Formation Continue du Supérieur

By Judith S. Eaton. The most recent conversation about “credit hour,” a description of time on task required of students in their courses, programs and degrees, is about how this concept might be tied to student learning outcomes. It is also about the federal financing of higher education and sustaining the role that the credit hour has played in this funding. Discussion of student learning outcomes – setting expectations of student learning and judging whether expectations are achieved – has, to date, been led by the academy. Discussion of federal funding and the credit hour has been led by government officials and focuses on what will be financed and how.
Care and caution are essential as we proceed with both the student learning discussion and the federal financing discussion. Why? While the academy is not trying to do the government’s work of figuring out federal financing of the credit hour, the government has displayed considerable interest in doing the academy’s work – determining and judging student learning. This emerging development is undesirable, not only for the academy and government, but also for students and the public.
The Student Learning Outcomes Discussion
The discussion about appropriate outcomes of learning, how to achieve them and how to provide evidence for them, has been underway in the academy for years and is well advanced. It includes credit hour considerations, but is much broader. Lately, the discussion has been driven by the emphasis on accountability and public demands for evidence of student achievement from colleges and universities. It is also related to the impact that online learning, competency-based learning and assessment of prior learning have had on the traditional collegiate classroom-based experience which, for most of its history, has defined higher education and thus defined the credit hour.
An outcomes-based approach to the credit hour can be flexible. It can be implemented within traditional time parameters leading to a degree, such as semesters or quarters. Or, it can be done independently of time: Once a student has provided evidence of learning, progress or completion can be formally noted through a credential of some sort. This last helps to explain not only the recent renewed emphasis on competency-based education and assessment of prior learning, but also the emerging interest in educational practices such as private companies offering online coursework at very low prices (StraighterLine) and massive open online courses (Coursera, Udacity).
The Federal Funding Discussion
The time-based credit hour has been used by the federal government to determine how much and for what period of time federal aid such as the Pell Grant, the largest aid program, is available to students. The federal government is spending historically large sums of money on Pell and other programs, some $175 billion each year. The assumption has been that financing adequate time expended to earn credits is a good use of federal funds and financing too little time expended is a misuse of federal dollars.
While the credit hour concept is well embedded in federal law and regulation, government officials are now persuaded that there is insufficient return on investment using the time-based credit hour. The value proposition put forward is that learning outcomes may be a more effective indicator of whether federal money is spent appropriately.
Care and Caution
In 2011, the U.S. Department of Education issued a regulation that provided a federal definition of “credit hour,” accompanied by requiring nongovernmental accrediting organizations to enforce and monitor its use. The federal definition is complex and a work in progress, but allows for either a time-based or outcomes-based approach to the credit hour. Given that definition of credit hour has been the province of the academy for more than 100 years, why, for the first time, is the government defining this concept, superseding the work of the academy?
In 2012, the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, advising the Secretary of Education on the recognition of accrediting organizations, released a report examining the effectiveness of accreditation. The report does not focus on the credit hour, but does address student learning outcomes. While not going so far as calling for common outcome measures, the main report does recommend establishing common definitions of outcomes across institutions. The alternative report accompanying the main document calls for institutions to provide common information on some student outcomes. Although both recommendations do not establish and standardize student outcomes, it is a short step from common definitions and common information to national standardization.
Both of these efforts are indications that the government discussion of financing the credit hour is expanding to become a discussion of determining and judging student learning outcomes as well. In some instances, the government taking on this role is assumed. Amy Laitinen’s September 2012 report, Cracking the Credit Hour, offers valuable suggestions about further experimentation with outcomes-based approaches to the credit hour. However, although the report does not directly address financing of the credit hour (the province of government), it does recommend that the federal government provide the leadership for this experimentation (the province of the academy).
We need government officials who understand the importance of turning to the academy for guidance about any transition of the credit hour from time-based to outcomes-based, whether whole or partial. Only after these learning outcome determinations have been made by the academic community is government in a position to decide whether and how funds will be provided. Federal regulations that place authority for student learning outcomes in the hands of government officials and not academics are undesirable and, frankly, likely to be less than effective.
If the government now defines the credit hour, decides the data that are to be used for student learning outcomes and leads experiments in alternative approaches for using an outcomes-based approach to the credit hour, what is left for the academy to do?

2011-2012 Annual Report of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation.
2011-2012: Addressing the Challenges, Preparing for the Future
In 2011-2012, CHEA activities ranged from the work accomplished during the final year of the CHEA Initiative, government affairs work with Congress and the Administration to recognition of accrediting organizations. CHEA also continued to serve as “Accreditation Central,” an outstanding source of national-level information on accreditation, as well as expanded the organization’s international engagement. The result was a year of significant accomplishment for CHEA on behalf of its 3,000 member colleges and universities.
The CHEA Initiative
2011-2012 was the final year of the CHEA Initiative, an unprecedented national conversation engaging 2,500 colleagues around the country on the future of accreditation. The Initiative was launched by CHEA in 2008 to build consensus for action on the issues of greatest importance to the accreditation and higher education communities in advance of the anticipated reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA) in 2013 or thereafter.
Deliberation by the CHEA Initiative’s participants resulted in near unanimity about the two goals of the Initiative: the need to further enhance accountability within accreditation and to work to sustain an appropriate balance in the accreditation-federal government relationship.
Based on the results of the CHEA Initiative, the CHEA Board of Directors approved actions addressing the major issues that emerged in the discussions as most important to participants. These included restating and reframing the division of responsibilities between government and accreditation, initiating an accreditation advocacy campaign and developing a CHEA International Quality Group (see below).
During this period, the CHEA Initiative hosted five CEO/CAO Roundtables with member institutions, met with 22 accrediting commissions, held eight National Accreditation Fora and conducted a student focus group for a total of 36 meetings.
Government Affairs
Through its government affairs activities at the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) and the U.S. Congress, as well as with state legislatures, CHEA works to address legislative and regulatory issues of key importance to higher education accreditation.
A major focus in 2011-2012 was the review and report outlining accreditation policy recommendations carried out by the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI), USDE’s advisory body on recognition of accrediting organizations. This report was requested by USDE Secretary Arne Duncan to examine “what is working and not working” in the current system of recognition and accreditation. CHEA President Judith Eaton testified at the committee’s December 15, 2011 meeting to discuss the draft policy report. CHEA also provided comments to NACIQI and coordinated two letters from the accreditation community, submitted on November 23, 2011 and on March 16, 2012.
CHEA played a role in developing H.R. 2117, a bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on February 28, 2012 to repeal USDE’s regulations that establish a federal definition of credit hour. CHEA made the case that defining the credit hour is the primary responsibility of the academy, not government. The bill also repealed new requirements for state authorization, which CHEA opposed as burdensome and unworkable. Additionally, CHEA supported a companion bill in the U.S. Senate, S. 1297. The House bill was passed and the Senate bill remained in committee as of June 30, 2012.
CHEA also continued to support legislation to combat degree mills and accreditation mills and to reduce and prevent the sale and use of fraudulent degrees in order to protect the integrity of valid higher education degrees. While H.R. 1758, (the “Diploma and Accreditation Integrity Act”) was not passed in 2011-2012, CHEA shared the bill with governors and attorneys general in various states as an example of effective legislation addressing degree mills and making their operation more difficult.
International Activities
CHEA President Judith Eaton participated in a number of international meetings and conferences throughout 2011-2012, including addressing a conference in Erbil, Iraq, hosted by the International Institute of Education, in conjunction with the Iraqi Scholar Rescue Fund and the Center for International Partnerships in Higher Education, on standards in quality assurance and accreditation and served as keynote speaker at the annual conference of the Alliance of Universities for Democracy held in Dubrovnik, Croatia. Eaton also served as a member of the Quality Assurance Council of the University Grants Committee in Hong Kong.
As part of its ongoing international activity, CHEA also provided information on U.S. accreditation to delegations from nations around the world. In 2011-2012, CHEA staff made presentations on U.S. accreditation and recognition to international visitors from countries including Afghanistan, China, Finland, Iraq, Japan, Kenya, Nicaragua, Saudi Arabia and Trinidad and Tobago.
The CHEA 2012 International Seminar, held January 26-27, in conjunction with the CHEA 2012 Annual Conference, drew participants from 28 countries and addressed issues related to international quality assurance and the role of accreditation.
During 2011-2012, the CHEA Board of Directors approved the establishment of a CHEA International Quality Group (CIQG) to bring together people, ideas and resources from around the world to support institutions and accrediting or quality assurance organizations in tackling tough issues such as defining quality, addressing rankings and combating degree mills and accreditation mills. The CIQG will be launched in 2012-2013.
CHEA Recognition of Accrediting Organizations
CHEA has been engaged in recognition of accrediting organizations since 1999. This review involves scrutiny of their activities to determine whether accreditors meet standards in CHEA’s recognition policy. CHEA-recognized accrediting organizations undergo a review every ten years, at a minimum.
During 2011-2012, the CHEA Committee on Recognition conducted 11 reviews of accrediting organizations seeking eligibility for CHEA recognition and 16 reviews of organizations seeking recognition. The committee also acted to defer recognition of five accrediting organizations and received seven special reports. In all, 31 accrediting organizations came before the committee during the year, some of these on more than one occasion. Some of these accrediting organizations were seeking CHEA recognition for the first time; others previously have been recognized by CHEA.
CHEA continued to expand information on accreditation that is readily available and accessible to the public, placing summaries of recognition decisions and the reasons for those decisions on the CHEA Website and distributing this information by email.
CHEA Conferences and Meetings
Each year, CHEA conferences and meetings bring together hundreds of participants from across the United States and around the world to hear speakers, discuss ideas and exchange information on vital issues for higher education accreditation and international quality assurance.
The CHEA 2012 Annual Conference, held January 23-26 in Washington, DC, featured speakers from government, higher education institutions and accrediting organizations, including Under Secretary of Education Martha Kanter and a panel composed of NACIQI  Chair Jamienne Studley and NACIQI members Susan Phillips and Cameron Staples. The annual conference also included the eighth and final National Accreditation Forum that has been part of the work of the CHEA Initiative.
The CHEA 2012 Summer Workshop was held June 21-22 in Washington, DC. Participants heard remarks from speakers representing colleges, universities, accrediting organizations and government, including Assistant Secretary of Education Eduardo Ochoa and Joshua Kim, Director of Learning and Technology at Dartmouth College’s Master of Health Care Delivery Science Programs addressing the emerging issue of Massive Open Online Courses.
The CHEA Award
The CHEA Award for Outstanding Institutional Practice in Student Learning Outcomes annually recognizes institutions and programs for their outstanding practice in gathering information on student learning outcomes and using this information for institutional improvement. This information is then provided to the public to help other institutions and programs seeking to make gains in this important area.
This year, the 2012 CHEA Award was presented to the Georgia Institute of Technology (GA), Rio Salado College (AZ) and the University of California, Merced (CA).
CHEA also launched Effective Institutional Practice in Student Learning Outcomes: CHEA Award Recipients, an online publication with information on each of the 25 institutions and programs that have received the CHEA Award since it was established in 2005.
Keeping Members and the Public Informed
As “Accreditation Central” – a repository of national-level information about accreditation practice, policy and politics – CHEA serves as an unsurpassed resource of information on accreditation for member institutions, accrediting organizations, higher education associations and the public.
The CHEA Website provides a wealth of descriptive and analytic information on higher education accreditation and quality assurance worldwide. CHEA’s Federal Update provides in-depth material on activities by the U.S. Congress and USDE, while Inside Accreditation offers thoughtful analysis by CHEA President Judith Eaton on issues related to accreditation. In 2011-2012, CHEA issued publications including Accreditation and Accountability: Looking Back and Looking Ahead and Quality Assurance in the Twenty-First Century and the Role of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, designed to examine higher education accreditation and the challenges and opportunities ahead.
Since its launch in 2003, the CHEA Database of Institutions and Programs Accredited by Recognized United States Accrediting Organizations has served as an indispensable information resource, listing more than 8,200 degree-granting and non-degree-granting institutions and more than 20,400 programs (as of June 30,2012). The Database is visited nearly a million times each year by students, parents, employers and others seeking information on the accredited status of institutions and programs throughout the country.
Looking Ahead
In the year ahead, CHEA will continue its leadership and advocacy for accreditation. CHEA will work to provide information and assistance to Congress, USDE and the states on accreditation related issues. A particular focus for CHEA will be preparing for the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, expected to begin in 2013 or thereafter.
With the conclusion of the CHEA Initiative, CHEA will focus on the implementation of an action plan to address key issues and provide progress on the two major goals of the Initiative: to enhance accountability in accreditation and to sustain a balance and distinction between accountability to the federal government and the academic work of accreditation.
The Committee on Recognition will continue its work as approximately 30 additional accrediting organizations seek initial CHEA recognition.
CHEA’s focus on quality assurance internationally is expanding with the launch of the CIQG in 2012-2013. The year’s activities will include the first CIQG Annual Meeting and members-only publications including the newsletter Quality International.
CHEA will continue to provide leadership and advocacy on the issues, challenges and opportunities facing higher education accreditation and quality assurance, in the United States and around the world.
Download the Annual Report of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation.

MCGILL PETERSON, Patti (ed.). Confronting Challenges to the Liberal Arts Curriculum: Perspectives of Developing and Transitional Countries. 2012. New York: Routledge.
This publication contributes in the field of comparative research on higher education in developing and transitional countries by filling in a specific gap in curricular content, which is implementing liberal arts coursework in undergraduate studies. The book analyzes the context, content, challenges and successes of such implementation, and further explores how curricular content is decided and how educational programs are structured.
Several authors bring in their knowledge to provide a wide scope to the discussion, thus bringing in case studies from China, India, Mexico, Pakistan, Poland, Russia, South Africa and Turkey.
This book is recommended to scholars and researchers in Higher Education as well as practitioners working to implement student and faculty exchange and raise awareness of curricular issues.
For more information, follow this link.

MOLESWORTH, Mike; SCULLION, Richard; and NIXON, Elizabeth (eds.) 2012. The Marketization of Higher Education and the Student as Consumer. New York: Routledge, 2012. 245 p. ISBN 978-0-415-58447-0.
This publication explains how market forces emerged in British higher education shaping postsecondary education.
The book presents a controversial topic considering the roles of students as “consumers”. The expansion of Higher Education
led to competition between Higher Education institutions, with students increasingly positioned as consumers and institutions working to improve the extent to which they meet ‘consumer demands’.
Given the latest government funding cuts, the most prevalent outlook in Higher Education today is one of business, and this book treats this new trend with contributions from many of the leading names involved in Higher Education including Ron Barnett, Frank Furedi, Lewis Elton, Roger Brown and also Laurie Taylor.
For more information follow this link.

EAEA has released a statement on European Commission's communication on Rethinking Education, presented last November. The EAEA welcomes the Communication by the European Commission and agrees that Education and Training, and especially investment in Lifelong Learning, play a vital role in boosting growth and jobs. EAEA also agrees that basic skills are crucial for European economies and for people´s participation in society. We would like to raise three main points, which we believe the Communication neglects to underline:
First, the potential of non-formal adult learning:
The Communication touches on the issue of low-skilled adults and mainly concentrates on workplace learning and open learning sources. We believe that non-formal adult learning (1) provides an enormous potential to reach out to different groups of adults, to draw them into learning pathways and to upskill them in non-formal settings, whether in or outside the work place. Non-formal adult learning can reach out to young adults (e.g. school drop-outs) and to migrants, to name just two groups. Non-formal adult learning can boost resilience and self-confidence of individuals in times of crisis, which will enable them to deal with the challenges of the economic crisis. (2)
We therefore propose a recommendation that foresees continued investment in non-formal adult education, thereby using its potential to support adult learners inside and outside the workplace.
Second, a comprehensive understanding of lifelong learning:
EAEA understands that the current situation in Europe necessitates a strong focus on jobs and growth. Nevertheless, we would like to underline that lifelong learning needs to understood from a more comprehensive perspective: formal, non-formal and informal learning (3) are equally important, and a too narrow focus on purely economic results of learning could actually have a detrimental effect on European societies, e.g. by privileging those who are already in the learning process and better qualified, thereby increasing educational inequalities across Europe. Additionally, the current crisis overshadows other developments that need attention, and ignoring them can lead to crises in the mid- and long-term future. We know that demographic change has already started to have impacts on European societies, and will only increase in severity. Furthermore European societies see growing number of persons with low literacy skill as well as increasing numbers of school drop outs, who need support and adult (basic) education services. The communication does refer to low-skilled adults, but mainly in the context of workplace learning. While this is an important aspect, it is necessary to promote outreach and basic skills strategies by adult education institutions. Another key issue is the growing loss of trust in European institutions and an increasing loss of European cohesion. All these issues need to be tackled in order to prevent future challenges, and lifelong learning, especially non-formal adult learning, are excellent tools to help deal with them. We therefore propose to add three recommendations: to invest in older learners and intergenerational learning, to invest in basic skills and to launch a trans-European discussion of European values and cohesion with the help of non-formal adult education.
Third, the recognition on civil society as a main partner:
EAEA especially welcomes the annex on 'Partnerships and flexible pathways for life long skills development', which clearly states the importance of non-governmental organisations and civil society organisations. Nevertheless, we would like to underline that civil society, and especially European associations and national umbrella organisations, have a very specific role that needs to be recognized and supported. They serve as links between the European and national levels of policy making on the one hand and the grass-roots level of lifelong learning on the other. We believe that both sides need these links: the grass-roots level needs the information and the possibility to give feedback to policy developments, and the European and national policy levels need this feedback in order to develop policies that actually work and can improve systems. We therefore recommend continued support for European and national associations.
(1) Non-formal learning is any organised, structured educational activity, carried out outside the framework of the formal system and in some ways connected with providers (institutions, organisations and teachers).
(2) As opposed to: Formal learning can be understood in the context of traditional educational institutions, which occurs in a defined, organized and structured environment in terms of space, time and material. The transmission of knowledge, skills and attitudes (with the stress on knowledge) is done deliberate and systematic. Formal learning is intentional from the learner´s point of view and typically leads to validation and certification.
(3) Informal learning applies to self-directed or self organised learning, in flexible, open forms and ways, outside the traditional education institutions or organisations, sometimes even without any clear idea that the process is about learning.
More information: European Commission's Rethinking Education strategy.
Related files: EAEA_statement_rethinking education.

European high-level meeting on skills anticipation in adult learning (EMSAAL) final report focuses on how skills needs can be translated into adult learning in practice.
Finding appropriate measures for the identification of current and the anticipation of future skills needs is a major challenge for every country in Europe. Different methodologies and set-ups are being applied across the European Union.
A question is, how these findings can be effectively and promptly translated into pertinent adult learning programmes and curricula? How to make adult learning as responsive as possible to labour market needs?
The EMSAAL-initiative concentrates on the challenge of reshaping the provisions for Continuous TVET and Lifelong Learning. The project came to an end in December 2012. It consisted of an information and knowledge sharing platform (only accessible for the participants of EMSAAL) and European high-level meeting on skills anticipation in adult learning taking place in Turin, Italy in September 2012.
On the basis of the high-level meeting, the summary report has been published and it is now available online. It systematises the information presented, captures the major discussion lines and lays out the approaches and findings identified by the participants during the meeting.

Skill mismatch in the EU is increasing. It negatively affects economic competitiveness and growth, increases unemployment, undermines social inclusion and generates significant economic and social costs. In order to make effective use of its talent and to prevent the waste of its human capital, the EU has to overcome any skill mismatch.
As part of the Employment and Social Developments in Europe 2012 report, the analysis in this document estimates the incidence of both macro and micro level mismatches in both qualifications and skills in the EU and across Member States. It explores their variation across important determinants such as sectors and various socio-economic groups and, on this basis, considers successful policies to tackle skill mismatch. It also emphasises the important advantages of policy measures that focus not only on education or qualification mismatch but also on the match between an individual’s skills in relation to their job requirements.
Links
The skill mismatch challenge in Europe.
Employment and social developments in Europe 2012.

Briefing note - More effective VET and lifelong learning policies: awareness raising, analysis and advice
Reform of vocational education and training (VET) in Europe is complex, especially at a time of economic crisis. Cedefop raises awareness and provides analysis and advice to policy-makers at European level and in Member States to help them decide on policies and actions. Cedefop’s work supports the European policy agenda for VET and lifelong learning.
Cedefop’s medium-term priorities 2012-14 guide its work. They reflect the European Union’s (EU’s) priorities for VET and include tasks that the Council of Ministers, European Commission, Member States and social partners have specifically asked Cedefop to carry out.
Cedefop’s impact depends largely on the value and trust stakeholders place on the authority, reliability and usefulness of its results. This depends on solid analysis and effective communication. Performance indicators show that stakeholders value Cedefop’s work and demand for its expertise is rising (Box 1).
Policies for modernising VET systems
Cedefop has a mandate to report on progress by Member States in implementing agreed European VET policy priorities under the Copenhagen process.
In 2012, Cedefop reviewed progress on the 22 short-term deliverables, a series of intermediate objectives that contribute to European VET policy’s strategic goals for 2020, set out in the Bruges communiqué. Cedefop’s review covered all EU Member States, Iceland and Norway (Box 2). It showed that many countries have addressed, at least partly, some short-term deliverables, particularly concerning young people. Countries continue to work to reduce early school leaving, for example through modular VET courses, validating non-formal and informal learning and better guidance. Developing apprenticeships and other forms of work-based learning is also a clear trend in many countries. However, VET is missing from many national innovation strategies and more needs to be invested in skills of VET teachers/trainers. In 2013, Cedefop will update its review and prepare for publication the next full European VET policy report in 2014.
Coordinating the Europe 2020 strategy through the European semester, the European Commission makes country-specific recommendations. Cedefop supports this process by providing evidence on the situation in Member States to monitor progress towards objectives and follow-up recommendations. Twice a year, Cedefop prepares overviews of VET developments in Member States, Norway and Iceland.
Cedefop cooperates closely with EU presidencies preparing VET events. In 2012, for Denmark’s EU Presidency Cedefop provided a snapshot on VET-business cooperation in Europe and for the conference ‘VET-business cooperation promoting new skills, innovation and growth for the future’, Cedefop delivered a keynote speech. For the Cyprus EU Presidency, Cedefop provided an update on policies to promote permeability, namely the ease with which people can move between different subjects and parts of the education and training system (1).
In the academic year 2011/12, Cedefop encouraged participation by social partners in 215 study visits. Some 2 458 participants from 33 countries attended, 96% of whom were very satisfied or satisfied with the visits.
In 2013, implementation of common European tools and principles will accelerate. Recommendations of the Council and European Parliament on the European qualifications framework (EQF), the European credit system for VET (ECVET) and the European quality assurance framework for VET (EQAVET) are completing the first implementation phase. Priority is to strengthen coherence among the instruments, in particular by ensuring that learning outcomes are applied consistently. Cedefop is working with the European Commission, Member States and social partners trying to ensure a long-term strategy on learning outcomes. Based on a survey of national practice, an analysis of the effects of learning outcomes on teaching and learning in initial VET, and experience of developing national qualifications frameworks, credit systems, curricula, assessment, quality assurance and validation, Cedefop will reflect on how learning outcomes are being applied across Europe in 2013. Results will be presented at a conference to debate the critical role learning outcomes play in education and training systems and learning pathways in the labour market.
The EQF and associated national qualifications frameworks (NQFs) are seen in several countries as catalysts for changing their education and training systems. NQFs use learning outcomes as the main principle for deciding the level of qualifications and by linking (referencing) NQFs to the EQF, learners and employers can compare levels of qualifications awarded at home and by other countries. In 2012, for the fourth consecutive year, Cedefop mapped and analysed progress. It reported that 35 countries are developing 39 NQFs (some countries, for example Belgium and the UK have more than one) of which 21 have been formally adopted. Seven countries are entering the early operational phase and four have fully implemented their NQFs. Some 15 countries have referenced their frameworks to the EQF and the rest should do so during 2013. Cedefop’s findings will feed into the European Commission’s evaluation of the EQF which will report in 2013.
Cedefop has, since 2010, monitored implementation of ECVET, analysing, in particular, the necessary conditions for its success. Cedefop’s 2012 report shows that, although Member States are increasingly committed to ECVET implementation, Europe is still far from a fully operational credit system in VET and most countries are giving priority to their NQFs. In 2013, Cedefop’s monitoring will be the basis for considering links between ECVET and the European credit transfer system (used in higher education), and will be used in the European Commission’s ECVET evaluation which will report in 2014.
Eight years after its launch in February 2005, 25.2 million people use Europass (a collection of documents available in 26 languages enabling people to present their qualifications and skills to employers across Europe in a standard format). The Europass website (http://europass.cedefop.europa.eu) managed by Cedefop had over 14.8 million visitors in 2012. More than 8.1 million Europass CVs were completed online in 2012, taking the total to over 24.7 million. In 2012, at the European Commission’s request, Cedefop developed the Europass experience document to record non-formal and informal learning acquired by people at home or abroad and the European skills passport, which provides people with a portable dossier, and which was launched in December 2012. In 2013, both will be improved on the basis of users’ feedback.
With the European Commission and Eurydice, Cedefop will continue to work on reducing early leaving from VET. A study with Eurydice is planned in 2013 on factors causing early school leaving and Cedefop will collect information on policies to tackle it.
Careers and transitions
Cedefop’s work on adult learning contributes directly to implementing European VET priorities as defined in the Bruges communiqué and the Council resolution on a renewed European agenda for adult learning.
The European year of active ageing encouraged debate on how learning can promote longer and successful working lives, despite being overshadowed by the need for urgent action to battle youth unemployment and continuing economic crisis. In 2012, Cedefop published Working and ageing, which considers benefits of, and barriers to, investing in learning later in life. In 2013, Cedefop will publish results of its study on how work-based learning can reintegrate unemployed adults into the labour market.
While much is known about initial VET, we know comparatively little about how rapid labour market changes affect continuing VET. Cedefop will analyse this issue with several country and sector case studies in 2013 with a fuller study following in 2014-15.
The recommendation on validation of non-formal and informal learning aims to help adults increase visibility of their skills and competences. Cedefop will present its study on use of validation of non-formal and informal learning in enterprises in 2013 at a joint conference with the European Commission. Cedefop will also prepare a second edition of European guidelines on validation and update the European inventory on validation. Further, Cedefop will publish its study on use of validation of non-formal and informal learning in European enterprises.
Its 2012 publication Loans for vocational education and training in Europe showed the differences in design and objectives of financing schemes and how some increase general participation in learning, while others seek to promote equity. Also in 2012, Training leave looked at how to overcome barriers to training due to problems with time, while Payback clauses in Europe – Supporting company investment in training looked at how the employer-provided training can be stimulated by reducing the risk of trained employees being poached by another enterprise. A joint conference in December 2012 with the European Commission ‘Adult Learning – Spotlight on investment’ discussed how to develop adult learning through more efficient sharing of costs and greater awareness of the benefits of training.
Recent evidence points to the success of work-based learning, dual VET systems and apprenticeships in promoting labour market integration for young people. Increasing numbers of apprentices is a Bruges communiqué objective. Germany’s initiative to set up the European alliance for apprenticeship was launched in December and Cedefop has been asked to play a role in its coordination. The alliance supports bilateral cooperation on how the principles behind dual VET systems can be introduced into various national systems and help young people to find a job. In 2013, Cedefop will examine financing models and private and public costs of work-based and dual VET in European countries to understand better the requirements to develop work-based models in VET.
Trainers are at the front line of initiatives to upgrade the skills of Europe’s workforce, promote lifelong learning, improve employability and reform VET. Cedefop will continue to coordinate with the European Commission the working group trainers in VET launched in February 2012. In 2013, Cedefop will analyse successful approaches to supporting the professional development of in-company trainers.
Supported by lifelong guidance, adults can make better decisions on education, training and work. In 2013, Cedefop will finalise its studies on guidance and age management strategies and integration of immigrants into the labour market.
Analysing skills and competences
Cedefop’s analysis of skill demand and supply, mismatches and imbalances supports the new skills and jobs agenda. Cedefop has also been invited to join the Global Agenda Council on Employment of the World Economic Forum together with the OECD, ILO, IMF and other world-leading experts and academia to address the jobs crisis and skill mismatch.
Cedefop skill supply and demand forecasts provide a pan-European picture of skill trends. In 2012, Cedefop published its latest forecast for 2020, which takes account of the economic slowdown that followed the financial crisis. It underlines that, although numbers of job opportunities have fallen, major trends, such as more skill-intensive jobs at all levels, job creation in services and the rising qualification level of Europe’s workforce, continue.
The EU Skills Panorama, launched in 2012 to improve access to European labour market intelligence, includes Cedefop’s forecast data. In 2013, Cedefop will update its forecasts and extend the time horizon from 2020 to 2025. Forecast data for Croatia will be added in July 2013, when it joins the EU.
Following the successful design and pilot of an employer survey on skill needs, Cedefop will, in 2013, prepare a European-wide employer survey to be launched in early-2014. The survey will investigate the demand for skills and emerging skill gaps.
In 2013, Cedefop will publish its research on how skill mismatch affects individuals, particularly vulnerable groups, (such as older workers, unemployed people and ethnic minorities) and labour market transitions. The results will provide new evidence on sectoral and cross-country differences in skill imbalances. A high-level conference will take place in autumn 2013 to debate priorities for policies to reduce skill mismatch.
In 2012, Cedefop published Green skills and environmental awareness in vocational education and training. It examines trends in employment, skill needs and training for selected occupations likely to be affected by development of a low-carbon, resource-efficient economy. In 2013, Cedefop will continue to work with UNEVOC, OECD, ILO, ETF and other international agencies in a body coordinating Greening TVET and skills development.
An efficient European agency
As tight budgetary framework conditions demand, Cedefop monitors carefully the use of resources. Cedefop uses activity-based budgeting and a performance measurement system with indicators on its impact, efficiency, effectiveness and relevance.
In 2013, the periodic external evaluation of Cedefop will be conducted by the European Commission. Cedefop will follow up its recommendations, as well as any findings and recommendations of the interinstitutional working group on EU agencies.
In 2012, Cedefop’s budget execution was, again, above 97%. Audits have not only confirmed their regularity, but also found that Cedefop procedures and controls are working well.
Cedefop’s size and the nature of its work, as well as considerable efforts over past years, leave little room for further significant efficiency gains. Despite a 2009 horizontal budget cut and zero-growth budgets in the last few years, Cedefop has been asked to take on new tasks. In 2013 and 2014, further requests include the Skills Panorama, an employer survey on skill needs, refinements on country-specific monitoring, and the European validation inventory. Existing tasks have also grown, notably policy reporting, support of the implementation of European tools and principles, and adult and work-based learning. Most of these are substantial and require medium-term resource commitments.
Download the Briefing note - More effective VET and lifelong learning policies: awareness raising, analysis and advice.

Call for Application – University of Prishtina International Summer University 2013
We have the honour to inform you that the University of Prishtina will organize the 13th edition of Prishtina International Summer University, which will be held  from 22 July-2 August 2013.
University of Prishtina International Summer University this summer will be offering twenty credited courses covering a wide range of study fields such as social sciences, law, economics, arts, education, medicine, engineering, linguistics, agronomics, archaeology, etc.
If your department wants to be part of this program, we strongly encourage you to complete the application form that you will find attached. The application online will be opened from 3 December and should be returned to the International Relations Office, as soon as possible, preferably before 1 February 2013.  Please make sure you fill out the application in detail.
Course suggestions without the name of a co-professor indicated will not be accepted. If you do not have a co-professor, you are kindly asked to contact us in advance for further reference.  The role of the co-professor is the most important point of contact for the visiting professor in order to prepare the syllabus of the module in cooperation. Co-professors take an active role in class, i.e. provide lectures with both international and local insight, lead discussions, prepare examinations, organise excursions and field work, etc.
Incomplete forms and forms prepared in languages other than English will not be taken into consideration. If you need assistance in completing the forms, please contact: Mr. Mentor Kadriu, tel: +381 38 246-750, Fax: +381 38 244-187 or e-mail: mentor.kadriu@uni-pr.edu.

The NIH on Thursday issued a notice titled, “NIH Operation Plan in the Event of a Sequestration.” For those of you following the sequestration talks here in the United States, the following should come as no surprise. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is facing an 8.2 percent across-the-board cut in future years (5.3 percent for 2013) which is set to have long-term repercussions for scientific advancement in this country. To put this in context, the average basic research grant in the U.S. is five years long, meaning that only 20 percent of these grants come to their end every year. Of that 20 percent, roughly half are renewed, leaving approximately 10% of annual funding levels available to support new investigator grants. Read more...