anne Greaves, Janet Ryland (United Kingdom)
• Marie Gould, Barbara Kelly, Margaret Kelly
  (Ireland)
• Andreas Krewerth, Heike Schwarzbauer, Bent
  Paulsen, Beate Scheffler (Germany)
• Siep Jurna, Hugo Hopstaken, Sjoerd Roodenburg,
  Roy Tjoa, Thea van den Boom (The Netherlands),
  and
• Italy has been covered by Giorgio Allulli
  himself.
• N.B. In italics the names of the ENQA-VET
  members.

8
Targets at system level main examples

• Budget Law (LOLF, FR)
• Public Service Agreements (UK)
• Basic performance levels (IT)
• Specific targets are connected to
• Pupils and adults achievements (IE, NL, UK)
• Dropout rate (NL,UK,FR)
• Participation rate (NL,IE, DE,UK,FR)
• Diploma or qualification rate (IE,DK,FR,UK)
• Satisfaction rate (NL)
• Employability rate (DK)
• Special groups (IE)

9
Targets for VET providers

• Floor targets connected to accreditation (IT)
• Floor targets (England)
• Criteria and parameters connected to self
  evaluation and external evaluation (IE)
• Voluntary targets (Success rate and grades, DE,
  NL)
• Setting of indicators to monitor outcomes (DK, FR)

10
Outcome standards for learners

• National basic standards and regional specific
  standards (IT)
• Referentiels de certification (FR)
• National Vocational Qualifications, SVQ (UK)
• National Qualification framework (IR)
• The Ministry set the objectives for general
  subjects, the Trade committees for the vocational
  subjects (DK)
• Basic structure at federal level. Specific
  reordering prepared by Länder experts (DE)

11
Actors of the process

• Parliament and ministries (national targets,
  output standards)
• National Technical authorities (output standards)
• Regional political authorities (regional targets,
  regional standards)
• Social partners (sectoral standards)
• Sometimes organized in permanent committees

12
Rewards and penalties

• Providers who do not reach floor targets can
  loose accreditation (IT)
• Providers who do not reach floor targets can
  loose their grant, or have their managers removed
  (UK)
• The Minister can impose two types of sanctions on
  institutions (NL)
• deprivation of privileges
• withholding or suspension of funds
• The Ministry offers the providers additional
  funding if they attain a number of goals (DK)

13
Reasons for private companies to offer training

• Trainees meet company requirements 94
• Skilled employees not available on the job market
  90
• Prevention of personnel fluctuation 80
• Opportunity to pick and choose the best
  trainees 74
• Avoidance of wrong hiring decisions 73
• Cut costs for breaking in new employees 58
• Enhances the company' s reputation 57
• Trainees develop into productive employees 42
• Cuts personnel- recruiting costs 35
• (Why training pays, 2000, Germany)
• Still difficult in many countries to find enough
  enterprises.

14
Process of decentralization and autonomy

• The State set the basic performance levels to
  maintain coherence to the system (IT)
• Contract agreements between the Ministry of
  Education and the local academies to set the
  objectives to reach (FR)
• Regional Skills Partnerships have been given a
  greater role in the regional application of
  national targets (UK)
• VET providers have a great autonomy for adapting
  VET to local needs (DK)

15
Trends

• Further use of output standards instead of input-
  and process standards (IT)
• New form of financing based on results instead of
  activities (FR)
• Sharper, simpler accountabilities and incentives
  for delivering improvements in public services
  (UK)
• Common awarding structure (IE)
• The new Vocational Training Act encourages the
  stakeholders to develop new forms of training and
  examination (DE)
• More focus on linking economic grants to output
  indicators (DK)
• Not only focus on output and transparency (NL)

16
Challenges

• Process of decentralization and autonomy
• Complexity of the social development and the
  influence of the context
• Long-term impact of targets
• Challenge between quantity and quality
• Statistical burden
• Sharpness and flexibility
• Stakeholders involvement
• Standards updating
• Rewards and penalties

17
Possible European initiatives

• Two main objectives
• to monitor the developments of the EC policies
• to confront and to discuss the experiences
  realized
• Specific activities
• organize a thematic group on the definition of
  targets at system and providers level
• organize Peer learnings to discuss the experience
  of targets setting
• Topics
• which targets and standards exist
• how are they measured
• what links between inputs, processes and outputs