Date: in 12 pts EQAVET external evaluation and reporting Brussels June 2013

Date: in 12 pts EQAVET External evaluation Scope Scope: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability Period: questions related to context – governance – text – content of the recommendation (NRP – nat. approach…) Postulate: EQAVET fulfils 2 objectives Quality improvement Enhanced transparency and thus mutual trust between VET systems and VET qualifications

Date: in 12 pts EQAVET External evaluation Methodology Analytical framework based on the 14 questions Judgement criteria elaborated Indicators designed for each criterion Mostly qualitative indicators due to the research methodology Desk research Interviews (78 interviews) Country fiches (34 (2 for BE)=(27+1)+ HR + FYROM + TR+ ICE + NO + LI) + 6 case studies (IT, FI, DE, RO, SK, EL) Lifelong learning programme

Date: in 12 pts Main findings EQAVET framework is still politically relevant – and even more so since the Bruges Communiqué The choice of the Recommendation as legal basis was a good one EQAVET is consistent and complementary to the other tools (ECVET, EQF) but does not cover certain aspects dealt with by ECVET and EQF (e.g. qualification design, certification process) Lifelong learning programme

Date: in 12 pts Main findings (2) The work at European level as well as in MS has sped up since the adoption of the Recommendation (agenda setting effect) the evaluation notes a significant increase of nomination of NRPs just after the adoption of the Recommendation The material developed at European level is felt to be user friendly and useful but difficult to disseminate at national level because of the language issue NRPs - key role - seem to lack resources sometimes Lifelong learning programme

Date: in 12 pts Main Findings (3) EU Governance structure is considered appropriate Importance of having adequate expertise Projects have a real impact when they are targeted at the authorities dealing with the implementation of the national approach for quality assurance in VET Stakeholders' involvement varies from country to country. The lowest involvement is from students and higher education sector as well as companies /industries  those who would have a major interest in the transparency aspect Lifelong learning programme

Date: in 12 pts (draft)Recommendations (1) Continue the cooperation work at European level Strengthen the qualification design, assessment and award dimension Strengthen the lifelong learning dimension (cooperation/coordination with general education/Adult learning/higher education) Develop Work based learning QA Consider translating the material developed Strengthen the NRPs Lifelong learning programme

Date: in 12 pts (draft) Recommendations (2) If transparency of process is to be a stronger focus then more efforts should be made: In terms of reporting on the national approach, a new way of reporting – more operational and prescriptive - should be elaborated Consider strengthening EQAVET to enable a greater transparency in between QA systems Involve more the stakeholders who have the greatest interest in transparency i.e. companies, students Lifelong learning programme

Date: in 12 pts EQAVET reporting Finalisation of the external evaluation: July Commission reporting in December Coupled with reporting on QA in HE Lifelong learning programme