ECVET Magazine n. 9

The ninth issue of the ECVET Magazine is a special edition, entirely dedicated to the outcomes of the final conference of the ECVET pilot projects 2008-2011 that took place in February 2012 in Brussels.
It contains:
    * An editorial by Ute Haller-Block, Head of Unit EAC-EA: Experiencing ECVET – from practice to policy;
    * An article about the outcomes of Day 1 of the conference: 'Shared understanding of ECVET – Diversity of practical solutions';
    * A synoptic article about the pilot projects' results: 'Results of the 2008 ECVET pilot projects';
    * An article about the outcomes of Day 2 of the conference: What are the necessary conditions to further implement ECVET?;
    * An article on 'Learning Outcomes of the FINECVET initiative' that have been introduced at the FINECVET final conference in Helsinki on 15 March 2012; and
    * A series of news items.
Editorial - Ute Haller-Block Head of Unit - Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency
Experiencing ECVET – from practice to policy
The conference on 22 and 23 February 2012 in Brussels marked the end of the first series of pilot projects for ECVET. These eleven projects from the pioneer phase of ECVET started in 2009 and have now finalised their work. Just to remember: at that time the recommendation on ECVET was not even adopted by the Council. These projects therefore had the particular challenge to start working on a tool of which the framework did not yet formally exist. But, of course, a lot of preparatory work had already been done and the proposal for the recommendation including the technical specifications for ECVET had been put forward by the Commission already in April 2008.
A final conference is the occasion to celebrate the successes, but it is also the time to take stock and discuss the policyachievements, the difficulties, the lessons learned and the potential consequences for further policy strategy.
The initial objectives defined in this first call for projects to “test and develop the credit system for vocational education and training (ECVET)” were closely aligned to the agreed basic principles of such a credit system: facilitate mobility by recognising learning outcomes acquired in another country and establish strong partnerships between the responsible awarding bodies.
The partnerships which have been established in the projects have reached for most of them the goal of sustainability and will continue to cooperate after the end of the projects. A strong communal spirit has also been established among the projects with the external monitoring by GHK and the regular seminars, workshops, conferences organised. However, although competent bodies were involved in the projects, the real commitment from the national authorities was still not fully visible. The driving force currently appears to remain at the level of implementing bodies, like VET providers, mobility organisers or international enterprises with concrete needs linked to international exchanges.
Although ECVET has clear general principles, the devil lies – as often - in the details. Projects had to implement the technical specifications with the particular challenge that the different parts of such a system were meant to be “inseparable”, i.e. the description of the qualifications in terms of units of learning outcomes (LO), the learning outcome transfer process (including evaluation, validation, recognition and capitalisation of LO), a method for a point system for LO, the design, implementation and conclusion of partnership agreements.
It is in relation to the “inseparability” that the projects faced the most difficulties. These technical difficulties mirror the differences in VET systems and a certain resistance to change. The observed tendency, to try to fit ECVET to remain in line with the existing VET system and philosophy, has shown to be an obstacle to a holistic implementation of ECVET in the pilot projects. As a conclusion, the pilot projects used ECVET as a toolbox, a kind of “à la carte” menu depending on the particular needs in a sector, in a country, in an organisation. In the end, the 11 projects found different approaches, chose different angles of ECVET but all succeeded in the primary goal to recognise the learning outcomes acquired in different settings.
The results of the pilot projects are therefore of high value for future policy design, particularly in view of the revision of the ECVET recommendation in 2014. The challenges to be mastered to be able to go the way from experimentation to broad implementation are
• To achieve that ECVET is used as a system, not as a toolbox, in order to fully exploit its potential when it comes to recognition and validation of acquired learning outcomes. The clarity in guidelines is particularly important for the future communication on ECVET and its broad implementation;
• To achieve real commitment at national authority level, especially in view of the close link to the EQF;
• To promote the quality assurance processes with the aim to improve mutual trust between the VET systems;
• To examine possible extensions of the concept of ECVET: should it only be limited to learning mobility or can it be extended to lifelong learning in general, such as the recognition of informal and non-formal learning outcomes, as is presently tested in the second wave of pilot projects. The relationship to ECTS is also an issue in this respect;
• Last but not least, to set up adequate support structures for advice and national implementation and discuss suitable funding schemes.
An article by Daniela Ulicná (GHK Consulting). What are the necessary conditions to implement ECVET? Summary of the results of the second day of discussions during the final conference of ECVET pilot projects
The ECVET Recommendation states that as of 2012, Member States should create the necessary conditions to gradually start implementing ECVET. The work the ECVET pilot projects completed in the period 2008-2012 is expected to feed into this process. The testing of ECVET is designed to help Member States and stakeholders identify what these ‘necessary conditions’ are in their specific context.
It is therefore understandable, that the second day of the final conference on the work of the ECVET pilot projects, focused on this more forward looking discussion - after having discussed the specific projects’ outcomes on the first day. Beside the work undertaken by the pilot projects, the reflections on the ‘necessary conditions’ included the system level work conducted by Member States , the work of the ECVET Users’ Group, as well as that of the second generation of pilot projects, focusing more on the national implementation of ECVET.
This article summarises the main issues raised during the conference with an objective to nurture the subsequent discussions and decisions.
Need for clear policy vision for ECVET at system level Several interventions during the conference highlighted the fact that there was already demand for using ECVET. It from the VET providers who are interested in enhancing their international cooperation or from stakeholders who want to see more learner mobility in Europe, or from those who aim to support the recognition of individuals’ prior learning achievements (be it achievements from formal learning or in other learning contexts). However, a clear policy framework is missing and countries have not yet clarified what it means in practice to use ECVET in their system: including the requirements and conditions.
The Cedefop presentation, based on the publication on ECVET Development in Europe 20113, noted that: While many VET systems demonstrate ‘ECVET readiness’, only a few Member States’ representatives believe that their countries will be prepared to start implementation of ECVET soon.
‘ECVET readiness’ means that Member States use learning outcomes, unitisation or modularisation of qualifications and this is complemented by the use of validation procedures. Furthermore, several countries already have credit systems in place or are developing their use in vocational education and training.
Nevertheless, some countries have already made clear commitments to ECVET, for example: Finland, Belgium (French Speaking Community), and Latvia. The vision underpinning the use of ECVET in these countries differs greatly: while for example in Finland, the main driver is the internationalisation of VET and transnational mobility of learners, in Belgium (French Speaking Community), it is mainly about avoiding early school leaving and improving qualification completion.
Others, like France and Malta, in the context of the second generation projects, are analysing the systemic conditions which facilitate or hinder ECVET implementation within their systems.
Until there is more clarity about system-level strategies to work with ECVET, bottom-up initiatives and the work of pilots will not be able to be mainstreamed due to the lack of clear references and ‘ground rules’ within a given system. As shown by the work of the pilot projects (see other articles in this issue), the ECVET Recommendation gives a very generic framework, but this can be interpreted differently, depending on the needs and system-level conditions. Therefore, certain top-down decisions will need to be made to bridge with the bottom-up initiatives.
Emphasis on the quality of transnational mobility experience Ms Alison Crabb from the European Commission, DG Education and Culture, presented the proposal for the future ‘Erasmus for All’ programme that is to replace the current Lifelong Learning Programme together with some other programmes (mainly Youth in Action, but also others). She also emphasised the ambitious benchmark for mobility that was agreed in December 2011. This states that as of 2020, at least 6% of people holding initial VET qualifications (aged 18-34) should have completed at least two weeks of mobility experiences (including work-placements). To echo this ambitious benchmark, the new programme is to fund more student mobility in VET than the current Lifelong Learning programme: the proposed budget could fund the mobility of 735 000 beneficiaries in VET6 (while the figure is going to be below 500 000 for the period 2007-2013).
Next to the numbers of learners, the Commission proposal also states that:
The main criterion for funding [of mobility] will be quality, demonstrated through educational content and teaching and learning methods, recognition of learning outcomes, linguistic and intercultural preparation, and improved arrangements within host organisations.
This emphasis on the quality of mobility, including recognition, creates positive conditions for the implementation and use of ECVET within the new programme. Even though the extent to which this will be explicitly required or not (as it is the case for ECTS or similar credit systems in the Erasmus University Charter), is not yet clear.
Reacting to this presentation, Richard Maniak from the French Ministry of Education, representing the ECVET Team at the conference, noted that one of the dangers of the future programme and the benchmark is that organisations are more likely to focus on numbers (to meet the benchmark) than on the quality. ECVET is most suitable for mobility which is of a longer duration and where learners can acquire a more substantial set of knowledge, skills and competence. Therefore, the new programme should also clearly strengthen mobility which is of longer duration.
Demand for structures that can support VET providers
ECVET is a novelty. Even though some features of ECVET are already present in some VET systems, the international dimension that ECVET brings is new for all. Christian Sperle, from the German Chambers of Crafts and the European Association of Craft, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, highlighted in his presentation the need for support structures that will accompany VET providers in working with ECVET. This point was echoed in several presentations on the first day in which presenters noted the need for system-specific advice and guidance on how to work with ECVET.
Such support structures are necessary for two reasons:
• On the one hand, they should avoid over-burdening teachers, trainers and assessors. They should explain the most efficient ways of working with ECVET to actors on the ground, so they do not have to reinvent the wheel each time a VET provider starts using ECVET;
• On the other hand, they support a certain minimum homogeneity and quality in the way in which ECVET is used and the concepts are understood. This does not mean promoting only one approach to using ECVET. Instead, it means ensuring that aspects, such as the descriptions of units of learning outcomes, are of good quality or that the learning agreements are clear.
As Peter Thiele from the German Federal Ministry of Education emphasised in the final panel discussion, it is good that there is a diversity of solutions, but we should not forget the core ECVET principles and the need to ensure that these are commonly understood and applied.
The question remains about who could be these advisors and how would they be funded. One solution is the national networks of ECVET experts, coordinated by the Lifelong Learning Programme Agencies that have recently begun to operate.
In some countries, existing structures such as chambers already have the necessary expertise to support VET providers, on topics such as ECVET. Finally, as noted by Thierry Joseph - principal of a French VET school - during the final panel discussion, VET providers may need to support staff (possibly part time) working on mobility issues exclusively. This would be similar, though most likely on a smaller scale, to the role of the international centres/units in higher education institutions.
Finally, Anne Potters, from the Dutch National Agency for the Lifelong Learning Programme, also insisted on the need to communicate with and provide support to those who are to begin using ECVET. In this context she provided information about the work the Lifelong Learning Programme National Agencies are doing jointly in developing a toolbox and common templates to work with ECVET.
Enhancing acceptance of differences
ECVET was designed to support credit transfer and recognition and hence to promote openness of VET systems, programmes and pathways. Openness is about accepting difference, noted Carita Blomqvist from the Finnish National Board of Education, during the final panel discussion. ECVET will only achieve its ultimate goal if the competent authorities as well as VET providers agree to recognise credit; even if the details of learning outcomes or qualifications from abroad are somewhat different. Ms Blomqvist reminded the participants that a valuable concept used in qualification recognition is that of substantial difference: unless there is substantial difference, it should be possible to recognise credit from abroad and that is what ECVET was designed for. ECVET has a number of elements that enable VET providers and competent institutions to ensure the quality of learning outcomes and assessment completed abroad. Therefore, ECVET can be used to individualise learning pathways and give new opportunities to mobile young people and adults.
Erik Hess, Policy Officer at the European Commission, DG Education and Culture, summarised the panel discussion by pointing out three levels to take the implementation process of ECVET forward:
• Stakeholders exploit the results from the ground with a view to feeding them systematically into the community of practice;
• Member states safeguard the institutional and political environment needed for the ECVET implementation; and
• The Commission boosts this work and develops further supportive instruments like guiding notes and templates via the established cooperation with the key players.
See also: ECVET Magazine n. 8, ECVET Magazine n. 7, ECVET Magazine n. 6, ECVET Magazine n. 5, Issue 4, April 2011, Issue 3, January 2011, Issue 2, November 2010, Issue 1, June 2010, Issue 4, April 2010, Issue 3, November 2009, Issue 2, July 2009, Issue 1, April 2009.