Statement by Androulla Vassiliou, European Commissioner for Education, Culture, Multilingualism and Youth, during the policy debate on 'Education and Skills for Jobs, Stability and Growth', at the Education Council.
"We have to offer more direct and immediate support to the people who need help now.
We have to work harder to improve people's skills and competences so that they have a better chance to find a good job – this is exactly the policy message that we are giving in our 'Rethinking Education' Communication.
This year is decisive when it comes to the Member States' plans for how to spend the next generation of Structural Funds. In the current programming period Member States are spending € 35 billion from the Structural Funds on education, training and lifelong learning. As you know, the bulk of the funding comes from the European Social Fund (€ 28 billion), but more than € 7 billion will be spent on education infrastructure through the European Regional Development Fund. These amounts can make a difference, if they are used effectively and for the right purposes.
The legislative framework for the period 2014 – 2020, which will soon be agreed among the EU Institutions, gives a prominent role to investment in education and training. It is now up to you, Ministers of Education, to ensure that your plans for the modernisation of education benefit from adequate funding."
U-Multirank
"I cannot finish without mentioning in your presence, President, the work we are doing to bring to fruition the U-Multirank project, the multi-dimensional and global ranking initiative supported at EU level.
This is actually our plan to complement the existing university rankings, which are almost exclusively based on universities' research functions, with a tool which will provide a better, more rounded picture of the performance of our universities and colleges.
The launch conference in Dublin two weeks ago was a great success and I want to thank you, President, for you strong personal commitment. I want to invite all of you, dear ministers, to join Minister Quinn in becoming advocates for this project with your higher education institutions.
U-Multirank has the potential to increase transparency, and to highlight excellence in all the different missions of our universities, in teaching and learning, in knowledge transfer and regional development and in internationalisation, as well as in research. This will increase the visibility and attractiveness of all our universities, not just the big league universities. It will also be based on a strong input from the different national actors."

In November 2012, The Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) published a consultation document on applying student number controls to alternative providers with designated courses. Download HEFCE’s response to the consultation.
HEFCE response to BIS consultation on ‘Applying Student Number Controls to Alternative Providers with Designated Courses’
1. HEFCE welcomes the proposed improvements to the course designation framework, and in particular the benefits it will have for students and the reputation of alternative providers. More robust and transparent checks will offer greater assurances to students, impact positively on student choice and enhance the high-quality provision of the English higher education sector generally.
2. We also support the rationale for creating a more level playing field of regulation between providers. We believe that the new designation system will go some way towards achieving this and, in the absence of legislation, creating a single regulatory framework. In our view, the new criteria will help to protect student interests more effectively than the current system. Introducing student number controls for alternative providers will offer more assurance that funding (in the form of student loans) is being used appropriately. However, we have concerns about the different regulatory models being proposed and what this will mean for protecting student interests and fair access, as well as practical issues about operability and timing, which are outlined in more detail below.
3. Overall, we support the direction of travel set out in the consultation document but consider that more could be said about how the Government’s original ambitions, as set out in the 2011 White Paper ‘Students at the Heart of the System’, will be achieved.
4. The consultation questions are predominantly aimed at alternative providers; therefore we have decided not to respond to the questions, but to highlight some key points of principle.
Different regulatory models
5. The revised approach being taken means that there will be a different regulatory system for alternative providers compared with that of the existing publicly funded sector. This poses a risk as it will result in different levels of assurance and accountability. Our response outlines a number of differences, and it will be important that these are clearly articulated to ensure that students and the general public are informed of the levels of assurance available and how these differ between providers. We believe that some form of information gateway about the differences should be developed, which would create greater public transparency. The HEFCE web-site could potentially be used for this purpose and we would be keen to work with BIS to try and develop such a gateway.
6. In the longer term, we would very much support a move to a single regulatory framework as originally envisaged in the 2011 White Paper. This would address any anomalies between the two systems, thus helping to level the playing field and offer a more consistent approach to safeguarding student interest and choice. We believe that a consistent approach would also have benefits for alternative providers, enabling them to be seen as equals in a competitive HE sector and part of its high-quality brand.
Student protection
7. While the current proposals appear to provide greater ‘protection’ to students compared with the present system, they do not achieve the levels of protection set out in the 2011 White Paper. For example, while BIS is suggesting alternative providers voluntarily subscribe to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, there is no formal requirement for them to do so. Nor is there any requirement to publish robust and comparable information for students. There would be benefits in considering whether subscription to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator could in some way be made compulsory, and also whether more information could be made available to prospective students (perhaps through Key Information Sets). This approach would ensure that students at alternative providers have access to the same routes of appeal and public information as students studying at HEFCE-funded providers.
Social mobility
8. We note that students studying on designated courses at alternative providers are unable to access tuition fee loans above £6,000 a year, though they may be charged a higher amount. This is not comparable to the financial support given to students in the publicly funded sector. While, on the face of it, there may be less need for financial control, due to the lower levels of public financial exposure, the cap on loans means that alternative providers are not required to hold access agreements with the Office for Fair Access. As a result there is no formal mechanism for promoting and monitoring fair access to alternative providers. It is important that the social mobility objective set out in the White Paper is monitored and assessed, in particular the equality impact on certain groups including those from less advantaged backgrounds.
Student number controls
9. While we support the move to align the controls with the existing sector, there are differences in the operations of the proposed systems for publicly funded and alternative providers. The proposed methods set out in the consultation document currently lack detail as to how the number control will be implemented in practice. The methods proposed for setting and monitoring student number controls need to be carefully examined for unintended consequences. This is particularly true of Method 2, which is very different from HEFCE’s current approach and therefore has not been tested. BIS needs to ensure that this method does not conflict with the student interest – there is a risk, for example, that it could incentivise institutions to discourage students from claiming student support.
10. There will need to be further consideration given as to how any additional student numbers are allocated between new and existing alternative providers. It is not clear whether any change to student number controls for alternative providers would impact on the publicly supported sector and vice versa. In addition to the allocation of student numbers there will need to be confirmation about whether any processes, such as core and margin or high grades policy (or similar), will be put in place to allow new providers to enter the system. Thought also needs to be given to whether alternative providers would have similar flexibility to that of the public sector around the student number controls. The earlier this can be clarified the easier it will be for providers and HEFCE to implement the new system.
11. While we are committed to working with Government to implement the new system of course designation and student number control, we have concerns about the feasibility of fully introducing the new system in 2013-14. For the HEFCE-funded sector we have already announced the student number controls for 2013-14 as institutions will now be making offers to students who intend to begin their studies in September, bearing in mind that the UCAS deadline, of 15 January, has already passed. It would not be possible to give alternative providers this certainty for 2013-14, as the new system will not be in place in time. If it is necessary to introduce student number controls in time for 2013-14, we recommend that a simple method of student number controls is implemented in 2013-14, which can be implemented as quickly as possible, in order to provide some clarity for alternative providers and their students. This could be developed further, if appropriate, in 2014-15.
12. The consultation is clear that student number controls will not apply to non-designated courses, which gives alternative providers the continued freedom to increase privately funded (‘off quota’) student numbers. This freedom is not available to institutions from the existing sector, and may come under challenge at some point. This approach might also work against the objectives of fair access and social mobility.
13. While the consultation is focused on alternative providers, one consequence might be that existing HEFCE-funded institutions look to set up new entities that could follow the alternative provider route to course designation. In the short-term we do not feel this is a significant issue but as the quantum of HEFCE funding for teaching reduces, the incentives for different corporate forms and structures will increase. This might be desirable in some instances but it means that levels of protection for students could reduce.
Transitional issues
14. The transitional arrangements for the existing alternative providers with designated courses will need further development. Considerable thought needs to be given to the impact of an existing alternative provider not meeting the new criteria for course designation, and to the consequences for its students who already access the student finance system. There are some significant implications of, for example, withdrawing course designation yet enabling students to complete their courses of study. The interests of existing students must be paramount in this, and it is not yet clear how such issues will be addressed. We note that BIS is due to publish detailed guidance on the overall designation process, and we would be happy to provide further advice.
15. Currently a number of non-HEFCE funded providers who receive funding from other government departments or agencies receive automatic designation of eligible courses. This includes some further education colleges and some initial teacher training providers. We understand that some consideration has been given to how these providers will be treated in the new system, but that the issue is unresolved. This needs to be finalised quickly, and the relevant providers informed accordingly.
Monitoring
16. BIS will need to decide how the system will be monitored, including its impact on protected groups and on the student interest in general. (Non-completion rates may be particularly relevant, as this may affect not only students but the rate of debt write-off.) It will be important that sufficient information is collected to allow this monitoring to take place. In our view this will require Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) data returns from most or all providers whose students have access to student support. The type and volume of information that HESA would need to collect would not necessarily replicate that submitted by HEFCE-funded providers. We appreciate that this would incur a cost (currently unspecified) for providers, but this has to be balanced with the wider public interest in the effective stewardship of the whole higher education sector. Some providers already submit information to HESA or the Further Education Data Service, which may mitigate any transitional costs.
17. The consultation includes a short section on sanctions, appearing to suggest that providers should make a voluntary contribution to any cost to Government resulting from over-recruitment. While this will be an appropriate sanction linked to the student number control, it will also be important for BIS to consider actions it may take in response to other shortcomings linked to course designation (such as academic quality or financial sustainability) and whether or not these need to be consistent with those applied to HEFCE-funded providers. We would be happy to provide advice on this.
18. In addition, the complexities of alternative providers in the devolved administrations operating in England have yet to be addressed. The new process will apply to any providers who want their courses designated to allow any English-domiciled students access to the student finance system. This means that non-English-based providers may apply to have courses designated. Some of these providers may already have been assessed by other devolved administrations or government departments. It will be important to ensure that there is clarity over responsibilities and consistency in decision-making.
19. There is an expressed desire for the arrangements to be ‘proportionate’ for small providers. Exactly how this will be achieved while also fulfilling the requirement to control finances and support the student and public interest is not clear enough in the consultation document. We would be happy to work with BIS colleagues and smaller alternative providers to develop these arrangements.
Implications for HEFCE
20. The process being considered differs from HEFCE’s role with the existing funded sector, and therefore the assurances we can give in our advice on alternative providers may be more limited. We are committed to working with these providers to improve our understanding of their operations and to support them in delivering high-quality education to students. However the regulatory and accountability framework will be different under the proposed arrangements, and BIS needs to be aware of the limits to our role and what we can deliver. It will be critical for HEFCE that we work within our current legal powers at all times and establish open and effective relationships with alternative providers.
21. There are resource implications for HEFCE in supporting the new system. We are being asked to lead on the main operation of the new course designation process, which will create a significant amount of new and additional work for the organisation. Currently we fund and monitor 128 higher education institutions and fund 187 further education colleges, with over 100 alternative providers currently with designated courses, and many more providers applying. This gives an indication of the scale of the challenge we are considering. To discharge our new responsibilities in a professional way we are likely to require further resource. Download HEFCE’s response to the consultation.

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.

Les compétences constituent un trésor détenu par chacun de nous; leur association détermine la valeur des organisations de travail et même des nations. Pourtant, les travailleurs sont parfois considérés des consommables. C'est accorder bien peu de confiance à l'individu que de le penser à usage unique ou limité.
La gestion des compétences se fonde sur une planification soigneuse, elle-même basée sur une analyse approfondie des environnements dans lesquels évoluent les organisations productrices de biens et de services. Hélas, l'incertitude règne en maître dans de nombreux domaines. Comment alors anticiper sur les compétences dont on aura besoin demain? Suite de l'article...

By Martin Cash. Year-end surveys by business organizations this year seem to indicate there is solid optimism business will pick up in 2013.
But the expectations employers have about hiring more workers seem to be tempered by their ongoing concerns about finding the right skilled people to fill the positions.
It's not a new issue and it is not specific to Manitoba.
But it's very complex and has been a nagging feature of this provincial economy for a long time. So the provincial throne speech announcement that a Skills Summit would be held at the end of February has been roundly applauded as a good idea.
It is to be co-chaired by Stephanie Forsyth, president and CEO of Red River College and Kevin Rebeck, president of the Manitoba Federation of Labour.
Janine Carmichael, the Manitoba director of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) said she's really pleased the skills shortage is getting such attention. Read more...

La politique d'apprentissage de la marine nationale vise le développement des compétences du personnel au juste besoin, au juste moment et au juste coût. Une circulaire décrit la démarche d'ingénierie de développement des compétences et les outils associés.
Cette démarche est destinée à permettre l'identification et la satisfaction d'un besoin en compétences. Elle met en cohérence l'analyse de l'emploi avec l'apprentissage dispensé par les écoles et les unités. Elle s'applique à l'ensemble des formations de cursus et des stages mis en oeuvre dans le champ de responsabilité de la direction du personnel militaire de la marine. Circulaire n° 16 du 26 octobre 2012. Suite de l'article...
Organisation et mise en oeuvre des formations du personnel militaire de la marine
Une instruction définit l'organisation générale de la formation et de la validation des compétences des militaires au sein de la marine nationale. Elle fait le point sur les divers modes de formation mis en oeuvre au sein de la marine. Toute certification professionnelle (inscrite au RNCP) délivrée par une école de la marine est accessible par la VAE. Instruction n°10 du 14 novembre 2012.

The European Skills Passport, which helps people to assemble their skills and qualifications online, has now been launched by the European Commission.
The Passport enables people to improve the presentation of their CVs by bringing together their educational and training certificates in one place, providing evidence for the qualifications and skills declared in the CV. It is available for free in 26 languages on the Europass portal where an on-line editor helps users to create their individual passports. It complements the Europass CV which is used by more than 20 million Europeans.
By giving a clear and comprehensive picture of the skills and qualifications users refer to in their CVs, the European Skills Passport helps job-seekers to improve their chances on the labour market and employers to find qualified personnel.
The European Skills Passport is one of thirteen actions launched under the Commission's Agenda for New Skills and Jobs, which aims to make Europe's labour markets work better.
More information
    European Skills Passport.
    Create your European Skills Passport online.