Peer Learning Activity ‘Units, partial qualifications and full qualifications’ 26-27 May 2016, Riga

Synthesis report 17 June 2016

This page is intentionally blank

Peer Learning Activity ‘Units, partial qualifications and full qualifications’ 26-27 May 2016, Riga

Synthesis report

A report submitted by the ECVET Secretariat

Date: 17 June 2016

ICF Consulting Services Limited Watling House 33 Cannon Street London EC4M 5SB

T +44 (0)20 3096 4800 F +44 (0)20 3368 6960

www.icfi.com

i

Document Control

Document Title Peer Learning Activity ‘Units, partial qualifications and full qualifications’, 26-27 May

2016, Riga – Synthesis Report

Job No. 30300780

Prepared by Anette Curth, Karin Luomi-Messerer

Checked by Daniela Ulicna

Date 17 June 2016

ii

Contents

1 Aims and objectives of the Peer Learning Activity 3

2 Units, partial qualifications and full qualifications 5 2.1 Country cases: Latvia, Germany, Finland, Czech Republic, Sweden ..................................... 5 2.2 Units, partial qualifications and full qualifications: A continuum............................................... 9 2.3 Transfer, accumulation and individual pathways ................................................................... 10 2.4 Conclusions and points for further discussion ....................................................................... 12

3 Stakeholder involvement 14 3.1 Sector Expert Councils and Sector Skills Councils in Latvia and the UK .............................. 14 3.2 Stakeholder involvement in qualification design, validation and assessment ....................... 15 3.3 Stakeholder involvement in review and update of qualifications ........................................... 16 3.4 Conclusions and points for further discussion ....................................................................... 17

4 What follows for ECVET? Points for further discussion 18

Annex 1 Agenda to the PLA ................................................................................... 20

3

1 Aims and objectives of the Peer Learning Activity

When discussing the Annual Work Programme 2016, the ECVET Users’ Group decided to

dedicate a Peer Learning Activity (PLA) to discussing ‘Units, modules, partial qualifications

and full qualifications. The PLA was implemented in May 2016 as the first PLA of the ECEVT

Network in 2016.

In their opening address, DG EMPL reminded participants of the broader European policy

context. Enhancing the quality and attractiveness of vocational education and training (VET)

is one of the key objectives of the ‘New Skills Agenda’ that will be launched in June as part of

a comprehensive package of policy initiatives.

As part of the New Skills Agenda, the European Commission would like to invite Member

States to further enhance their efforts to promote VET as an attractive career choice. At the

same time, VET is being increasingly challenged to adapt better and faster to changes on the

labour market, to equip learners with the right skills for employment and to empower them to

respond to these changes. Open and flexible learning pathways leading to the development

of vocational skills and qualifications that match labour market needs are seen as key to

respond to this challenge. The concept of units of learning outcomes is also central to the

ECVET 2009 Recommendation. It is expected that units will facilitate portability of learning

outcomes and help the learner to transfer and accumulate learning from one learning context

to another.1 Member States pay increasing attention to modularised and unitised VET

programmes and qualifications defined in learning outcomes; to an extent that is sometimes

referred to as the ‘quiet revolution’ in VET across Europe.2

However, some Member States put traditionally a strong focus on ‘full’ (holistic) qualifications,

as they believe that quality in VET is best achieved by comprehensive high quality VET

qualifications that ensure full ‘occupational proficiency’, including a skilled workers’ ability to

adapt to changing circumstances.

The PLA aimed to discuss how and why countries decide on units, partial qualifications or full

qualifications to meet labour market demands, with a focus on:

■ the different country approaches ;

■ the different views and interests of stakeholders: policy makers, social partners, VET

providers, learners;

■ the decision-making process: how is that organised, how and to what extent are

stakeholders involved in the design, reviewing and updating of unit-based systems (e.g.

envisaging units only as part of qualifications or also as standalone partial qualifications)

and qualifications (e.g. how VET providers and/or qualification designers collaborate on

designing units and modules writing learning outcomes) and extent to which those are /

should be involved in defining assessment criteria; and

■ the key success factors and barriers experienced or anticipated.

The PLA was held in Latvia, and special attention was given to Latvian VET reforms; as the

country is amongst the most recent cases of modularisation of the vocational education.3

1 Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the establishment of a

European Credit System for Vocational Education and Training (ECVET) available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32009H0708(02)&from=EN

2 Presentation by Michel Arribaud given during an International Seminar (‘Strengthening the Competence Based Approach in Finland - This is how we did it’) in the context of Tajtaja 2016. http://taitaja2016.fi/en/presentations-of-the-international-seminar/

3 In Latvia, VET is referred to as ‘vocational education’ (in Latvian: ‘profesionālā izglītība’), which includes periods

of practical learning in schools and enterprises. The term ‘training’ is not commonly used in the national context.

4

Participants of the PLA

The PLA was attended by representatives from eight countries: The Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Poland, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the host country Latvia.

Besides members of the ECVET users’ group and ECVET experts, participants included representatives of national education and training research institutes, national employer organisations and trade unions, UEAPME, VET-providers, Cedefop, the ECVET Secretariat and the European Commission (DG EMPL)

Please note: The Presentations given at the meeting have been uploaded to the ECVET Secretariat website and are accessible here.

5

2 Units, partial qualifications and full qualifications

2.1 Country cases: Latvia, Germany, Finland, Czech Republic, Sweden

The host country, Latvia, emphasised that the rationale for developing modular VET

programmes can be broadly summarised as a response to the need to create a more modern

and flexible VET system able to more promptly respond to demands of each economic sector.

Moreover, Latvia aims to offer more flexible learning pathways to learners to facilitate school-

work transition.

In Latvia, a module is taken to be a didactic part of an education programme consisting of

related learning outcomes (knowledge, skills and competences). One module can correspond

to more than one qualification. Each modular VET programme in Latvia is structured in three

parts:

A. The compulsory part, providing common sectoral skills;

B. Optional modules, providing specific skills for a particular qualification, and

C. The free choice part, providing sector-specific or regional requirements and individual in-

depth vocational competences.

Each of these three parts can consist of modules related to general education topics,

professional competences modules, and/or module blocks. Each module is described in terms

of (1) its objectives, (2) learning outcomes in terms of knowledge, skills and competences to

be acquired, (3) procedures for the assessment of learning outcomes and (4) further education

opportunities.

A characteristic feature of the modularised system in Latvia is that separate modules can be

accumulated in different combinations, depending on the requirements of a particular

programme and the objectives of the learner. It is therefore very important for the learner to

obtain a certificate for each module.

Moreover, as partial recognition of qualifications is now possible, the system allows for

learners to directly enter the labour market after completing the compulsory part (A), if they

wish to do so. They can then further develop their competences at the workplace, and continue

later with optional modules (B) or free choice modules (C) to achieve a specialisation. In Latvia,

it is very important to obtain a certificate for each module or even unit.

More specifically, the modular approach in Latvia is expected to:

■ shorten the period necessary for acquiring a new qualification;

■ facilitate the transition of young people to the labour market;

■ contribute to professional development and specialisation by allowing learners to combine

particular modules or groups of modules – depending on their aims;

■ ensure that the acquisition of VET competences are based on attainable results; and

■ increase the flexibility of learning.

Over the last years, 22 IVET and 34 CVET programmes were developed, built on a modular

approach. The modular programmes, cover 14 sectors of Latvian economy.4 At the moment

(May 2016), Latvia is in a transitory period - full implementation of the new system is expected

to be achieved by the year 2017. At the moment, efforts are being made to prepare teachers

to work with the new approach. 5

4 The modular programmes are available online (in Latvian language): http://visc.gov.lv/profizglitiba/programmas_moduli.shtml 5 Presentation by Janis Gaigals, National Centre for Education, Latvia, given at the PLA

6

Modernising VET providers in Latvia: Ogre Technical School

The efforts to modernise VET in Latvia and enhance its quality were not restricted to systemic

reforms. Latvia has also made considerable investments to modernise of VET providers. For

instance, with support of an ERAF project, Latvia has invested 12 Million Euro to modernise Ogre

Technical School. The money was used to reconstruct various school buildings, and to modernise

the equipment and the class rooms.

Moreover, Ogre participated in the development of the modularised courses. The school now offers

new curricula and modularised VET programmes in

■ Forestry and forest machinery (forestry technican, forest machine mechanic, forest machine

operator, timber car driver)

■ Wood products manufacturing (furniture joiner, carpenter construction products)

■ Construction work (woodworker).

While forestry and wood work are the focus areas of Ogre, students can also be trained in the following

disciplines:

■ Computer science and electronics

■ Hospitality and food production (hospitlity servises, catering servises, bread and flour products)

■ Administrative work (accountant, customer service, secretary)

■ Design and Art (interior designer, multimedia designer, clothing designer, video operator)

7

Ogre Technical School has also invested in ensuring more opportunities for work-based learning. In

the study year 2015/2016, 193 students were offered the opportunity for work-based learning (WBL)

in collaboration with 59 regional companies.6

In Germany, VET students are trained in the dual system which is based on apprenticeships.

Apprentices are trained in two learning venues: 1) the training company, responsible for the

vocational competences, and 2) the vocational school, responsible for general education

topics and theoretical competences.

The German system is an example of an approach that works with ‘full qualifications’. A

vocational qualification is usually acquired through a three-year apprenticeship, and is

awarded when the final exam is successfully passed. Yet, even though the German system

does not work with units, modules, or partial qualifications, flexibility is ensured.

The Vocational Training Act (BBiG; 2005) foresees several forms of credit transfer. For

instance, the training period in initial VET can be shortened by crediting

■ previous training in the same occupation;

■ previous training in another relevant occupation;

■ work experience or previous school-based education;

■ early admission to the final examination.

Many occupations also allow for vertical flexibility. Within certain groups of similar

qualifications, students can change the learning path as the basic training is almost identical.

For instance, if they started an apprenticeship as a car mechanic, but then decide they would

prefer to follow the bike mechanic pathway, they can do so after the 1st year of training without

losing any time.7

Moreover, admission to final examinations is not restricted to those who followed the full three-

year apprenticeship training. It can also be granted based on work experience or non-formal

and informal learning, based on evidence of employment experience, initial training in a

relevant training occupation, or other credible demonstration of occupational proficiency.

Progression to Higher Education and Higher VET is possible – the vocational qualification

serves as entry qualification to further qualifications on EQF levels 6, 7 and 8.8

In Finland, a reform to introduce ‘competence-based qualifications’ has recently been

completed. A ‘vocational qualification’ is understood as an entity of units of learning outcomes.

All vocational qualifications are now divided into units - which are composed on the basis of

functions in working life. The Finnish system was designed to facilitate maximum flexibility for

the learner and ensure that all competences a learner acquired – regardless of the learning

context – can be identified, assessed, validated and recognised to shorten the period for

acquiring a full qualification. This includes validation of non-formal and informal learning and

recognition of prior learning. For example, competences acquired through hobbies, military or

civil service, voluntary work, or work experience can be validated and will be credited. In the

future, financing will also be based on units.

It is however important to note that despite the fact that the system is fully unitised, Finland

still aims to ensure that the individual learner acquires a full qualification based on an

individualised learning plan. However Finland is convinced that a unitised system in

combination with a competence-based approach best supports the individual learner’s needs:

Especially low-skilled workers are able to start with one unit and then add missing parts of

competencies – until they finally accumulate the full qualification. Moreover, the reform will

6 Presentation by Ilze Brante, Director of Ogre Technical School, given at the PLA 7 It should be noted though that this may mean that students have to look for another training company, if the current company cannot offer the training related to the new occupation. 8 Presentation by Wolfgang Kreher, Representation of the State of Hessen to the EU in Brussels, Isabelle Le Mouillour, BIBB, Germany

8

create one single qualification structure for IVET and CVET. For skilled workers, acquiring

additional units to add a new skill, or updating skills requirements, can also be very useful.

Consequently, thorough the unitised approach, the Finnish system is able to ensure a quick

response to labour market needs. 9

In Poland, a new system was legally implemented in 2015 which is called Integrated

Qualifications System (IQS). IQS is based on a lifelong learning perspective, hence the idea

that it does not matter so much at what point during their educational pathway and by what

training arrangements (IVET, CVET, HE or non-formal) a learner has acquired competences

or a qualification. What counts are the competences s/he has – in other words, it is about the

learning outcomes.

Consequently the IQS aims at

■ the integration of different subsectors (IVET, CVET, HE and elements of training outside

of formal education system);

■ transparent and understandable qualifications (described in terms of learning outcomes);

■ validation opportunities and new learning pathways; and

■ the portability of learning achievements and an assurance that learning outcomes are

comparable - hence assessed based on the same criteria.

The IQS works with units of learning outcomes and knows both full and partial qualifications:

■ Full qualifications are taken to be educational qualifications achieved after finishing

certain stages of education defined in the law on IQS;

■ Partial qualifications are taken to be non-full qualifications, i.e. all ‘market qualifications‘,

and all ‘regulated qualifications‘ (those based on non-educational regulations).

Both full and partial qualifications in Poland consist of a number of units of learning outcomes.

Units were introduced to increase the flexibility of learning, ensure the transparency of

qualifications, and to facilitate accumulation and transfer of learning achievements. Each unit

includes the description of learning outcomes and the respective assessment criteria. Units

can have a different role/character, they can comprise specific vocational skills or transversal

skills, but can also be used for ’capstone’ elements in a qualification. Each qualification

comprises

■ learning outcomes common to all occupations,

■ learning outcomes common to occupations in a given field, and

■ learning outcomes specific for the particular occupation.

For qualification designers, it is often difficult to ensure the balance between coherence of

units in a qualification and assure the portability of achievements.

Experiences with units confirm that solutions based on units of learning outcomes in the formal

IVET system have turned out to be popular among Polish students. 10

In Sweden, vocational programmes are offered through two different pathways: Upper

secondary school and adult education. In upper secondary school (16-20 year olds),

vocational programmes are offered as a 3-year programme, based on a structure defined on

national level. Programmes are either offered as school-based programmes with 15 weeks of

work-based learning, or as apprenticeships with a minimum of 50 % WBL.

VET programmes are also offered in adult education, equally on upper secondary level, but

targeting persons older than 20 year olds. In adult education, qualifications are more flexible.

Students follow an individual study plan that often includes credit for units acquired through

9 Presentation by Hanna Autere, Finnish National Board of Education, Finland, given at the PLA 10 Presentation by Wojciech Stęchły, Educational Research Institute, Poland, given at the PLA

9

prior learning (work experience or non-formal or informal learning). There is no specific

requisite as to WBL.

Over the course of the programmes, learners accumulate units to achieve a ‘full qualification’

on SQF level 3 or 4. For each passed unit the learner receives credits (one point for an hour

workload) and a grade, registered in a transcript of records. In adult education any unit could

be achieved through assessment and validation of non-formal or informal learning –a process

that also leads to credits and grade, registered in a transcript of record.11

2.2 Units, partial qualifications and full qualifications: A continuum

The country cases presented at the PLA confirmed that the modular and holistic approach are

largely theoretical extremes, with national experiences at different points in the continuum,

and often hard to pinpoint. When looking at the countries attending the PLA, while Finland, UK

and Ireland can be classified as fully modularised systems. Sweden, Latvia and Poland can

be positioned as unitised systems between radical modularisation and combination of both

forms (in case of PL and LV due to ongoing reforms). Germany and the Czech Republic have

rather traditional ‘holistic’ IVET systems, however CVET in both countries can be referred to

as a combination of both forms.

Yet, these classifications do not reflect the full picture. Education and training systems in

countries with holistic approaches (e.g. DE) offer solutions to facilitate transitions, flexible

pathways and the crediting of time. And, on the other hand, in countries with a fully

modularised system (e.g. FI, IE, UK), the flexibility must be seen as a means to the end of

offering more and flexible opportunities for learners to achieve a high quality (full) qualification.

An interesting concept in that regard – which seems to be relatively new in the debate – is the

idea of ‘capstone’ units. In the UK, this concept refers to the fact that a learner can accumulate

units, but in order to achieve the overarching qualification there is a need to achieve a specific

‘capstone’ unit – a unit for the final assessment. In Ireland, capstone units were just recently

implemented, understood as ‘programme outcomes’ to mitigate the risk of fragmentation of

qualifications by breaking them down in units; similarly to the UK.

In Poland, the concept is used as well. In some IVET qualifications, there are general

education components and vocational components. Often the general component serves the

role of a ‘capstone’. Or there might be a unit related to a specific task and a final unit related

to the most important / final task - the rationale is that the assessment of the final unit depends

on the units acquired before. The Czech Republic also uses the concept of ‘capstones’ as final

projects that learners need to do in order to prove general and holistic competences.

Partial qualifications are a reality. Yet, there is an ongoing discussion in countries whether ‘the

glass is half full or half empty’. Partial qualifications respond to needs of modernisation, and

allow responding swiftly and flexibly to industry requirements. Yet, it is also seen that partial

qualifications often do not include learning outcomes related to core and transversal skills to

a sufficient extent. Hence, partial qualifications can be a solution, but should not lead to a dead

end – VET systems should always foresee that components of qualifications (such as ‘minor’

awards in IE) can be topped up with additional modules to lead to a full qualification (‘major’

award in IE).

Modules are commonly understood as components of education and training programmes

which are identified in advance, intended for obtaining a specific qualification. Therefore, the

term ‘module’ belongs to the process level (i.e. the level of organisation and conduct of VET

programmes ) whilst ‘units’ refer to the outcome level in terms of parts of qualifications that

can be defined on the basis of knowledge, skills and competence. The ECVET

recommendation makes a clear distinction between units of learning outcomes and modules.

11 Presentation given by Eva Ekstedt Salzmann, Swedish National Agency for Education, Sweden, given at the PLA

10

However, in practice countries do not generally follow the ECVET distinction and both terms

are often used interchangeably. For instance, in the Latvian case, the term ‘modules’ is used,

but the term ‘units’ would also fit. From one country to another some qualifications systems

might not for instance differentiate both (e.g. in Germany, as in the VET systems following a

holistic approach), while in others – e.g. the UK – one module (process level) contains various

units (outcomes level).

2.3 Transfer, accumulation and individual pathways

Modularised VET systems usually foresee manners of accumulating units and modules related

to obtain a qualification in a more or less flexible way. When comparing practices between

countries, it can be observed that accumulation of units is often done progressively. There can

be a basic set of mandatory units that can be topped up with ‘free choice’ units, like in the

Latvian case, or units for specialisation, like in the Swedish case. Some countries award the

full qualification through a final exam, or through a final ‘capstone unit’.

Other countries (e.g. Finland) offer even more flexible ways of accumulation by adding learning

that stems from other qualifications or informal/non-formal learning contexts. This however

requires ways of transferring learning acquired in different contexts.

Following the definition that modules are related to the process level and units to the outcomes

level, it can be assumed that modules are broader and therefore more difficult to transfer

between learning contexts than units: complete equality is difficult to ensure. The same

problem however applies to the transfer of units. Theoretically, it would make sense to transfer

units with similar content from one pathway or learning context to another. In practice, this

requires a lot of flexibility. Examples from Finland and Poland show the level of units may still

be too broad-brushed to ensure transferability. Finland therefore looks at the level of learning

outcomes: While entire units may not be fully transferable, they often contain a number of

learning outcomes that are common to several units (and qualifications). An individual person-

by person approach is needed, in order to really do justice to a person’s personal learning

pathway.

Yet, this requires a clear and common standard in describing learning outcomes. This standard

needs to be communicated and applied by all stakeholders involved in qualification design. In

countries that have only recently introduced unitised systems, this may not be the case yet.

An example from Poland shows that sectors have a tendency to describe and to group learning

outcomes very specifically when they design new units; and comparability across sectors is

difficult. Poland advises sectors to apply more generic learning outcome descriptors, to ensure

transferability to other sectors, and professional contexts. Another option would be to design

generic units – e.g. a unit on data storage and archiving that could be used in finance, but also

in accounting, and would be transferrable to many contexts.

However, to unify practice an agreement between sectors would be required. The Polish

institutions are trying to coordinate this as much as possible (through meetings and

information), but it remains a challenge.

In the UK, although a system is in place that allows for the recognition of prior learning and

transfer of outcomes from one learning context to another, those possibilities are very rarely

used. In practice, accumulation is interpreted as credit transfer. In the apprenticeship frame,

for example, the two-year programme is split into two parts and a certificate is issued after the

first year, the so-called ‘subsidiary diploma’. Employers are usually more interested in the ‘full’

diploma and for colleges the selling point is also the whole qualification. However, this

certificate is seen as motivation for learners because it visualises their learning achievements.

Thus, using components of qualifications can encourage learners to continue obtaining a full

qualification.

Countries more experienced with the practice of transferring learning outcomes report that

assessment is key. If and when institutions trust each other’s assessment, they also trust the

11

documentation a learner brings along. Yet, experiences in the UK show that systems never

completely trust each other. Even when high-level agreements are in place, and units are

entirely transferrable, there is always some sort of administrative process connected to the

process of validation and recognition. Therefore, good documentation is of utmost importance

for the learner.

Another practical point to consider is the validity of units. There are differences across

countries how long units are ‘valid’ – while in some countries, the validity of units is unlimited,

others (e.g. Ireland), restrict the period during which units can be used and will be taken into

account for a full qualification. Such temporal limitation to a period of 3-5 years ensures that

the learning outcomes related to a unit are still up-to-date when the learner has accumulated

all units related to a full qualification.

VET systems that do not use modules can also offer more or less flexibility to learners. While

in some countries, such as Cyprus, there are no possibilities to use parts of qualifications,

other ‘holistic systems’ provide some flexibility: As mentioned earlier, the German

apprenticeship system clearly focuses on full qualifications and does not use units or modules.

Nevertheless, there are possibilities for transferring learning outcomes from other learning

contexts, including gaining credits for work experience. At the beginning of their training, all

apprentices are first introduced to the respective law (Vocational Training Act - BBiG; 2005)

that foresees several forms of credit transfer. Thus, apprentices are expected to be informed

about these possibilities. However, it can be quite challenging for companies to individualise

the training programme for an apprentice who wants to make use of previous learning

achievements.

It can be concluded that there is no uniform solution how to best organise transfer,

accumulation and individual pathways. Countries make different choices depending on

traditions and their main goals; sometimes it even seems that the same goals can be reached

in different ways. This is illustrated with the (fictional) case of Kaspers in the box below.

The case of Kaspers

Kaspers is an employee at HansaMatrix (Ogre, Latvia). He is a very experienced employee who has been with the company for many years. He works as a high category electronics’ technician, trains new employees and trainees and assesses learner’s results.

However Kaspers has only a lower secondary school qualification. As the company would like to give him tasks that formally require a higher level qualification, they are very interested to find ways how he can acquire such formal qualification in a quick and efficient manner.

Below a couple of examples on how this would be done in different countries/systems.

What are Kaspers’ options in a modularised system?

The new Latvian system will provide manners for Kaspers to be assessed in the relevant educational programme at the nearest vocational qualification examination. The institution for the validation of professional competence will issue a document certifying the State recognised first, second or third level vocational qualification (EQF level 2-4).12 Kaspers will get credits for his work experience and can take additional modules, if needed.

In Finland, Kaspers would have the possibility to demonstrate his competences using the national qualification requirements of the respective VET qualification as reference. The learning outcomes of his work experience would be validated and recognised. If necessary, Kaspers would be able to acquire additional competences through training. He would be

12 Cedefop Inventory on the validation of non-formal and informal learning – Country report Latvia. https://cumulus.cedefop.europa.eu/files/vetelib/2014/87068_LV.pdf

12

able to accumulate units to acquire the full qualification in an individualised and flexible way.13

In Sweden, Kaspers could acquire the qualification through adult learning programmes. A VET provider would draft an individualised learning plan for Kaspers that would include credit for units acquired through prior learning (work experience).14

In the UK (EN and NI), Kaspers’ employer might work with a VET provider, which would be able to award an accredited qualification. This can be done through the development of specific units which can be combined with existing units, tailored to the specific needs of the company. The Qualifications and Credit Framework sets out the conditions for the recognition of prior learning.15

What are Kaspers’ options in a holistic system?

For example, in Germany, Kaspers could take the final exam as an ‘external’ candidate to achieve the full qualification. His work experience would be ‘credited’ as equivalent to an apprenticeship in the dual system.

2.4 Conclusions and points for further discussion

The PLA showed that countries‘ VET systems have the tendency to structure qualifications

into smaller entities or components (units/modules/partial qualifications) to achieve greater

flexibility. At the same time they seem to strengthen the focus on high quality ‘full

qualifications‘. Hence there seems to be no uniform answer to the question of how to

modernise VET systems, facilitate flexible pathways, enhance the quality of VET and respond

to the demands of the labour market. Countries make choices depending on traditions and the

demands of key labour market stakeholders. The decision to use units / partial / full

qualifications often stems from the needs of the labour market, and can be sector specific:

Some sectors are against the units / partial qualifications, as it does not fit the specific need of

that sector, others insist on high flexibility. Yet, sometimes it seems that the same goals can

be achieved in different ways.

For instance, the German VET system – with full back-up of the social partners - sticks to full

qualifications, as the stakeholders strongly believe that full qualifications are the right means

to prepare learners for a fast-changing labour market. The concept of ‘occupational

proficiency’ entails the idea to not only train learners for a job, but qualify them for a career,

and to teach them to ‘learn how to learn’. This is believed to be a strong foundation that helps

skilled workers to adapt quickly to new skills demands.

To address the same problem, other Member States introduce flexible learning pathways that

allow for a quick re-qualification in case skills are outdated or certain are not required anymore

in the region. Yet, these Member States don’t advocate short or reduced training opportunities

that provide only basic skills or very specialised skills required by specific employers. In many

modularised systems – e.g. LV, PL, SE – a qualification consists of a compulsory foundation

phase during which learners acquire basic sectoral or professional skills. Modules and units

are an opportunity to flexibly build on these basic skills and accumulate additional skills with

additional modules.

The following key points may be interesting for further discussion about the portability of units

and modules.

13 According to information gained at the PLA. 14 According to information gained at the PLA. 15 Cedefop Inventory on the validation of non-formal and informal learning – Country report UK (EN and NI). https://cumulus.cedefop.europa.eu/files/vetelib/2014/87068_LV.pdf

13

■ Countries are finding it challenging to transfer entire units. Some are crediting learning

outcomes instead. ECVET however suggests that transfer should take place on the level

of units. Mobility projects have addressed this issue by agreeing specific ‘mobility units’ for

mobility projects. However in lifelong learning this will hardly be possible, given the number

of institutions involved, and the variety of individual learning pathways. What does that

mean for the ECVET concept of units and their portability?

■ Clear and common standards in formulating learning outcomes, which are followed by all

stakeholders involved, facilitate the transferability. How can that be achieved?

■ Learners and institutions are often not fully aware about the possibilities for credit transfer.

How can this be better promoted, to ensure that everyone has better access to

information?

■ Terminology issues persist. The terms modules and units are often not very clearly

differentiated and used interchangeably.

■ Trusted assessment procedures are key to establishing trust between institutions. For

countries introducing changes in the VET system this is a difficult process that takes time.

What experiences are there on how to approach this?

Another point that was repeatedly touched upon during the day was the involvement of labour

market stakeholders in the design, review and update of qualifications, and in the assessment

of learners. This point was in the focus of Day 2 of the PLA.

14

3 Stakeholder involvement

3.1 Sector Expert Councils and Sector Skills Councils in Latvia and the UK

Over the last 10 years, Latvia has worked on improving the quality of the VET-system. The

intention was to develop a way to better respond to the skills needs and formalise stakeholder

involvement. The following steps were taken:

■ 2005-2007: ESF project on developing methodology for quality improvement of VET and

on involvement of the social partners.16

■ 2009: National Conception on Raising Attractiveness of VET and social partner

participation in quality assurance of VET which foresaw the establishment of Sector Expert

Councils (SECs).

■ 2010-2015: ESF project on developing sectoral qualifications framework and improving

quality and effectiveness of VET –12 SECs were created and participated in activities.

The amendments to the Vocational education law (January 2015) stipulate that it is the goal

of SECs to ‘promote VET effectiveness and quality of VET by promoting cooperation between

state institutions, municipalities, employers and their organisations, trade unions,

professionals to deal with human resource development issues and compliance of VET to

labour market needs’.17

The Latvian Sector Expert Councils18 consist of employer representatives and sectoral

organisations, trade unions and government representatives. A total of 12 SECs have been

created who see themselves as regulators between labour market needs and training

organisations. They promote modern, forward-looking vocational education through a clear

and transparent system of Occupational Standards; and want to be the leading partner in

promoting cooperation between employers, employees, education institutions and public

institutions.19

The role of SECs is to contribute to raising the effectiveness and quality of VET by promoting

social partners’, VET providers and sectoral organisations’ cooperation in development of VET

that corresponds and is continuously updated to meet the labour market needs. SEC have

legal status, and their remit is to:

■ propose the numbers of students to be trained in particular VET programmes;

■ participate in the VET network development and planning of programmes, development of

sector qualifications structure;

■ propose sector experts for the development of occupational standards, qualification

demands, content of the VET programmes and the qualification exams;

■ appoint experts for the licensing and accreditation of VET programmes and participating

in qualification exams;

■ coordinate and promote the co-operation of employers with VET institutions (including co-

operation in work-based learning and training and qualification practice), and;

■ address demand/supply-related issues of sector specialists in the labour market.

In the years since their establishment, the SECs initiated 14 research reports on sectors, and

helped to prepare 14 Sectoral qualification frameworks, 61 Occupational Standards, 19

Qualification Requirements, and 56 VET modules-based programmes.

1616 Valaine et al., Methodological Recommendations for the Development of Modular VET Programmes, developed by a NCE Working Group, funded by the ESF, 2015. http://visc.gov.lv/profizglitiba/dokumenti/metmat/metiet_modul_progr_izstr_2015.pdf 17 Latvian Vocational Education Law in 2015, amendments (Article 12) 18 http://www.nozaruekspertupadomes.lv/nozaru-ekspertu-padomes 19 Cf presentation given by Anita Lice, LDKK Latvia, at the PLA.

15

Experiences with Sector Skills Councils also exist in the UK. Sector Skills Councils or

Standards Setting Organisations are responsible for the development of National

Occupational Standards (NOS), which are ‘statements of the standards of performance

individuals must achieve when carrying out functions in the workplace, together with

specifications of the underpinning knowledge and understanding’20.

The framework of the National Occupational Standards gives VET providers the liberty to work

closely together with employers to develop specific programmes tailored to their needs.

Experiences show that employer engagement has a significant impact to programme success.

VET providers participate in employer led forums and discussions to be able to develop

bespoke units and modules that are tailored to what the local labour market want. However,

new qualifications have to go through a rigorous assessment by panels formed of relevant

stakeholders in the sector. In a next step, they go to the awarding body. There must be a

strong business case to justify why a new qualification should be developed.

Moreover, VET providers train industry representatives to participate in the provision of

vocational programmes offered as apprenticeships or including a large WBL part.

3.2 Stakeholder involvement in qualification design, validation and assessment

The country cases presented at the PLA represent similar forms of sectoral engagement in

qualification design. In Latvia, Sector Expert Councils were established and integrated in the

law. Another form of stakeholder engagement in Latvia are regional councils. Besides Sector

expert councils, the new law from 2015 also establishes regional conventions that involve local

governments, VET-providers, and local employers, representing the local business needs.

This has been established as Latvia is aware that local skills needs may be very specific as

they differ from the national forecast of the Ministry of Economics.

In the UK, the qualification system has two legs: One for formal education, where qualifications

are designed by the National Institute for Education. Learning outcomes are 50-70 %

compulsory for all providers and 30%-50% depending on local needs. The other leg regards

CVET and adult education. Sectors Skills Councils define qualifications and assessment

standards, and form boards for assessment. These boards include employers, teachers,

anybody who meets the required criteria.

Obviously, VET providers are strongly engaged in training delivery and assessment. The

extent to which VET providers are involved in qualification design differs across Europe. For

instance, in DK, ES, FI, LV, NL, and PT, VET providers are very actively involved and can, for

instance, collaborate with social partners to design new qualifications based on local needs.

In other countries (e.g. CY, EL, HU), they are just implementers and do not take part in the

decision-making process. There is evidence that a closer involvement of stakeholders in

qualification design enhances the effectiveness of VET systems, as it helps to create links with

industry, to strengthen mutual respect and to improve understanding of the learning outcomes.

A close involvement of VET-providers is even more important in a learning-outcomes based

approach, as this has an influence on the delivery of VET-courses and qualifications. It

changes the pedagogy and the mentality of teachers. Teachers who are used to work with

input based approaches need to ‘turn everything around’ – instead of thinking of curricular

content they need to think about what is required to achieve the learning outcomes, and only

then think about how to organise it, and put in time lines. In Finland, VET-providers and

teachers were very strong advocates for the competence-based approach and for working

with units of learning outcomes, as their teaching practice showed that this approach is more

effective.

Engagement of employers in training (work-based learning - WBL) can be a challenge in

countries that have no tradition for that. In Latvia, for instance, employers often see a practical

20 See: http://nos.ukces.org.uk/Pages/index.aspx

16

engagement in the delivery of training and assessment as a burden. Experience shows that

only those with a high long-term need of skilled workers will engage. This is for a part due to

the fact that staff members have no experience in training young people. Latvia is currently

piloting ‘train the trainer’ courses to address these needs. However this requires an investment

of staff working time by the employer, and there is no agreement with employer organisations

yet on how much time would appropriate.

In countries with a strong tradition of delivering VET in the form of WBL at the work place (e.g.

apprenticeships), labour market stakeholders are usually also involved in the development of

assessment criteria, and in assessment. Many employers are directly involved in the

assessment of their trainees, and assessment happens at the work place. This however may

be validated by an external assessor. For instance in the UK, an external assessor – a teacher

from another institution – acts as an impartial validator.

In other countries assessment is carried out (or validated) by a panel or an independent body.

In Finland, as per law, all assessment happens at the work place, though work demonstrations.

Assessment is done by a committee that includes the VET provider, a company representative

and the learner him/herself.

3.3 Stakeholder involvement in review and update of qualifications

The country cases discussed show that all VET systems have regulations in place for

systematically reviewing and updating the content of qualifications and for including labour

market stakeholders in this process. Their approaches differ, however, in how this process is

organised and how frequently it is carried out.

In Finland, for example, learning outcomes are evaluated and review takes place

approximately every five years. This process is led by the Finish National Board of Education

who organises groups of experts with labour market stakeholders. Research on labour market

needs is also taken into account. The whole process takes about one year.

A unitised system can support close cooperation between training providers and companies.

For example, in the UK, colleges ask employers which units out of e.g. 40 that a qualification

consists of they want them to deliver. Thus, they have a good understanding of the (changing)

needs at the labour market. In case there is a need to include changes in the qualification, a

‘business case’ has to be prepared that needs to be approved by the responsible awarding

body based on a rigorous assessment by panels formed of relevant stakeholders in the sector.

In Germany, the review and updating takes about eight months. It is initiated by a request from

industry/sectoral stakeholders and the responsible ministry commissions the Federal Institute

for Vocational Education and Training (BIBB) to address this request. First, a decision has to

be made whether a new profession has to be introduced or whether an existing one should be

updated. Employer representatives and trade unions as well as VET providers are always

involved in this process.

In some countries, Sector Skills Councils or similar organisations have been established for

organising review and update of qualifications (e.g. in CZ, LV, PL). In the Czech Republic, for

example, qualifications are renewed every four years. Working groups are established for

carrying out this process which are composed of VET providers, employer and employee

representatives.

Challenges discussed in this context include:

■ Stakeholder engagement: Some countries have a long tradition in involving stakeholders

in designing and renewing qualifications whereas in other countries (e.g. PL), it seems to

be challenging to involve employers in these processes.

■ Time frame: Although small changes in qualifications can usually be accommodated at

local level and without elaborated renewal processes, employer sometimes express their

17

concern that processes for reviewing and updating qualifications take such a long time that

in a period of 1.5-2 years these qualifications are already outdated again.

3.4 Conclusions and points for further discussion

Stakeholder involvement is a necessity to ensure VET system respond adequately to the

needs of the labour market. This is true for all forms – modularised systems as well as holistic

systems. The Latvian case shows that the involvement of all stakeholders – social partners

and VET providers, but also the learners - is necessary to ensure effective modularisation.

As regards modularisation, from the view of the industry this may be an attractive way to short-

term secure skills demands, while ‘full qualifications’ may take too long to be responsive.

Education and training stakeholders may however think differently. For instance, they may be

interested to reference a VET qualification to the National Framework at a specific level, to

ensure a learner can progress to the next level, or to Higher Education. This may require that

the programmes includes more learning outcomes than those needed to match the industry’s

skills demand, or learning outcomes related to general education.

To ensure best chances for the learner – in a short-term and a long-term perspective -

countries’ stakeholder involvement strategies need to be structured in a way that balances

between these demands. Sector Skills Councils or Sector Expert Councils that include a broad

variety of stakeholders seem to be a successful way to address this. In other countries, good

experiences have been made with forms of tripartite arrangements that include state

representatives, social partners and education providers.

A balance between decision-making on national and regional/local level also seems to be

useful to ensure that you people develop the skills that are in demand by industry in their direct

environment.

18

4 What follows for ECVET? Points for further discussion

Education and training systems that work traditionally with units and modules are better

prepared to introduce ECVET compatible processes than systems which traditionally place a

higher value on full qualifications. In fact, units of learning outcomes are a central concept of

ECVET and their existence is a necessary precondition to work with ECVET, as units and

modules are the basis for validation and recognition. Hence, units are seen as a necessary

precondition to facilitate transfer and accumulation, not as an end in itself. Yet, from the point

of view of labour market stakeholders, units and modules are often seen as a means to ensure

more flexible responses to specific skills demands of the industry.

The PLA has shown that there is no obvious breakdown between modular systems and holistic

systems. Across countries, there seems to be a consensus that qualifications are made up by

different components, regardless of the terminology used (basic components, units, modules,

etc.). While the portability of qualification components seems to be more obvious in unitised

systems, holistic systems have also developed methods of internal transfer of credit (usually

expressed in shortening the training programme).

In all types of systems, governments, labour market stakeholder and VET providers in all

European countries seem to be working together to ensure high quality open and flexible VET

pathways that respond to the needs of the labour market. However, there are differences

regarding the structure and extent of this cooperation.

The following points provide food for thought for the further development of ECVET:

■ The country cases have confirmed that the modular and holistic approach are largely

theoretical extremes, with national experiences at different points in the continuum, and

often hard to pinpoint. Credit can be given in form of recognised training time or in form of

points related to a unit/module. However, the competences achieved by the learner are in

the focus in both cases.

■ Unitised systems usually foresee ways of accumulating units to ultimately achieve a full

qualification. In many countries, this includes arrangements for the validation of non-formal

and informal learning – especially in CVET and Adult Education.

■ Transfer of units between qualifications or learning pathways is less common. Where

arrangements are in place (e.g. in Finland), awarding bodies look at learners’

achievements on the level of learning outcomes, not on the level of units, as this enhances

options of transferability.

■ To organise VET qualifications as composed of units of learning outcomes it is necessary

to take into account the whole picture - provision, assessment, validation arrangements,

etc. Stakeholders should be included at all stages – from (re-)designing qualifications to

validation and recognition.

■ Stakeholder collaboration is needed to ensure clear and common standards in writing

outcomes. This is in the interest of learners as common standards enhance the chances

on transferability of learning outcomes and/or units.

■ Mutual trust is key, especially where assessment standards are concerned. ECVET

foresees arrangements (Memorandum of Understanding) to agree on practices for

validation of learning outcomes assessed by another institution on a higher level. This is a

precondition for recognition. Having such agreements in place on sectoral level (e.g.

arranged by Sector Skills Councils) would enhance the learners’ chances for the transfer

of learning outcomes from one learning context to another.

19

ANNEXES

20

Annex 1 Agenda to the PLA

Peer Learning Activity ‘Units, partial qualifications and full qualifications’, 26–27 May 2016, Riga’

Time Agenda Item

Day 1: 26 May 2016

8:30 - 9.00 Welcome Coffee and Registration

9:00 – 9.20 Welcome address European Commission, DG EMPL

Welcome address host country

Līga Lejiņa, State Secretary, Ministry of Education and Science, Latvia (tbc)

9.20 – 9.40 Introduction to the PLA

Anette Curth, ECVET Secretariat

Topic 1: Design of units, partial qualifications and full qualifications to meet labour market demands

9.40 – 10.00 ‘Units, partial qualifications and full qualifications’:

An overview on different systems and solutions across Europe

Karin Luomi-Messerer, ECVET Secretariat

10.30 – 11.10 Presentation of host country practice I:

Revising VET curricula through modularisation to meet labour market needs

Janis Gaigals, National Centre for Education, Latvia, Deputy Head of VET

Q&A

11.10 – 11.30 Coffee Break

11.30 – 12.15 Units, partial qualifications and full qualifications – presentation of experiences from

visiting countries

Wolfgang Kreher, Representation of the State of Hessen to the EU in Brussels, Isabelle Le

Mouillour, BIBB, Germany

Hanna Autere, Finnish National Board of Education, Finland

Wojciech Stęchły, Educational Research Institute, Poland

12.15 – 12.45 Plenary discussion

How and why do countries decide on units, partial qualifications and/or full qualifications to meet

labour market demands

12.45 - 13.30 Lunch

Topic 2: Implementation of a modularised system: How VET providers adapt

13.30 – 14.30 Transfer to Ogre Technical School

14.30 – 14.45 Welcome at Ogre Technical school

14.45 – 15.15 Using modules in VET qualifications at Ogre Technical School:

How it works in practice

Ilze Brante, Director, Ogre Technical School

Q&A

15.15 – 16.00 Panel discussion with representatives of Ogre Technical School and the regional

economy

School management, teachers, students, regional employers

Facilitated by Dr Stylianos Mavromoustakos, EFVET

21

Time Agenda Item

16.00 – 16.30 Coffee Break

16.30 – 17.30 Workshop discussions

Workshop 1: How to ensure transfer and accumulation of modules and units in a modularised

system?

Workshop 2: How to enhance possibilities of accumulating units/partial qualifications in a

system that focuses on full qualifications?

17.30 – 18.30 Transfer back to Riga

As of 18.30 End of Day 1 official programme

20.00 Evening Dinner

Day 2: 27 May 2016

9:00 - 9.30 Welcome Coffee and Registration

Topic 3: The role of sector councils and occupational standards

9.30 – 10.00 Presentation of host country practice II:

Sector Expert Councils (SEC) and their role in developing occupational standards in

Latvia

Anita Līce, Employers' Confederation of Latvia (LDDK)

Q&A

10.00 – 10.45 Engagement of Labour Market stakeholders in qualification design and update -

experiences from visiting countries:

Eva Ekstedt Salzmann, The Swedish National Agency for Education, Sweden

Philip Whitney, National ECVET Expert, UK

10.45 – 11.10 Coffee Break

11.10 – 12.00

Workshop discussions

Workshop 1: How can social partners, VET providers and/or qualification designers collaborate

on qualification design and defining assessment criteria?

Workshop 2: How and to what extent should social partners VET providers and/or qualification

designers be involved in review and update of qualifications?

12.00 – 12.15 Key learning points from the meeting

Helene Hamers, Cedefop

Pavel Hradecky, University of Chemistry and Technology Prague, Czech Republic

Siobhán Magee, Further Education Support Service, Ireland

12.15 – 12.45 What follows?

Overall conclusions and next steps

Facilitated by ECVET Secretariat

12:45 - 13:00 Closing remarks

Host country representative (Latvia)

European Commission (DG EMPL)

13.00 – 14.00 Lunch

14.00 Departure of participants