EQAVET Secretariat Survey 2013 update on national approaches to implementation
Introduction The Recommendation on the establishment of the European Quality Assurance Reference Framework for VET invites Member States to “devise, not later than 18 June 2011, an approach aimed at improving quality assurance systems at national level, where appropriate, and making best use of the framework, involving the social partners, regional and local authorities, and all other relevant stakeholders in accordance with national legislation and practice”. In June 2011 the EQAVET Secretariat undertook its first survey of the members of EQAVET in order to provide a basis for assessing the degree of progress in the national approaches to the implementation of the Recommendation and the deepening of the culture of quality assurance in VET. The survey was designed following a process of detailed discussion in the EQAVET working groups and the steering committee. In 2012 the exercise was repeated following the feedback on the analysis of the responses to the first survey exercise at the meeting of national reference points in November 2011 and the discussions at the annual forum in 2012. This provided countries with an opportunity to update information and where considered useful, to provide new information related to progress in the implementation of the national approaches. The information provided by countries has informed and structured the on-going work of the Network (the EQAVET work programme 2013-2015 proposes activities based on the evidence gathered in the reporting process of 2011 and 2012). The role of the survey within the EQAVET Network has changed since it was first undertaken. It is increasingly used by the European Commission in the follow-up of the EQAVET-related short-term deliverables of the Bruges Communiqué (carried out by CEDEFOP). In 2012 the survey was used as part of the Commission’s review of the implementation of the EQAVET Recommendation along with the results of the external evaluation commissioned in order to prepare its report to the European Parliament. In order to continue the process of monitoring progress in relation to the EQAVET-related objectives identified in the Bruges Communiqué, the Secretariat, following consultation with the steering committee earlier in the Summer, asked members of the EQAVET network to review the survey questionnaire; also taking into consideration comments made in the external evaluation and the specific needs of the Bruges reporting.
EQAVET Secretariat Survey 2013 update on national approaches to implementation
Following this consultation process, the Secretariat has modified the survey, in order to provide further information in relation to the state of play of quality assurance policy developments addressing the implementation of the Recommendation and the EQAVET-related strategic objectives and short-time deliverables of the Bruges Communiqué. In completing this survey, the Quality Assurance National Reference Point and the Member State representative in EQAVET should ensure a close collaboration with all relevant partners in their national context.
Survey objectives The analysis of this version of the survey will: •
provide a basis for informing the Member States, the Commission and other key stakeholders of progress in relation to the development of the national approaches;
•
provide a basis for identifying needs and supporting further work in relation to implementing the national approaches and strengthening the culture of quality assurance of VET;
•
provide useful information to enable reporting on progress in relation to the state of play concerning the EQAVETrelated short term deliverables and strategic objectives of the Bruges Communiqué.
Survey The survey focuses on the Recommendation and the two annexes on indicative descriptors and indicators. It includes reference to the invitation in the Recommendation to “further improve and develop their VET systems, support lifelong learning strategies and the implementation of the EQF and the European Quality Charter for Mobility, and promote a culture of improvement and innovation at all levels”. It also includes questions in relation to the actions taken by Member States in order to address the related short-term deliverables of the Bruges Communiqué. This version of the survey, while addressing the above objectives tries to maintain the philosophy of the survey (e.g. questions are designed to be relatively user-friendly in terms of answerability and yet cover the main areas indicated by the Recommendation. Member States do not need to complete the survey again ab initio. Rather they are requested to update information already provided. However, some sections and answers provided by countries will need to be completed anew as: •
Section A has changed (now this section includes two parts: 1 -which refers to the national approach and 2 -which refers to the common quality assurance approach for VET providers).
•
The section on the Bruges Communiqué has been removed as the information in relation to the EQAVET-related objectives of the Bruges Communiqué is now included in section A.
•
A new section has been added (section B), called ‘Quality standards’.
•
Question 14 has been modified.
•
More open questions have been introduced (see question 23).
•
A new question on indicators has been introduced (see question 30).
EQAVET Secretariat Survey 2013 update on national approaches to implementation
The survey is divided into six sections: •
Section A: National VET policy -
Part 1: National approach to quality assurance
-
Part 2: Quality assurance approach for VET providers
•
Section B: Quality standards
•
Section C: The national reference point
•
Section D: The use of the indicative descriptors
•
Section E: The use of the indicators
•
Section F: Personal details
Timeline Deadline for survey submission: January 6th, 2014. The raw data presented in the survey will be used by CEDEFOP in order to prepare its reporting on the EQAVET-related objectives and concrete deliverables by June 2014. The Secretariat will present preliminary results at the EQAVET annual forum in March 2013. The publication of final results is envisaged by June 2013.
Section A National VET policy
1. In general, at what level is VET policy conducted in your country? (select all relevant)
Regional
National
Both
SECTION A Part 1 National approach to quality assurance 2. Has a national approach1 been devised2 aimed at improving quality assurance systems at national level and making best use of the EQAVET Framework in accordance with national legislation and practice?
No (please complete questions below and then skip to question 10)
It is still in preparation (please specify the year it will be devised
)
we need more time to devise it (please specify the year it is planned be devised
)
we do not need it (please explain why below)
Yes (please complete questions below)
b ut the national approach has been developed independently to EQAVET; however it is compatible with EQAVET Framework
b ut the national approach has been developed independently to EQAVET; and does not share features with EQAVET Framework
1 For the purpose of this survey the term quality assurance approach (term used in the EQAVET Recommendation) and quality assurance framework (term used in the Bruges Communiqué) refer to the same concept, i.e. the strategy or plan which defines what measures need to be taken to further develop quality assurance in vocational education and training (VET) in your country. This is described in an explicit document which has a strategic nature and which describes the steps for the improvement of national quality assurance systems or at minimum clearly states the intention to strengthen quality assurance in VET. This strategic document can cover other issues of VET policies than quality assurance. The question asks if this ‘national approach’ is in accordance, compatible, inspired and/or aligned to the structure of EQAVET. The question relates to the short-term deliverable of the Bruges Communiqué number 3 concerning strategic objective number 2a (i.e. ‘[…] participating countries should establish quality assurance frameworks in accordance with the EQAVET Recommendation’), which specifies the actions at national level in relation to ‘taking adequate measures to implement the EQAVET Recommendation and make progress towards national quality assurance frameworks for VET’ by 2014. Visit the Burges Communiqué here. 2 The question refers to the concept ‘devise’ as mentioned in the text of the EQAVET Recommendation which asks Member States to ‘devise, not later than 18 June 2011, an approach aimed at improving quality assurance systems at national level, where appropriate, and making best use of the framework, involving the social partners, regional and local authorities, and all other relevant stakeholders in accordance with national legislation and practice’. The EQAVET Recommendation is available here.
1
Section A National VET policy
the national approach has been devised utilising the EQAVET Framework
3. (If yes) Specify if the national approach is aligned to (select all those that are relevant)
The EQAVET quality cycle
The EQAVET indicative descriptors
The EQAVET indicators
4. (If yes) Does this national approach apply to?
Initial VET only
Initial VET and associated work-based learning3
Continuing VET only
Continuing VET and associated work-based learning4
Please explain below the measures taken.
5. (If yes) is the national approach?
In development stage (please specify the year it is expected to be implemented
Formally agreed (e.g. law or regulation, or other form of agreement – please specify and the year it is expected to be fully implemented )
)
3 For the purpose of this exercise, work based learning is used to refer to combined school- and work-based as described in the UOE data collection manual, i.e. ‘Programmes are classified as combined school- and work-based if less than 75 per cent of the curriculum is presented in the school environment or through distance education. The 75 per cent cut-off point should be regarded as a general guideline that may need to be operationalised differently across countries. These programmes include: • apprenticeship programmes organised in conjunction with educational authorities or educational institutions that involve concurrent school-based and work-based training; and • programmes organised in conjunction with educational authorities or educational institutions that involve alternating intervals of attendance at educational institutions and participation in work-based training (programmes of training in alternation, sometimes referred to as “sandwich” programmes). Note that programmes of dual-system apprenticeship usually are considered part of upper secondary (ISCED 3) education, but other programmes under this heading may be classifiable not only as ISCED 3 but also as ISCED 4 or ISCED 5’. It is important to note that Programmes where the work based component accounts for 90% or more of the curriculum are excluded from the UOE data collection. The UOE data collection manual can be found at http://www.oecd.org/edu/1841883.pdf section 3.5 and 5.7. 4 Ibid footnote 2.
2
Section A National VET policy
Partially implemented (in piloting stage, implemented in some regions or VET programmed, etc. -– please specify and the year it is expected to be fully implemented )
Fully implemented (please specify and the year it was fully implemented )
Others (please specify )
6. Does the national approach support? (where applicable please specify if your response relates to Initial VET (IVET), Continuing VET (CVET) or both)
NQF/EQF implementation
IVET
CVET
Both
Credit systems/ECVET implementation
IVET
CVET
Both
Validation of non-formal and informal learning
IVET
CVET
Both
Qualification design
3
Section A National VET policy
IVET
CVET
Both
Certification
IVET
CVET
Both
7. (If yes) Which national bodies have taken part in devising the national approach?
The Ministry/ies of
Local authorities (please specify )
Others (please specify )
8. (If yes) Please indicate if the involvement of the following stakeholders in devising the national approach has been consultative5 (marked as ‘C’) or deliberative6 (marked as ‘D’) for the IVET and CVET sector? (select all those that are relevant or click no box if there is not involvement)
IVET VET providers
C
D
C
D
Industry / companies
C
D
C
D
Employer associations
C
D
C
D
Employees associations
C
D
C
D
(e.g. chambers of commerce)
(e.g. trade unions) 5 6
CVET
A consultative involvement is one where the stakeholders are asked, at different stages, to state their opinions. A deliberative involvement is one where the stakeholders actively participate in the decision making process.
4
Section A National VET policy
IVET
CVET
Public authorities or ministries
C
D
C
D
Regional or local authorities
C
D
C
D
Students / learners
C
D
C
D
Teachers/ instructors / trainers
C
D
C
D
Higher education sector
C
D
C
D
If others have been involved - Please specify
9. (If yes) Please indicate if the involvement of following stakeholders in devising the national approach has been consultative4 (marked as ‘C’) or deliberative5 (marked as ‘D’); and at which stage of the quality cycle for the IVET and CVET sector? (select all those that are relevant)
IVET Planning
Implementation
CVET
Evaluation
Review
VET providers Industry / companies Employer associations
(e.g. chambers of commerce)
Employees associations
(e.g. trade unions)
Public authorities or ministries
5
Planning
Implementation
Evaluation
Review
Section A National VET policy
IVET Planning
Implementation
CVET
Evaluation
Review
Planning
Implementation
Evaluation
Review
Regional or local authorities Students / learners Teachers/ instructors / trainers Higher education sector
If others have been involved - Please specify
10. Do VET and higher education (HE) authorities/institutions cooperate to support progression/transition from VET to HE and vice versa?
No
Yes (please explain below the measures taken)
Sometimes (please explain below the measures taken)
6
Section A National VET policy
SECTION A Part 2 Quality assurance approach for VET providers 11. Have measures been taken to establish7 at national level a common quality assurance approach for VET providers8 compatible with the EQAVET framework?
No (please complete questions below and then skip to question question 16, section B)
It is still in preparation (please specify the year it will be established
we need more time to devise it (please specify the year it is planned be established
)
)
we do not need it (please explain why below)
Yes, (please complete questions below)
but the common approach for VET providers has been developed independently to EQAVET; however it is compatible with EQAVET Framework
but the common national approach for VET providers has been developed independently to EQAVET; and does not share features with EQAVET Framework
the common approach for VET providers has been developed utilising the EQAVET Framework
7 The question refers to the concept ‘establish’ as mentioned in the Bruges Communiqué, which specifies that ‘Participating countries should establish –by the end of 2015- at national level a common quality assurance framework for VET providers, which also applies to associated workplace learning and which is compatible with the EQAVET framework’. The Burges Communiqué is available here. 8 For the purpose of this survey the term quality assurance approach (term used in the EQAVET Recommendation) and quality assurance framework (term used in the Bruges Communiqué) refer to the same concept, i.e. the strategy or plan which defines what measures need to be taken to further develop quality assurance in vocational education and training (VET) in your country. This is described in an explicit document which has a strategic nature and which describes steps for the improvement of national quality assurance systems or at minimum clearly states the intention to strenghen quality assurance in VET. The question asks if this ‘national approach’ is in accordance, compatible, inspired and/or aligned to the structure of EQAVET. The question relates to the strategic objective number 2b of the Bruges Communiqué, which specifies that ‘Participating countries should establish –by the end of 2015at national level a common quality assurance framework for VET providers, which also applies to associated workplace learning and which is compatible with the EQAVET framework’. Visit the Burges Communiqué here.
7
Section A National VET policy
12. (If yes) Specify if the common approach for VET providers is aligned to (select all those that are relevant)
the EQAVET quality cycle
the EQAVET indicative descriptors
the EQAVET indicators
13. (If yes) Does this common approach for VET providers apply to?:
Initial VET only
Initial VET and associated work based learning9
Continuing VET only
Continuing VET and associated work based learning10
Please explain below the measures taken
9 10
Ibid footnote 2. Ibid footnote 2.
8
Section A National VET policy
13. (If yes) Is the common approach for VET providers?:
In development stage (please specify the year will be established
Formally agreed (e.g. law or regulation, or other form of agreement –please specify and the year
)
it is expected to be fully established )
Partially implemented (in piloting stage, implemented in some regions or VET programmed, etc. –please specify and the year it is expected to be fully established )
Fully implemented (please specify and the year it was fully established )
Others (please specify )
9
Section A National VET policy
14. (If yes) Please indicate the involvement of the following stakeholders in the actual implementation of the common approach for VET providers in the different stages of the quality cycle for the IVET and CVET sector?
IVET Planning
Implementation
CVET
Evaluation
VET providers Industry / companies Employer associations
(e.g. chambers of commerce)
Employees associations
(e.g. trade unions)
Public authorities or ministries Regional or local authorities Students / learners Teachers/ instructors / trainers Higher education sector
If others have been involved - Please specify
10
Review
Planning
Implementation
Evaluation
Review
Section B Quality Standards
SECTION B 15. Is there a registration system at national level for VET institutions?
No
Yes, for Initial VET
Yes, for Continuing VET
Yes, for both
Other approaches (please specify )
16. Does your quality assurance approach make provision for the external review of VET providers?
No
Yes, for Initial VET
Yes, for Continuing VET
Yes, for both
Other approaches (please specify )
17. Does your VET system include quality standards for VET providers?
No (skip to question 21, Section C)
Other approaches (please specify )
Yes
11
Section B Quality Standards
18. (If yes) How are they used in initial and continuing VET (IVET and CVET)? (select all those that are relevant)
For IVET
Please explain
For guidance only
A condition of accreditation or approval
A condition of funding
Required as part of legislation
If they are used for other purposes - Please specify For IVET
For CVET
12
For CVET
Please explain
Section B Quality Standards
19. (If yes) What types of standards are used in the certification process11 in initial and continuing VET (IVET and CVET)? 12 13 14 For IVET
Are they based on learning outcomes? Please expain
For CVET
Are they based on learning outcomes? Please expain
Educational standards12
Assessment standards13
Occupational standards14
If they are applied in other areas - Please specify For IVET
For CVET
11 12 13 14
Certification makes reference to the processes of assessment, validation and recognition that lead to the awarding of a qualification. The educational standards define the expected outcomes of the learning process leading to the award of a qualification. Assessment standards specify the object of assessment and performance criteria. Occupational standards specify the professional tasks and activities the holder of a qualification is supposed to be able to carry out, and the competences needed for that purpose.
13
Section C The National Reference Point
SECTION C 20. Has a National Reference Point for VET been established in your country?
No (If no, please specify below and then skip to question 26, Section D).
Yes (please specify the year
)
21. (If yes) Under which bodies does the National Reference Point operate?
It is part of the Ministry/ies of
It is an agency funded by the Ministry/ies of
It is an agency independent of the Ministry
It is a private organisation
Others (please specify )
22. (If yes) As set out in the EQAVET Recommendation, is the National Reference Point? (select all those that are relevant)
Keeping stakeholders informed about the activities of the EQAVET network If you would like to add more information, please specify below
14
Section C The National Reference Point
roviding active support for the implementation of the work programme of the P EQAVET network If you would like to add more information, please specify below
aking concrete initiatives to promote further development of the European Quality T Assurance Reference Framework for VET in the national context If you would like to add more information, please specify below
Ensuring that information is disseminated to stakeholders effectively
If you would like to add more information, please specify below
upporting training providers to identify areas for improvement in relation to quality S assurance and implement quality assurance systems in line with the EQAVET Recommendation
If you would like to add more information, please specify below
Supporting training providers to introduce or develop self-evaluation systems
If you would like to add more information, please specify below
Undertaking other activities (please specify )
15
Section C The National Reference Point
23. In which areas does the National Reference Point support the development of the European Quality Assurance Reference Framework for VET in the national context? (select all those that are relevant)
Initial VET
Continuing VET
Adult education
Informal learning
Non-formal learning
Institutions funded by the public sector
Institutions funded by the private or voluntary sector
24. Does the National Reference Point provide support in relation to quality assurance issues relating to? (select all those that are relevant)
EQF
please explain how
ECVET
please explain how
The Common European principles for the identification and validation of non- formal and informal learning
please explain how
The European Quality Charter for Mobility
please explain how
16
Section D The use of indicative descriptors
SECTION D Please complete the following boxes which collect information on the use of the EQAVET Recommendation’s indicative descriptors at a system (Box 1) and provider level (Box 2).
Box 1: Indicative descriptors at VET system level 25. Is this indicative descriptor used in your VET system?
Indicative descriptor
Is this indicative descriptor used for IVET? Not used
Goals/objective of VET are: a) described for the medium and long terms b) linked to EU goals The relevant stakeholders participate in setting VET goals and objectives at the different levels Targets are: a) established b) monitored through specific indicators (success criteria) Mechanisms and procedures have been established to identify training needs An information policy has been devised to ensure optimum disclosure of quality results/ outcomes subject to national/ regional data protection requirements Standards and guidelines for recognition, validation and certification of competences of individuals have been defined Implementation plans are established in cooperation with social partners, VET providers and other relevant stakeholders at the different levels Implementation plans include: a) consideration of the resources required b) the capacity of the users and the tools c) guidelines needed for support Guidelines and standards have been devised for implementation at different levels
17
Sometimes used
Always used
Is this indicative descriptor used for CVET? Not used
Sometimes used
Always used
Section D The use of indicative descriptors
Is this indicative descriptor used for IVET? Not used
Implementation plans include specific support towards the training of teachers and trainers VET providers’ responsibilities in the implementation process are: a) explicitly described b) made transparent A national and/or regional quality assurance framework to promote continuous improvement and self-regulation has been devised and includes: a) guidelines at VET-provider level b) quality standards at VET-provider level A methodology for evaluation has been devised, covering: a) internal evaluation b) external evaluation Stakeholder involvement in the monitoring and evaluation process is agreed and clearly described The national/regional standards and processes for improving and assuring quality are relevant and proportionate to the needs of the sector Systems are subject to self-evaluation, internal and external review, as appropriate Early warning systems are implemented Performance indicators are applied Relevant, regular and coherent data collection takes place, in order to measure success and identify areas for improvement Appropriate data collection methodologies have been devised, e.g. questionnaires and indicators/metrics Procedures, mechanisms and instruments for undertaking reviews are defined at all levels Processes are regularly reviewed and action plans for change devised. Systems are adjusted accordingly 18
Sometimes used
Always used
Is this indicative descriptor used for CVET? Not used
Sometimes used
Always used
Section D The use of indicative descriptors
Information on the outcomes of evaluation is made publicly available If you would like to add more information in relation to indicative descriptors at system level in your VET system, please specify below
Box 2: Indicative descriptors at VET provider level 26. Is this indicative descriptor used by the VET providers in your country?
Indicative descriptor
Is this indicative descriptor used by VET providers for IVET? Not used
The local targets set by the VET providers reflect: a) European VET policy goals/objectives b) National level VET policy goals/objectives c) Regional level VET policy goals/objectives Explicit goals/objectives and targets are: a) set b) monitored On-going consultation with relevant stakeholders takes place to identify specific local/ individual needs Responsibilities in quality management and development have been explicitly allocated There is an early involvement of staff in planning, including with regard to quality development Providers plan cooperative initiatives with other VET providers The relevant stakeholders participate in the process of analysing local needs
19
Sometimes used
Always used
Is this indicative descriptor used by VET providers for CVET? Not used
Sometimes used
Always used
Section D The use of indicative descriptors
Is this indicative descriptor used by VET providers for IVET? Not used
VET providers have an explicit and transparent quality assurance system in place Resources are appropriately internally aligned/ assigned with a view to achieving the targets set in the implementation plans Relevant and inclusive partnerships are explicitly supported to implement the actions planned The strategic plan for staff competence development specifies the need for training for teachers and trainers Staff undertake regular training and develop cooperation with relevant external stakeholders: a) to support capacity building and quality improvement b) to enhance performance Self-assessment/self-evaluation is periodically carried out: a) under national regulations/frameworks b) under regional regulations/frameworks c) at the initiative of VET providers Evaluation and review covers processes and results/outcomes of education a) the assessment of learner satisfaction b) staff performance and satisfaction Evaluation and review includes adequate and effective mechanisms to involve: a) internal stakeholders b) external stakeholders Early warning systems are implemented Learners’ feedback is gathered: a) on their individual learning experience and on the learning and teaching environment b) together with teachers’ feedback this is used to inform further actions
20
Sometimes used
Always used
Is this indicative descriptor used by VET providers for CVET? Not used
Sometimes used
Always used
Section D The use of indicative descriptors
Is this indicative descriptor used by VET providers for IVET? Not used
Sometimes used
Always used
Is this indicative descriptor used by VET providers for CVET? Not used
Sometimes used
Always used
Information on the outcomes of the review is widely and publicly available Procedures on feedback and review are part of a strategic learning process in the organisation Results/outcomes of the evaluation process are discussed with relevant stakeholders and appropriate action plans are put in place
If you would like to add more information in relation to indicative descriptors at provider level in your VET system, please specify below
21
Section E The use of indicators
SECTION E 27. Are arrangements in place to review the national approach to quality assurance?
No (skip to question 29)
Other (please specify )
Yes (please specify the year
)
28. (If yes) are the outcomes of these reviews publicly available?
Yes
No
Box 3: Indicators 29. Is this indicator used in your country?
Indicator
Is this indicator used for IVET? Not used
1. Relevance of quality assurance systems for VET providers a) share of providers applying internal quality assurance systems defined by law/at own initiative b) share of accredited VET providers 2. Investment in training of teachers and trainers a) share of teachers and trainers participating in further training b) amount of funds invested 3. Participation rate in VET programmes: Number of participants in VET programmes (1), according to the type of programme and the individual criteria (2)
22
Sometimes used
Always used
Is this indicator used for CVET? Not used
Sometimes used
Always used
Section E The use of indicators
Indicator
Is this indicator used for IVET? Not used
4. Completion rate in VET programmes: Number of persons having successfully completed/abandoned VET programmes, according to the type of programme and the individual criteria 5. Placement rate in VET programmes a) destination of VET learners at a designated point in time after completion of training, according to the type of programme and the individual criteria(3 ) b) share of employed learners at a designated point in time after completion of training, according to the type of programme and the individual criteria 6. Utilisation of acquired skills at the workplace: a) information on occupation obtained by individuals after completion of training, according to type of training and individual criteria b) satisfaction rate of individuals and employers with acquired skills/competences 7. Unemployment rate(4) according to individual criteria 8. Prevalence of vulnerable groups: a) percentage of participants in VET classified as disadvantaged groups (in a defined region or catchment area) according to age and gender b) success rate of disadvantaged groups according to age and gender 9. Mechanisms to identify training needs in the labour market: a) information on mechanisms set up to identify changing demands at different levels b) evidence of their effectiveness 10. Schemes used to promote better access to VET: a) information on existing schemes at different levels b) evidence of their effectiveness
23
Sometimes used
Always used
Is this indicator used for CVET? Not used
Sometimes used
Always used
Section E The use of indicators
(1) For IVET: a period of 6 weeks of training is needed before a learner is counted as a participant. For lifelong learning: percentage of population admitted to formal VET programmes. (2) Besides basic information on gender and age, other social criteria might be applied, e.g. early school leavers, highest educational achievement, migrants, persons with disabilities, length of unemployment. (3) For IVT: including information on the destination of learners who have dropped out. (4) Definition according to ILO and OECD: individuals aged 15-74 without work, actively seeking employment and ready to start work.
30. For those indicators that they are not used in your quality assurance system, can you say why they are not used?; are others used instead?
Indicator 1
Why not used
Other/s used instead
Indicator 2
Why not used
Other/s used instead
Indicator 3
Why not used
Other/s used instead
24
Section E The use of indicators
Indicator 4
Why not used
Other/s used instead
Indicator 5
Why not used
Other/s used instead
Indicator 6
Why not used
Other/s used instead
25
Section E The use of indicators
Indicator 7
Why not used
Other/s used instead
Indicator 8
Why not used
Other/s used instead
Indicator 9
Why not used
Other/s used instead
26
Section E The use of indicators
Indicator 10
Why not used
Other/s used instead
31. For those indicators that are used in your quality assurance system (‘always’ or sometimes’), please indicate how they are used to inform VET provision:
Indicator 1
Indicator 2
Indicator 3
Indicator 4
Indicator 5
27
Section E The use of indicators
Indicator 6
Indicator 7
Indicator 8
Indicator 9
Indicator 10
The following question has been designed with the objective of gaining an understanding of your professional opinion as an EQAVET member. It does not necessarily reflect the country position in relation to the issue asked. It will help the EQAVET Network to gain important insights for future work in relation to the set of ten indicators of the EQAVET Recommendation.
32. Do you think that it would be useful to use some of the EQAVET indicators for benchmarking purposes?
No, it is not a good idea
Yes (please complete questions below)
at EU level only 28
Section E The use of indicators
with all ten indicators only with some of them (please specify the indicator/s you think it would be useful to use
for benchmarking purposes)
at national level only
with all ten indicators only with some of them (please specify the indicator/s you think it would be useful to use
for benchmarking purposes)
at both levels
with all ten indicators
only with some of them (please specify the indicator/s you think it would be useful to use for benchmarking purposes)
Please specify below which indicator/s you would like to work in the future with a view to collaborating with other Member States
29
Section F Personal details
SECTION F Name: Organisation: Title: Name: Organisation: Title: Name: Organisation: Title: Name: Organisation: Title: Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Your assistance in providing this information is very much appreciated.
30
