1. Quality Assurance The CQAF and national systems. (Learning from others’ mistakes)

2. My talk is in 3 sections: 1. A brief history of Quality Assurance 2.The main elements of CQAF 3. Its impact (or not) on the English VET system

3. Part One: A brief history of QA 1.Rooted in industry (W.Demming) 2.Problem of defining quality. Some central aspects:  Visionary and practical  Ends and processes  People and systems  Involvement of outside, inside and clients  Hard and soft measurable standards

4. Two often contradictory approaches to QA: 1.QA as a SYSTEM (“Hard” QA approach) 2.QA as an internal organisation CULTURE. (Total quality Management- TQM) “Soft” QA approach (Right first time!)

5. A systems approach is an industrial model applied to a professional context. A TQM approach is non threatening and applied in a democratic peer review context. CQAF attempts to combine the two approaches. (Does it?)

6. Part two The CQAF Key Features Policy context: Links to 2002 Copenhagen and 2004 Maastricht declarations plus 2010 Lisbon agenda. Links into EQF and expert groups to raise teaching standards. Using the “open method of co-ordination”.

7. Objectives of CQAF To promote a culture of QA improvement and accountability. To promote mutual trust and mobility. To foster consistency of QA approaches. To increase transparency of VET systems It is NOT an operational quality system nor is it an accreditation or certification body. Thanks to Nadege Jibassia (www.epr.eu)

8. The CQAF comprises 3 operational features: 1.A model with core criteria to facilitate planning, implementation and review. 2.A methodology for self-assessment combined with external evaluation. 3.A monitoring cycle 4.A measurement tool or set of reference indicators to evaluate quality systems at national/regional level.

9. Targeted group: The CQAF is targeted at both service providers and policy makers. It is non-prescriptive. It is adaptable to national/regional contexts.

10. The Model: Planning (purpose and plan) Implementation Evaluation and Assessment Review (feedback and procedures for change) Methodology

11. The methodology The designing of evaluation mechanisms to catch “relevant” data on which QA judgements can be made. e.g. context, process (input), achievement dimensions.

12. Monitoring External and internal procedures over set time cycles. Use of self assessment is recommended Though this needs external verification. (Why?)

13. Measurement tools Use of reference indicators/benchmarking. e.g. participation rates, completion rates, destination of trainee after 6 months. Challenges: Dissemination and influence at national levels across the EU. (Adopted by EU Parlt. Nov 2007).

14. Part 3 The National system- England ( An example of how not to do it!). 1.Lot 1 Def VET professions data- teachers neither knowledgeable nor engaged in the QA process. 2. Quality Quangomania!, OFSTED, IFL, LSC, LLUK/SVUK, QIA, CEL 3 A punitive system –based model with no trust leads to subversion. 4. Drowning in paper! 5. No vision, just survival and no quality culture and above all no TRUST! Be warned! Ken Marsh, University of Greenwich. TtNetUK Co-cordinator Dublin February 2008.