1. EQAVET Annual Forum 2013, Dublin, Ireland Brainstorming Session 1 The work of the working groups in 2013

2. EQAVET Annual Forum 2013, Dublin, Ireland With regard to WG 1: Q1: Which aspects of VET should be included within the scope of the guidance? Q2: Workplace learning different to work-based learning? Q3: Are there forms of guidance e.g. case studies, building blocks, lessons learnt which would be particularly useful? Questions to be addressed

3. EQAVET Annual Forum 2013, Dublin, Ireland  Q1: WBL – Concepts: work based learning, learning firms, workplace learning – Quality control / inspection for WBL – mainly for providers financed from public money – Accreditation, assessment of providers – Assessment of students – the place of WBL in the final evaluation; tools for assessment – The correlation with the learning outcomes and with the formal qualifications – WBL must be assessed! Messages emerging from discussion regarding the work of WG1

4. EQAVET Annual Forum 2013, Dublin, Ireland  Q2: we don’t need to concentrate on different meanings in different languages – translation issue! WBL is a part of every curricula – we need to see the whole scope of the activity  Is the person constantly in a firm or not?  Company based training could be restrictive to a specific job.  Company based training, school based training + industry courses.  Situation is different in different countries (WBL) – general guidelines are difficult to build  Role of tutors – very important: models of training of tutors (including pedagogical competencies) – e.g. UK compulsory continuous training for tutors; models of cooperation between company and school on tutoring;  List of benefits for employability: including basic skills, key competencies and soft skills  Lists of risks, issues, possible answers in WBL Messages emerging from discussion regarding the work of WG1

5. EQAVET Annual Forum 2013, Dublin, Ireland  Q3: Depending what the benefit is, for the business, at VET provider level. ”Qualicards”. Depending on the QM system in place at microlevel. Case studies, interesting situations (What works in different countries – national VET providers), PLAs. No more building blocks! Messages emerging from discussion regarding the work of WG1

6. EQAVET Annual Forum 2013, Dublin, Ireland  Balance “general” / “custom made” ???  Q1: EQAVET indicators as a guide for the national system – the MS decide!  There is detailed information in the two EQAVET surveys – taking on board of the EQAVET Recommendation, including the indicators – some indicators may need a revision (6a, 6b, 9)  Q2: case studies – understanding how the customization works; peer reviews; best practices. Messages emerging from discussion regarding the work of WG2

7. EQAVET Annual Forum 2013, Dublin, Ireland With regard to WG2: Q1: How to ensure coherence/compatibility between the national QA system, scheme or mechanism and EQAVET? Q2: Are there specific forms of guidance which would be particularly useful for this exercise? Q3: What core elements should make up a broad guidance approach to EQAVET customisation? Questions to be addressed

8. EQAVET Annual Forum 2013, Dublin, Ireland Brainstorming Session 2 EQAVET indicators and increasing EU cooperation

9. EQAVET Annual Forum 2013, Dublin, Ireland Q1: How do you see your role in increasing EU cooperation in the use of EQAVET indicators? Q2: What can the Network do to support you in this regard? Q3: How can the outcomes of this cooperation be transmitted in the national level? Questions to be addressed

10. EQAVET Annual Forum 2013, Dublin, Ireland  Review of indicators 6 and 9 (because with these indicators there were problems – accordingly to the EQAVET surveys).  Trust, transferability, transparency – correlation with EQF/NQFs – indicators used as guide.  Pros and cons: publishing data on indicators regarding specific providers (or benchmarking).  Publishing information / data without benchmarking – the systems are very different (context, history, dual/school based systems etc.). The QA systems are both the same and very different.  Raw data (e.g. indicators regarding subjects) – used by the beneficiaries to chose the provider.  QA systems underpin everything ! (including EQF, ECVET etc.)  How to use the indicators and benchmarking in different contexts (for instance, in crisis time) ? Messages emerging from discussion

11. EQAVET Annual Forum 2013, Dublin, Ireland  How to use the indicators and benchmarking in different contexts (for instance, in crisis time or related with different qualifications) ?  In some systems, the qualifications that lead to employment are designed by national policies, using indicators. In other systems, the issue is left to the market: the demand and offer of apprenticeship in private providers is highly correlated with the evolution of economy.  DIFFERENT CULTURES = DIFFERENT USE OF INDICATORS !  Support services for companies willing to take apprentices.  The “reality check” is a must - “learning in a firm” – WBL, including “transition” periods.  Dual systems could or couldn’t work in different contexts. Messages emerging from discussion

12. EQAVET Annual Forum 2013, Dublin, Ireland Brainstorming Session 3 EQAVET in lifelong learning perspective – the importance of partnerships

13. EQAVET Annual Forum 2013, Dublin, Ireland Q1: How do you see your role in promoting partnerships at national level? Q2:As a NRP and/or working at system level: How would like you to strengthen your engagement with stakeholders? As social partner representative: How do you engage with the VET sub-sector at national level? Q3:What can the Network do to support you in this regard and foster incremental and substantial cooperation and partnership? Q4: What contribution can you make to responding to the challenges of Bruges Communiqué and Rethinking Education in the context described above? Questions to be addressed

14. EQAVET Annual Forum 2013, Dublin, Ireland  The partnership is a must! Employers, subject experts, trade unions, VET providers – we do this everywhere!  In some systems, the partnership is a reality, but in others it is not.  PLAs on social partnership could be beneficial for some VET systems. Identifying good practices; preparing (with CEDEFOP) studies on the involvement of social partners in different stages of QA.  There are systems with social dialogue structures functioning well – there are trust and transparency.  The social partners should be involved in all phases of the “quality cycle”.  There are different models of governance in VET and higher education. There are initiatives to get these systems closer by involving social partners.  Permeability – reciprocal recognition of qualifications. Cooperation programmes between VET providers, universities and companies.  The relationship between the qualification framework and the regulated professions is sometimes difficult. Messages emerging from discussion

15. EQAVET Annual Forum 2013, Dublin, Ireland  The regulations at sector level (including for regulated professions) should be correlated with the NQFs/EQF. The partnership with the “sector regulators” (including professional associations) is a must.  Different definitions and contents of qualifications with the same name. Messages emerging from discussion

16. EQAVET Annual Forum 2013, Dublin, Ireland EQAVET workshops

17. EQAVET Annual Forum 2013, Dublin, Ireland How to ensure that EQAVET supports the development of responses to the challenges facing VET? Messages emerging from discussion

18. EQAVET Annual Forum 2013, Dublin, Ireland How to ensure that EQAVET supports the development of responses to the challenges facing VET?  The EQAVET network doesn’t need to establish new priorities, but to focus the activities within the existing priorities taking into account the priorities of the RE communication  The EQAVET should underpin the QM systems – each part of the learning cycle should be QA (standards, curriculum, institutional capacity, qualifications). Embedding EQAVET with EQF and NQFs – in the best interest of the learner.  Three areas close to each other – we need do tackle them together: WBL. Assessment, LO – looking at QM/QA issues to make them visible and effective in the relationship with the LO.  WBL as first priority – integrating WBL into the school system and how to benefit from WBL – the quality management issues: how to quality assure / manage the WBL Messages emerging from discussion

19. EQAVET Annual Forum 2013, Dublin, Ireland How to ensure that EQAVET supports the development of responses to the challenges facing VET?  Transnational agreements for the transferability of qualifications – designed on LO basis – “quality assured LOs” ensuring transparency and transferability.  Developing instruments at system level – common approaches but tailor made interventions (the systems are very different). “Think globally – act locally”  There is commitment of the policy makers at MS level to implement EQAVET at system and provider levels (Bruges Communiqué)  Communication between Copenhagen process and Bologna process.  “Who is the tailor for the tailor made approaches ?” Common formats for the NRPs in order to work together for specific solutions to common problems.  Who is the “tailor”: EC, Steering Committee and WGs ? The situation of NRPs is different. The EC should pass through the political process to feed back the MS in order to reinforce and support the activity of the NRPs. Messages emerging from discussion

20. EQAVET Annual Forum 2013, Dublin, Ireland Reflection on future work, including the review of the EQAVET Recommendation, keeping in mind the 7 scenarios presented in the mapping study and the results of the external evaluation -The scenarios are addressing the EU level – shaping the transnational activity, the future of the EQAVET Network. The political process will decide and will leverage the process of implementing QA approaches. -The feedback of EC on ESG for HE should suggest to take on board the developments in other EU tools (EQF, ECVET, EQAVET etc.) Messages emerging from discussion