Welcome to the Higher Education Reform Portal. This platform aims at keeping HE Experts informed about the latest news, the upcoming events and the useful documents and presentations related to the Higher Education Reform in Europe.
You can log into the Portal with your unique Identity account, your profile and expert fields will be automatically recognized. Relevant documents and presentations can also be found according to the ten different fields of expertise established by the European Commission.

Download National Report regarding the Bologna Process implementation 2009-2012 - France.
How do these projections affect higher education policy planning?
In France, works based on statistical forecasts of student numbers in higher education are regularly undertaken and are tools for the system monitoring, according to possible scenarios outlined for the future and their impact over the budget in particular. The latest information note published by the Ministry for higher education and research (MHER) on this issue focuses on student numbers forecasted for academic falls, over the period 2010-2019. From now till the 2019 horizon, two scenarios – one based on trends; another possible one - can therefore be found: Web link for the document: Note d’information MESR n°10.07 d’Octobre 2010.
What is the number of institutions in the categories identified?
In France, the number of higher education institutions, according to identified categories, is as follows: - universities: 83 - IUT (part of universities): 115; - Grands établissements: 11; - sections de techniciens supérieurs (STS) (ie: short cycles post-secondary classes providing BTS programmes ): 1951; - classes préparatoires aux grandes écoles (CPGE): 429 ; - engineering schools: 204 (including 58 private schools); - business, management and accountants’ schools): 212 ; - Arts and Culture schools: 237; - Paramedical schools outside universities: 409; - Schools for jobs in social affairs: 202; - Law and administration schools: 52; - Journalismschools and literature schools: 27; - Other schools: écoles normales supérieures, 6; schools of architecture, 22; Vet schools, 4.
Please provide any additional relevant comments for consideration regarding general data on your country's higher education system.
In France, the main statistical feedbacks about the higher education systemare made possible by the MHER, in particular on the basis of the SISE student information monitoring system (SISE standing for: “système d’information sur le suivi des étudiants ») involving all universities and most of HEIs within the remit of the MHER, and thanks to additional surveys carried out for post-secondary education: STS short cycles programmes and CPGE preparatory classes for Grandes Ecoles.
Additional surveys may be carried out fromtime to time by the MEHR statistical units or the CEREQ (“Centre d’études et de recherches sur les qualifications) organisation. + additional comments for Q3 : *Higher education institutions can be either academically or professionally oriented: Universities provide programmes which are either academically-oriented or research-oriented; on the other hand, professionally-oriented programmes (such as professionally-oriented “Licence”’s or “Master”’s degrees areprovided as well.
The purpose sought for in priority for these professionally-oriented degrees is immediate integration into the labour market, as far as one job or a set of well-defined jobs are concerned. However, academically-oriented degrees cannot overlook student employability. Therefore, the new academically-oriented Licence, on top of subject-specific competences, must enable students to get generic and pre-professional competences and skills that can be re-invested in “real life”, into a socio-economic environment. Universities also provide their students with short-cycle programmes leading to DUT (“diplômes universitaires de technologie ») degrees, within IUTs (“Instituts universitaires de technologie”), which are part of universities. As far as engineering or business schools are concerned, they can be considered professionally-oriented higher education institutions.
*Higher education institutions are either public or private : Universities are public institutions and their names as Universities is legally protected on the basis of a regulation list about all universities in France, which is regularly updated and published. Engineering schools can either be public or private, whereas business schools are private institutions.
**Other: The category set for « établissement privé reconnu par l’Etat» deals with private institutions which, on the basis of an expertise to be carried out, are recognized as institutions bringing a cooperation which is useful to the public service of higher education, and therefore, which can be allowed to get among their own students those who hold a grant allocated by the State (MHER ministry). As far as degree recognition is concerned, another category based on the « reconnaissance du diplôme par l’Etat » or the mention of a “diplôme visé par l’Etat” only matter.
4.3.1. Does your country provide specific support measures on the national level?
The concept of “competences-based references” (ie : “référentiels de compétences”) or learning outcomes (LO), which also takes on board on an equal footing competences and skills on top of theoretical knowledge only, is the cornerstone of the National professional qualifications register – ie : the « Répertoire national des certifications professionnelles » (RNCP) -, where mentioning the LO is required for any registered degree. In the framework of the multiannual Plan for Success in Licence programmes », for which purpose a financial envelope accounting for an overall amount of 730 million euros for a 5-year period (2008-2012) is set, the focus is made on drawing up “competences-based references” in order to make degree-connected competences more readable and understandable. Therefore, for the renovation of Licence programmes, a press conference made by the Minister for higher education and research shed a light upon, in connection to the deepening further of reforms stirred up by the Bologna Process (especially the so-called LMD reform), competences-based references should be made for the main special subject areas developed by Licence programmes. In connection to the RNCP national qualifications register, and the LO concept which is related to it while being one of the key Bologna process principles for reorganizing higher education, since 2008, local meetings made especially for university audiences have been organized in regions, by the MHER (DG for higher education and employability), the French Rectors’Conference (CPU) and the national professional qualification Commission (CNCP), which is meant to examine any application about a degree registration into the RNCP register Furthermore, after co-organizing the Conference, in Lyon in 2008, focused on the issue of “the Bologna Process : a student-centered learning”, the national team of Bologna experts regularly deals with the issue of the LO the ECTS allocation and the Diploma supplement award must be connected to. On this issue, over the 2009-2011 period, several regional workshops organized by the French Bologna experts’team have been set up in universities. The competences-based approach is the core point where the key objectives a university is seeking for itself do converge. Currently, while making the necessary connection between employability (with more readable degrees), the implementation of the VAE (ie : recognition of prior learning including professional experiences), many teams in Universities are busy working on a new reorganization of competences-based degrees for the whole set of their qualifications to be awarded, especially on the basis of projects involving several institutions. For some, like the Jean Monnet University of Saint-Etienne, these works made for the whole set of Licence’s degrees, including the fields of literature, humanities and social sciences, are now over (>> refer to the following Website : http://portail.univ-st-etienne.fr, rubrique Formations, Guide des compétences). Some projects, which might have been granted a political and financial back-up by the ministry for higher education and research, are focused on setting up new information technology tools meant to make it easier, for students on the one hand, to analyze and describe better their own competences gained when studying (and may be with professional activities as well), and for teachers on the other hand, to set up a new competences-based organization for HE programmes and degrees to be awarded. Download National Report regarding the Bologna Process implementation 2009-2012 - France.

In many respects, the Bologna Process has been revolutionary for cooperation in European higher education. Four education ministers participating in the celebration of the 800th anniversary of the University of Paris (Sorbonne Joint Declaration, 1998) shared the view that the segmentation of the European higher education sector in Europe was outdated and harmful.
The decision to engage in a voluntary process to create the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) was formalized one year later in Bologna, by 30 countries (The Bologna Declaration, 1999). It is now apparent that this was a unique undertaking as the process today includes no fewer than 47 participating countries, out of the 49 countries that have ratified the European Cultural Convention of the Council of Europe (1954).
At its inception, the Bologna Process was meant to stregthen the competitiveness and attractiveness of the European higher education and to foster student mobility and employability through the introduction of a system based on undergraduate and postgraduate studies with easily readable programmes and degrees. Quality assurance has played an important role from the outset, too. However, the various ministerial meetings since 1999 have broadened this agenda and have given greater precision to the tools that have been developed. The undergraduate/postgraduate degree structure has been modified into a three-cycle system, which now includes the concept of qualifications frameworks, with an emphasis on learning outcomes. The concept of social dimension of higher education has been introduced and recognition of qualifications is now clearly perceived as central to the European higher education policies. In brief, the evolution of the main objectives of the Bologna Process can be seen hereby.
The Sorbonne Declaration was was signed in 1998, by the ministers of four countries, namely France, Germany, Uk and Italy. The aim of the Declaration was to create a common frame of reference within the intended European Higher Education Area, where mobility should be promoted both for students and graduates, as well as for the teaching staff. Also, it was meant to ensure the promotion of qualifications, with regard to the job market.
The aims of the Sorbonne Declaration were confirmed in 1999, through the Bologna Declaration, where 29-30 countries expressed their willingness to commit to enhance the competitiveness of the European Higher Education Area, emphasising the need to further the independence and autonomy of all Higher Education Institutions. All the provisions of the Bologna Declaration were set as measures of a voluntary harmonisation process, not as clauses of a binding contract. As follow-up to the Bologna Declaration, there have taken place Ministerial Conferences every two years, the ministers expressing their will through the respective Communiqués.
With the Prague Communiqué, in 2001, the number of member countries was enlarged to 33, and there has also taken place an expansion of the objectives, in terms of lifelong learning, involving students as active partners and enhancing the attractiveness and competitiveness of the European Higher Education Area. Also, the participating ministers committed themselves to ensure the further development of quality assurance and development of national qualification frameworks. This objective was correlated with the lifelong learning one, as it is considered an important element of higher education that must be taken into consideration when building up new systems. Also, it is important to mention that the topic of social dimension was first introduced in the Prague Communiqué.
The following Ministerial Conference took place in Berlin, in 2003, thus the Berlin Communiqué enlarging the number of countries to 40 members. The main provisions of this Communiqué dealt with an expansion of the objectives, in terms of promotion of linking European Higher Education Area to European Research Area, as well as the promotion of quality assurance. Another important aspect that the Berlin Communiqué stated referred to establishing the follow-up structures supporting the process in-between two Ministerial meetings. This arrangement established the Bologna Follow-up Group, the Board and the Bologna Secretariat. With this Communiqué the Ministers also agreed that there should be created a national follow-up structure in each of the participating countries.
The Bergen Communiqué, of 2005, underlined the importance of partnerships, including  stakeholders – students, HEIs, academic staff and employers, together with the further enhancing of research, especially with regard to the third cycle – doctoral programmes. Also, this Communiqué stressed the ministers’ will to provide a more accessible higher education, together with an increased attractiveness of the EHEA to other parts of the world.
With the London Communiqué, of 2007, the number of participating countries was enlarged to 46. This Communiqué focused on evaluating the progress achieved by that time, concerning mobility, degree structure, recognition, qualifications frameworks (both overarching and national), lifelong learning, quality assurance, social dimension, and also set the priorities for 2009, these being, mainly, mobility, social dimension, which was defined here for the first time, data collection, employability, EHEA in a global context and stock taking. For 2010 and beyond, it was stressed that there is the need for further collaboration, seeing it as an opportunity to reformulate the visions and values.
In the Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve Communiqué, of 2009, the main working areas for the next decade were set, with emphasis on: social dimension, lifelong learning, employability, student centred learning and the teaching mission of education, international openness, mobility, education, research & innovation, as well as data collection, funding of the HE and multidimensional transparency tools. These main working areas show a new orientation of the Bologna Process, towards a more in-depth approach of the reforms, thus ensuring the completion of the Bologna Process implementation. Another change, in terms of internal arrangements, referred to the Bologna Process Chairing procedure: from a previous situation where the Bologna Process had been chaired by the country holding the EU Presidency, to a situation according to which the Process is being chaired by two countries: both the country holding the EU Presidency and a non-EU country, named in alphabetical order, starting from July 1st, 2010. The folowing Ministerial Conference took place only one year after the aforementioned, more precisely in March 2010. It took place in Budapest-Vienna and it was an Anniversary Conference, celebrating a decade of the Bologna Process. With this occasion, there took place the official launching of the European Higher Education Area, which meant that, in terms of a common European framework for HE, the objective set in the Bologna Declaration was accomplished. However, the existence of the European Higher Education Area in itself did not mean an achievement of all the objectives agreed upon by the ministers involved in the Bologna Process. Therefore, we can now say that the Bologna Process and the European Higher Education Area have entered a new phase, namely the consolidation and operationalisation one, especially in light of the very different reactions to the Bologna Process implementation across Europe.
Also, starting with the Budapest-Vienna Ministerial Conference, the EHEA has been expanded to 47 countries, the most recently admitted being Kazakhstan.
The main message of the Bucharest Ministerial Conference, which took place on 26 - 27 April 2012 and was attended by 47 European ministers responsible for higher education, states that Higher education reform can help to get Europe back on track and generate sustainable growth and jobs.
The Ministers agreed to focus on three main goals in the face of the economic crisis: to provide quality higher education to more students, to better equip students with employable skills, and to increase student mobility.
The 47 countries adopted a new European strategy to increase mobility with a specific target that at least 20 percent of those graduating in Europe in 2020 should have been on a study or training period abroad.
Besides the Ministerial Conferences, there are also Bologna Policy Fora organized, which were so far coupled with the EHEA Ministerial Conferences.
The first Bologna Policy Forum was organized in Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve in 2009 and it was attended by the 46 members of the Bologna Process, at the time, as well as a wide range of third countries and NGOs. The main issues agreed upon by the participants were the following: the key role that HE plays in the development of the society, based on lifelong learning and equitable access at all levels of society to learning opportunities, the importance of public investment in higher education, in spite of the economic crisis, transnational exchanges in higher education should be governed on the basis of academic values, advocating a balanced exchange of teachers, researchers and students between countries, in order to promote fair and fruitful “brain circulation”, as an alternative to brain drain.
The Second Bologna Policy Forumtook place in Vienna, in March 2010, and it was attended by the 47 members and the eight consultative members, as well as third countries and other relevant NGOs. The main topics of discussion included in the Second Bologna Policy Forum Statement refer to the manner in which higher education systems and institutions respond to the growing demands and multiple expectations and the balance between cooperation and competition in international higher education. This Forum’s Statement also included some possible concrete feedback to be taken up by the participants, such as nominating contact persons for each participating country which will also function as liaison points for a better flow of information and joint activities, including the preparation of the next Bologna Policy Forum at ministerial level. Also the need for supporting global student dialogue was acknowledged. As far as implementation is concerned, progress over the years has been uneven, as can be seen from the various stocktaking exercises. This shows that the reforms of the Bologna Process must still be furthered, in order to ensure more comparable, compatible and coherent systems of higher education in Europe.
If by 2010, the main aim of the Bologna Process was to put in place a European Higher Education Area, as stated in the Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve Communiqué,  the main priorities for the next decade are:
• Social dimension
• Lifelong learning
• Employability
• Student-centred learning
• Education, research and innovation
• Mobility
• Data collection
• Multidimensional transparency tools
• Funding.
Therefore, the Bologna Follow-up Group set up the following working groups for the 2009-2012 period:
• Social dimension
• Qualifications frameworks
• International openness
• Mobility
• Recognition
• Reporting on the implementation of the Bologna Process
• Transparency mechanisms,
And the following networks:
• EHEA Information and Promotion Network;
• Network for Experts in Student Support in Europe – NESSIE;
• Network for National Qualifications Frameworks Correspondents.
Now, after the launching of the European Higher Education Area, the Bologna Process moves towards a new phase, a more in-depth one, focusing on a reduction of the implementation discrepancies in the countries forming the EHEA. The next milestone of the European Higher Education Area have been marked at the EHEA Ministerial Conference, which took place in Bucharest, Romania, on 26-27 April 2012.
The Third Bologna Policy Forum, which was organised in conjunction to this Ministerial meeting contributed to further the debate on the progress of the European Higher Education Area on the global scale. It was attended by members and heads of delegations from 47 EHEA countries and 19 non-EHEA countries along with representatives of international organisations from the field of higher education. The overarching theme of the third Bologna Policy Forum was "Beyond the Bologna Process: Creating and connecting national, regional and global higher education spaces”. The third edition of the Bologna Policy Forum focused on creating and connecting national, regional and global higher education spaces, while deepening the discussions on the following four topics reflecting on future approaches for dialogue in this context:
            • Public responsibility for and of higher education within national and regional context;
            • Global academic mobility: Incentives and barriers, balances and imbalances;
            • Global and regional approaches to quality enhancement of higher education;
            • The contribution of HE reforms to enhancing graduate employability;
The participants stated that the BPF concept should be further enriched and taken forward in order to maximise its potential for policy dialogue. In this sense, an evaluation of the Bologna Policy Forum was organised immediately after the event with all participant delegations.
Disclamer:
This text is part of the “Bologna beyond 2010 – Report on the development of the European Higher Education Area, Backgroung Paper for the Bologna Follow-up Group prepared by the Benelux Bologna Secretariat -, Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve Ministerial Conference, 28-29 April 2009”

The European Civil Society Platform was born in 2005 as a response from civil society organisations to the defining and implementation of a European education and training policy in the framework of the Open Method of Coordination.
Before the establishment of a permanent Platform, in 2001 already, several lifelong learning networks had come together to share their experience and expertise and to react to the Europe-wide consultation on the Lifelong Learning Memorandum. This cooperation became then systematic, especially on basic skills as key competences for life. The success of the conference “Skills for Life as the Key to Lifelong Learning – Towards Achieving the Lisbon Strategy” in May 2004 motivated the associations within the Platform to continue their cooperation. Today funded by the Lifelong Learning Programme, EUCIS-LLL was acknowledged by the European Commission in 2009 as a “unique representation” of lifelong learning of the various education and training actors organised at EU level, and in 2011 as “in a unique position to support European networks in education and training to work collectively at European, national and local levels and to contribute to a structured policy dialogue within the open method of coordination in education and training”. Gathering 31 member organisations, EUCIS-LLL is today the most legitimate interlocutor of the European institutions in the field of lifelong learning.

• EUCIS-LLL Presentation brochure
• EUCIS-LLL Presentation (prezi format)
  EUCIS-LLL Presentation (prezi format) in French
  EUCIS-LLL Statutes 2012
  EUCIS-LLL Internal rules 2012.

The European Commission has launched their latest Youth Employment Package requesting a guarantee from all Member States that every young person receives a quality offer of employment or training within four months of leaving school, or of being unemployed. The proposal will make full use of EU funding and in particular the European Social Fund (ESF), which was set up to reduce the differences in prosperity and living standards across EU Member States and regions.
The new Youth Employment Package is part of the initiative Rethinking Education - designed to reduce the youth unemployment rate. Research has shown that the figure is close to 23 % across the European Union, yet more than 2 million vacancies remain unfilled.
To change this, Member States are being urged to take immediate action to ensure that young people develop the skills and competences needed by the labour market, and to achieve their targets for growth and jobs. Read more...

3.1 OER Traditional
This scenario may be the least challenging for a university. If it places self-study materials online for general access, and those materials are sufficient in scope and quality of content and required associated activities to enable a learner to acquire the competences defined in expected learning outcomes, and if the university is able to assess the competences, then credit may be easily awarded. Independent self-study courses are becoming more common as a way to create flexibility in degree programmes, as a minor part of the whole programme. However, there is no widening of access to HE. There is an increased flexibility in current provision, and perhaps the confidence of the university in this approach can be achieved through this careful exploration.
In OER Tradition, the normal university QA processes can be applied to both the curriculum (the materials and educational design) and the assessment. This is due to the fact that the curriculum is designed by academic staff of the university accrediting the student’s learning. Although the learning process is independent of teaching staff, assessment is done by them, according to their definition of the expected learning outcomes set at the time the OER/OCW module was released in public.
3.2 OER Erasmus
The Erasmus student exchange programme is predicated upon trust relationships between European universities, supported significantly by the Bologna Process and the ECTS credit system. It means that if a university is able to understand the education that a student has experienced at another university so as to evaluate the ‘fit’ with the curriculum of the student’s degree programme and is prepared to recognise the partner university’s assessment as valid, credit for study away from the campus is approved. Some of the Erasmus agreements are quite broad-ranging for many students, and some are individualised on an ad hoc basis. Many exchange programmes exist outside the Erasmus framework, for example with North American universities.
In OER module-based learning, a similar situation to physical Erasmus exchange arises and the ‘home’ university must be assured of the quality of the OER Modulebased education that the student will receive. Therefore, also for this scenarios normal QA process that approves Erasmus exchange agreements could be applied by any participating university, because curriculum (OER/OCW module) is provided by a ‘trusted university’. In fact, quality assurance may be easier for OER module-based study than for traditional study, as all the curriculum will be online and open to scrutiny. The assessments will be ‘known’ and the standard to which they are marked can be quality assured. To a large degree the trust relationship between peer universities makes such detailed checking unnecessary, although it may take place during the establishment of the agreement.
This scenario does provide for wider access to higher education in the same sense as physical Erasmus, although learners must already be students at a university. As with OER Traditional, this may be a mechanism for building confidence in accrediting module -based learning.
3.3 OER Summer School
The OER Summer School scenario takes a step on from OER Erasmus, because in this case although the learner is a current student at U1, s/he has decided to study and gain ECTS credits from a university with no relationship with her/his current university U1. Although students may well do this sort of independent study to enhance their CVs or gain what they see as useful skills and knowledge, normally this type of study would not be credited towards the degree for which they are studying. If such a situation arose, and credit was requested, a post hoc evaluation would be needed to determine whether the work was suitable and appropriate for inclusion in the degree programme and the standard was acceptable. Ideally, the learner would agree such a process in advance. The mechanism to approve or refuse credits might be very similar to that used to Recognise Prior Learning.
As before, there is a gain in curricular flexibility for students at University U1 but no widening of access to HE in general. However, as more high quality OER Module becomes available, students may increasingly wish to be able to search out suitable opportunities and expect their own universities to respect their needs. This viewpoint may well increase as direct fees for universities are introduced across Europe and their levels rise.
3.4 OER Anywhere
The OER Anywhere scenario is a variant of OER Summer School, except that the evaluation of the learning that has taken place is more challenging for U1 because the learning and the assessment have taken place at different universities, neither of which has a trust relationship with U1. Therefore, the U1 needs to assess the quality of both components to reach a decision on whether or not to recognise the credits gained. For this scenario either the traditional QA or RPL QA processes could be applied. Choice would depend upon to the degree of curricular flexibility for the degree in question.
3.5 OER Credit Market
U1 assesses learner using the methods it has decided are appropriate for its own OER module and offers ECTS credits to be taken away and used as learner wishes/is able. The parallel in traditional university education would be Continuing Professional Development/Education (CPD/CPD) where individual modules are studied without enrolment on a degree programme.
This scenario poses the biggest challenge to the university traditional QA processes, because the learner is neither a student of the university nor wishing to become one, but is solely interested in gaining academic credits. Setting aside the question of whether a university would wish to carry out this role, the challenges to the traditional QA processes are substantial. The award of credits to an individual assumes rigor in their identity, in the authenticity of their work and their participation in essential course components that may not be assessed formally but do contribute to achievement of learning outcomes. For students taking a whole degree, acceptance of some elements where this is less rigorously monitored is reasonable as long as the extent of these is limited. The quality of a year-long or multi-yearlong programme ensures that there is confidence in the overall quality of graduates and hence the university’s reputation (and indeed licence to award degrees) is not compromised. Traditional university QA processes are generally not designed to accommodate models where staff of the university are not closely involved in the process, and so in these scenarios, universities may wish to revert to an RPL mode to evaluate the learning themselves to be assured that the rigour and quality are correct. (This is reminiscent of franchising of awards by some universities, whereby they set the curriculum but the teaching and assessment are carried out by staff at another university at which the learners are current students. This QA role by the franchising university requires a different QA model to the traditional ‘in-house QA’ model and has run into difficulties on many occasions.) One model of operation in the OER Credit Market models is for an institution specify the attributes of ‘acceptable’ curricula with which it is prepared to engage, thus removing a substantial element of diversity from the experiences learners might offer. In the extreme it might specific exactly which curricula (‘only OCW in Subject Y from University of X’) it will consider. Alternatively it could define programmes of rigorous assessments in various subjects at one or more levels, and leave it to learners to gain the competences as they so fit (SATS or driving test model). By definition, these will tend to be examination oriented approaches and hence will eliminate a wide range of subjects and levels that cannot be effectively assessed in this way. The quality assurance task then resolves to ensuring rigour in the identification of learners (‘who they really are’) and in assessments and quality control of marking (‘what they really know’).
3.6 OER RPL Takeaway
Universities have used Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) to varying extents to enable entry to degree programmes of students whose background does contain suitable academic study for automatic entry.
Although less common, there could also be cases where learners wish to get recognition of prior learning for purposes other than to enter study programme. For former it is most common where employment experiences are being offered, especially to a professionally relevant degree programme such as Nursing or Law. Thus, the same mechanisms in terms of assessment of the competences of the intending student and the quality assurance processes that ensure its rigour could be applied. Where a fee is charged, this too might be applicable, with appropriate adjustment for the difficulty of the assessment. The openness to scrutiny of OER Module curricula may make the recognition easier. Normally, credit is only given for a moderate proportion of the curriculum if recognition is given at all. The incentive for University 1 is that it gains a student, and access to HE is widened to those from a non-traditional background. The intending student will still have to participate in normal university studies, with the costs and benefits that this entails.
In OER RPL the problem of assessing the knowledge and skills of the learner presenting for evaluation is little different to that which has to take place if their learning has been based at work, at home or in other non-educational settings. A mapping has to be made of their competences (level, extent, domain of study) onto the curriculum they wish to enter, with credit awarded and attendance at specific courses recognised. As already mentioned, in some respects, well-structured OER/OCW module materials make this evaluation simpler than it would be for many work-based or non-formal learning experiences. It is clear that there is more variation between partner universities in their RPL practices, and the degree to which they employ it as a route to entry to their degree programmes. In general, RPL lies in a different ‘area’ of QA to the normal academic curriculum and progression, and has a significant ‘ad hoc’ element which is not surprising given the diversity of learning situations that RPL brings forward. In this respect, the inherent flexibility of ‘traditional RPL’ should signal the potential for adoption in the OER/OCW module domain, should a university wish to follow this route.
3.7 RPL For Entry I & II
To enable learners who have studied using open learning materials to enter a university, some form of recognition of prior learning will normally be required. If the open learning materials are OERtest-compliant, and the learner is able to bring a Learning Passport that sets out the learning outcomes achieved from an openly-available curriculum and assessments that are explicit (as described in the next chapter), the burden of RPL will be much reduced. The condition under which the open learning materials are offered by the university also being asked for entry (i.e. U1 in our RPL II scenario) this is even simpler, as U1 knows that its open curriculum is at the appropriate standard and level, and the ECTS credit-equivalence is clear. In RPL for Entry I, this is not the case, and so some form of additional assessment or evaluation may well be required.

Libya’s Board for Technical and Vocational Education together with the ETF held a workshop  in the capital Tripoli that launched the Torino Process, a review of the state the vocational education and training (VET) in the country. The meeting at the College for Tourism and Hospitality in Tripoli on 12 December was opened by Fathi Akkari, Deputy Minister of Higher Education, who is in charge of the Board.
The event was also an opportunity for the participants to learn about the ETF’s current activities in Libya, the new EU-funded regional project on governance for employability in the Mediterranean (GEMM), and about the opportunities to network and learn from peers at various events, which the ETF will organise in the region and beyond.
‘What we expect from the Torino Process in Libya is a shared, evidence-based analysis of the challenges facing VET system and the ways forward’, said Mounir Baati, ETF country manager for Libya. Mr Baati identified a number of critical points in vocational education and training in Libya, among them:

•    the fact that VET reform is a new issue in the country,   
•    stakeholders are not used to work together, their roles are often new to them,
•    the accurate data on labour market are hard to obtain.

At the meeting a steering committee and a working group was agreed to be set up within the next four weeks. The working group will gather data and evidence, review the existent literature and report back to the committee. The initial findings will be presented to the ETF in the first half of 2013. Read more...

Implementation of Eurofound’s four-year work programme 2013–2016 From crisis to recovery: Better informed policies for a competitive and fair Europe begins in 2013. The multiannual strategy laid down in the four-year programme provides Eurofound with a clear framework for the development of its annual programmes. It identifies four policy priority areas where Eurofound will provide high quality, timely and policy-relevant knowledge as input to better informed policies. This is the Agency’s strategic objective for the 2013–2016 period.The activities proposed in the annual programme for 2013 are designed to contribute to achieving this while also taking into account the organisational and policy context specific to the year 2013. As is appropriate for the first year of a four-year programme cycle, a number of activities will be launched in 2013 and will be continued or complemented by follow-up projects and further strands in coming years. The 2013 work programme also takes into account the sequence and work processes of Eurofound’s flagship activities, the European surveys and the observatories. Download the Annual work programme 2013.
From crisis to recovery: Better informed policies for a competitive and fair Europe - Four-year work programme 2013-2016
As Eurofound embarks on a new four-year work programme, Europe faces some of its greatest challenges yet. Prospects for economic and social development in Europe and in other parts of the world are increasingly unclear. Drafted against this social and economic background and with these key imperatives to the fore, the priorities of this programme reflect clearly both the immediate challenge of coping with the crisis and the mid-term ambition to achieve progress towards a competitive and fair Europe – and this, of course, with the overall ambition of seeing Europe get ‘back on track’. Building on over 30 years of research and expertise serving Europe’s decision-makers – EU institutions, national governments and social partners – this programme presents the strategic framework for the work of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions for the period 2013 to 2016.