Peer review and EQAVET NRPs experiences Lessons learned - Projects Erasmus+ 2016-2018 calls EQAVET Annual Network meeting Bucharest 13/06/2019 Giorgio Allulli- EQAVET expert

Peer Review: an instrument useful for several purposes The study focuses on PR as a tool that: can be applied to institutions or systems (national/regional policies) For institutions, PR may be used as an alternative to formal external evaluation

Peer review of VET providers The NRPs from IT, AT, FI, HR, SI, SK organised PR for VET providers Lessons Learned: PR is an appropriate methodology for improving school quality assurance, and can be embedded in school management systems PR offers important opportunities for transnational collaboration when the initiative is built upon cooperation between NRPs and / or when peers come from different countries

Peer Review at the system level PR at system level has been implemented by international institutions (OECD, EU Commission, Eurostat, the United Nations, ENQA, WTO, etc.) - The OECD: uses PR since its foundations, and it is a characteristic of its work in most policy areas - The EU Commission uses PR in several areas - the Mutual Learning Programme (MLP), part of the European Employment Strategy, and the Horizon 2020 Policy Support Facility

Main results of SWOT Analysis The study included a SWOT analysis – Results - PR is a ‘soft’ mechanism that improves QA and advances common trust, transparency and understanding between countries and institutions, fostering European integration - The positive results achieved by PR of VET providers provides an opportunity to reflect on the possibility of extending its scope to the review of QA of VET systems

What approaches to peer review at system level? Two types of approaches to PR can be identified from international institutions: A "hard" approach, aimed at verifying whether the system under investigation possesses the agreed requisites (as a pre- condition to access some benefits, in tyerms of financing or status) A "soft" or “light” approach, aimed at supporting the improvement of the system under review (this is the approach developed by the EU Commission on the Mutual Learning Programme)

Organisational requirements The hard approach requires: Longer data analysis and visit/s Strong commitment of the peers Prescriptive indications The light approach: lesser commitment/time for host and peers; recommendations have the character of friendly advice

Choosing the field to be reviewed… Purpose: not to "show off" the good practice, but to put it under scrutiny for critical analysis by peers coming from other Member States to receive inputs that can help to improve it. Topics: A critical area, which presents problems, and requires inputs and suggestions to change or improve An innovative practice, which requires inputs and suggestions for its implementation A successful practice, to further improve it and share it with other countries

The scope of the Review the entire QA system of a country one element of the QA system. E.g Tracking of VET graduates, the use of indicators, etc

Principles and criteria to follow for reviewing PR requires a reference guide and guidelines which should be agreend by all stakeholders Conclusions which should be submitted in a report to the host country (agreed by the peers) on the practice or policy presented The report should contain: An analysis of the practice or policy presented Suggestions on how to improve it A final judgement about how it addresses common principles and criteria if “hard” review is used

Thank you for attention!