EUCIS-‐LLL Contribution to the European Commission consultation “A European Area of Skills and Qualifications” April 2014 Following the public consultation issued by the European Commission on a European Area of Skills and Qualifications, EUCIS-‐LLL has produced an input after having led a broad internal consultation within its membership. This paper reflects the answers that were made by EUCIS-‐LLL to the online consultation and is accompanied by a position paper that recalls the most important points of the Platform’s contribution and gives a feedback on the initiative and on the consultation format. 1. How to place a stronger focus on higher and more relevant skills Closed questions: 1. Should curricula and assessment practices be more focused on boosting transversal skills such as digital, language and entrepreneurial competences? Partially agree (see position paper: need to focus on other transversal competences as well such as social and civic competences and learning to learn) 2. Would it be useful to develop reference frameworks describing learning outcomes per level per competence, following the example of the language competence framework? Partially agree (see position paper: importance of soft skills and of using a common terminology) 3. Would it be useful to have more hands-‐on experts from the employers' side involved in the design of the curricula? Partially agree (see position paper: importance of involving all stakeholders) Open question: 4. What has been the effectiveness and value of the European Key Competences Framework so far in promoting the competences that it refers to? The adoption of the 2006 European Key Competences Framework is a reference document in the sense that it embodied the European Union’s will to follow the pace of international developments and shift to a learning outcomes approach through a basic set of core competences for all individuals. It was essential for Europe to align with UNESCO (1998 Delors report) and OECD (2001 DeSeCo project) and define what learners should know, understand and be able to do at the end of the learning process in a common framework. The European Key Competences Framework operated a broad paradigm shift because it corresponds to different levels and to different sectors of education and training and thus contributed to foster a lifelong and life-‐wide learning perspective. It was also very innovative in putting all eight competences on the same level, and defining them in precise knowledge, attitudes and skills. It contributed to place basic skills in the spotlight with requirements in mother tongue, foreign language and STEM skills that are today still very much valued and closely monitored under ET2020 benchmarks but also under PISA and PIAAC -‐ two 1 surveys that were also greatly influenced by this new approach and that assessed competence use in real-‐life situations, a genuine methodological revolution. It also enhanced digital literacy as an essential asset, almost ten years before the Opening Up Education Communication. Finally, it ranked high in the EU political agenda transversal competences that are also still very much relevant today when adaptability is the key word to cope with labour market and societal changes. By trying to implement the Framework, almost all Member States adapted to this new vision of education and made of the competence-‐based approach a policy priority. The influence of the Framework incited governments to reshape their teaching and learning systems, as implementation needed a cross-‐
curricular vision, collaborative, interactive and technology-‐enhanced learning environments as well as properly trained and committed educators. The framework cannot be held responsible for the lack of results as the main problem is often a narrow and slow implementation of the Framework at EU and national level. A lot remains to be done in terms of teacher training, learner-‐centred pedagogy and new assessment methods, implementing functioning validation arrangements and guidance infrastructures. As the staff working document on assessing The Framework is thus still very much valuable today for its lifelong and lifewide dimension; it has entailed so many positive changes within Member States as mentioned above that it should keep on being widely promoted. We see a danger in abandoning this holistic approach for a narrow approach focused on technical skills and the adaptation to match labour market needs; we do not want a utilitarian vision of education nor do we want to give up on any of the competences mentioned in the 2006 Framework. In terms of implementation we regret that the European Union tends to focus on a limited number of transversal competences. The added value of the framework is indeed to support a comprehensive and holistic approach of learning – life-‐long and life-‐wide. This is more than ever relevant. Finally, many good EU funded projects were born following this urgent need to foster innovation and adapt to this paradigm shift. As for the relevance of references frameworks per level per competence (question 2), it would be useful in order to foster a common approach and to further contribute to the implementation of the Framework. In order to have a greater European value, the EU should initiate this process both on more “traditional” key competence such as mathematical competence that are already described in some Member States and on those which are more difficult to describe – but which are recognised as being as relevant – such as learning to learn and social and civic competences. In the FEDEC (European Federation of Professional Circus Schools)’s MIROIR study for instance, employers interviewed said that in order to employ young graduates the soft skills are as important as the technical skills. As for the involvement of employers in the design of curricula (question 3), it is a complex issue as it depends on the level of freedom educational institutions have in doing so. If they deliver recognised programmes and diplomas, they are bound by regional, national or local policies and rules. It is important to remind that curricula cannot be designed by employers only because educational bodies are not suppliers for a market but for society as a whole and have a broader mission. However they should be able to deliver programmes and diplomas that are corresponding to the needs of a sector or profession (and aim at a high level of employability of the graduates) by organising regular consultations with employers in order to improve curricula but also institutions’ pedagogical project and teaching and learning methods in order to remain “competitive”. Education and training institutions have to be the initiators and involve in the dialogue employers, students, and recent graduates. Students in particular should be considered as equal experts than employers and have the opportunity to give feedback on their education after graduation, give the perspective as employee/employer and react on what they think should be the right mix of skills and qualifications for professions in constant evolution. 2 5. Could other European initiatives than the European Key Competences Framework be more effective? If yes, which ones? The effectiveness of the European Key Competences Framework cannot be doubted as it proves to be still perfectly relevant today, as shown for instance by the latest UNESCO global reflection called “Re-‐thinking education”, echoing the eponymous EU document. Its preliminary conclusions are as follows: “There appears to be general agreement that the integrated and humanistic vision of learning outlined in the Faure and Delors reports (NB: emphasising the pillars “learning to be”, “learning to do”, “learning to know” and “learning to live together” that have influenced the 2006 EU Framework) is of continued relevance in today’s world; and that it constitutes a viable foundation for the rethinking of education”. The progress achieved at EU level since 2006 to promote a learning outcomes approach is undeniable and we as educational stakeholders should wonder how to sustain this legacy rather than thinking of yet another European initiative (or overburdening an existing one with a new function) that could better promote a competence-‐based vision (social partners such as BusinessEurope also agree on this point). Existing initiatives and tools should be coherent and consistent with the Framework. The policy steps in the field of basic skills, such as the 2010 agenda for European policy cooperation on basic skills, related ET2020 benchmarks or the Commission High Level Group on Literacy are already moving in the right direction and strengthen the three first 2006 key competences. The Opening Up Education Communication emphasises the digital competence as an important prerequisite to access open educational resources and more generally to adapt to new jobs and ways of life. The Rethinking Education Communication mentions transversal competences such as entrepreneurship. Among recognition tools, the ESCO portal seeks to define several transversal competences such as social and civic ones. However, while such a great influence and relevance of the 2006 Framework can be observed, policy priorities are more oriented towards the acquisition and development of certain types of skills in a limited number of labour market sectors rather than valuing transversal skills such as critical thinking, creativity or learning to learn. We regret that the European Commission itself often does not respect the terminology it has defined and that has been adopted by Members States by talking of transversal skills instead of key competences as referred in the Key Competences Framework. When transversal competences are valued, such as in the new Commission related Thematic Working Group, they are narrowed down to digital skills, language skills (which cannot even be considered as transversal skills) and entrepreneurship skills. This last example is a perfect illustration of the current tendency to adopt narrow political vision on competences: the entrepreneurship competence is a set of knowledge, skills and attitudes mostly aimed to make an individual capable of “turning ideas into action”. Being a team-‐player or knowing how to manage projects will be useful in many other situations (often defined as “intrapreneurship”) than to create one’s own business. Narrowing the definition to a certain type of abilities or professional purposes is counter-‐productive for the Europe 2020 objectives, as it does not fully exploit employability perspectives and reduces the scope to a certain type of sector. Keeping a broad definition of the entrepreneurship competence makes it more inclusive, enlarges its scope and extends the range of stakeholders that can feel concerned and show support. In that sense, it is normal that the Eurobarometer no. 354 reveals that EU respondents did not feel they developed an entrepreneurial attitude. Asking them if they acquired some of the transversal competences implicitly understood under “entrepreneurial attitude” (i.e. work collaboratively) may reveal very different results. In conclusion the 2006 Framework should not be judged ineffective and replaced. It should be considered as a reference document to be quoted in all new policy initiatives and tools that need to equally promote the eight key competences defined, as it was the initial goal. This is the 7th 3 priority of EUCIS-‐LLL Manifesto “Building together the future of learning” for the 2014 European elections. 2) Further strengthening links between education/training, mobility and the labour market Closed questions: 6. To help individuals take advantage of available opportunities in a wider and more open context, career guidance policies and practices are crucial. Are you aware of the European policies on career guidance? Partially aware 7. Is it useful to be able to use a common multilingual European terminology (such as ESCO) to support describing learning outcomes of education and training programmes in terms of knowledge, skills competences relevant to the labour market? Very useful 8. Should forecasts on skills supply and needs be better integrated into the education and training strategy in order to reduce skills mismatches? Partially agree 9. Several sectoral skills and qualification passports have been developed that promote the recognition of skills, experiences and qualifications, facilitating transnational mobility within the same sector. They can play a role in the phase of identification and documentation of skills. Do sectoral skills and qualifications passports or cards have added value compared to more general European documentation tools such as Europass, e.g. for cross border mobility of learners and workers? 2 (high added value) 10. Is better integration between these passports and the Europass framework needed? Strongly agree Open questions: 11. How can guidance services be organised to best support learners and workers in their educational, training and occupational choices and facilitate their participation in the labour market? Strengthen and coordinate guidance services from the earliest age as the learner’s compass to find the best tailored-‐made learning opportunities at all levels is the 8th priority of EUCIS-‐LLL Manifesto “Building together the future of learning” for the 2014 European elections. Taking into consideration EU demographic changes and unemployment figure, both the elderly and young people should be targeted with specific measures. To best support learners and workers, guidance services should be 4 made as user-‐friendly as possible to transcribe the complexity and variety of European tools into a “one-‐stop shop” type of service. However, whatever the quantity and quality of information that guidance services will be able to offer, a more holistic approach to guidance and counselling should be adopted. There is a need for structural change in the sector to reflect the increasing flexibility of learning pathways and this impulse for reform has to be embedded in the global modernisation of lifelong learning strategies. The 2008 Council Resolution on lifelong guidance ranks as a top priority stakeholders’ coordination and cooperation as guidance is such a transversal challenge. Supporting a partnership policy through the development of sustainable mechanisms, pooling resources and services, developing communities and common cultures are the prerequisite for efficient guidance and counselling provision. Guidance professionals and pedagogical teams in each educational sector need to be fully aware of all educational, training and occupational choices as well as of EU policies on career guidance and should be invited to contribute to improve them and make them more realistic; besides the knowledge, they also need a strong network in the world of education and work. This can only be achieved through stronger partnerships. The Staff Working Document accompanying the Communication on “Rethinking Education” on Partnerships and Flexible Pathways emphasises in particular effective provision of guidance to support citizens in planning their individual learning pathways. In this line, there is an urgent need to support validation of non-‐formal and informal learning through guidance and counselling services as mentioned by the Council Recommendation on VNFIL. Validation is the key to a swift upskilling of populations and the common denominator to various learning pathways and educational sectors. 12. What new features should initiatives such as EQF, ESCO, European Skills Panorama and the sector skills alliances include in order to raise the understanding of skills needs and on the communication between education and the labour market? A crucial point in the latest EQF evaluation report of the Commission is that the EQF is so far limited to qualifications acquired through formal learning pathways while it should support the validation of non-‐formal and informal learning (including digital learning), especially in times where Member States have to implement validation arrangements by 2018. Slow progress in that sense illustrates the fact that there are still many uncertainties about the terminology used by the various recognition tools to define learning outcomes (qualifications, knowledge, skills, competences, abilities…). Beyond a coherent approach, more bridges should be established between those tools instead of trying to add new features; for instance including EQF levels to Europass supplements as Member States are currently trying to implement. But is it really relevant for learners to translate their competences in EQF levels? One should not forget that the main reason for increased simplification and coherence between recognition and transparency tools is to make them more user-‐friendly to learners. If no further pedagogy is made simultaneously and consistently for them, for workers, for employers and other stakeholders, they will not gain ownership on the benefits of those tools and will never use them. As for the Sector Skills Alliances, understandably eligible sectors have been selected according to skills forecasts but should not be so restrictive. Besides, eligibility criteria for participants are very selective on consortia and more flexibility should be introduced not to discourage applications (i.e. make one of the three entities optional). ESCO has enormous potential for the future development of approaches to the recognition of non-‐
formal and informal learning. The taxonomy of skills, competences, qualifications and occupations as it is currently being developed does not only allow for better job-‐matching procedures. It underpins job-‐profiles and professions with a competence-‐scheme. Any procedure for validating and recognising non-‐formal and informal learning may well refer to this scheme in the future. Once established, this could lead to a European-‐wide standard for the validation and recognition of non-‐
formal and informal learning. ESCO could also be linked to the EQF. This would allow for a “second track”: a person with no formal qualification but validated and recognised competences in a certain 5 professional area would be able to proof the level of his or her competences in relation to a formal degree. This would value the principle of focussing on learning outcomes instead of degrees enormously. As for the Knowledge Alliances and Sector Skills Alliances, understandably eligible sectors have been selected according to skills forecasts but should not be so restrictive. Besides, eligibility criteria for participants are very selective on consortia and more flexibility should be introduced not to discourage applications (i.e. have smaller consortia for the sectors that are smaller or not structured enough, and that could really benefit from such opportunity to structure their professions). It was the case when the pilots were launched in 2013, and having more projects would have a wider impact on a wider range of sectors. 13. If you think that better integration between sectoral passports and the Europass framework is needed, please give your suggestions on how it could be achieved. Sectoral passports may be easier to promote within a specific sector but they hinder clarity and coherence of European tools such as the Europass framework and could appear to be counterproductive. A single Europass tool should be promoted across all sectors and be flexible enough to address various target groups. The recent Commission evaluation report on the Europass underlines in this sense the need to revamp it into a simpler, more target-‐oriented and up to date service, while post-‐graduates are the ones using Europass the most and low-‐skilled unemployed people are the hardest to reach. The Europass Mobility new tool is very limited due to its narrow scope of qualifications acquired abroad and the Europass Experience should be urgently implemented; it should already have been published in 2013, coherently with the Europass Mobility. 3. Adapting to internationalisation trends Closed questions: 14. A number of qualifications awarded at international level (e.g. by international sectoral organisations and multinational companies) are often valued in the labour market. Is European level coordination needed to facilitate the recognition of such qualifications throughout Europe? Partially agree 15. Should criteria and procedures be developed for the inclusion of international qualifications in National Qualification Frameworks (NQFs) and the European Qualification Framework (EQF)? No opinion 16. An increasing number of study programmes, such as Masters or PhDs are being jointly developed by two or more higher education institutions in different countries offering joint degrees. Are existing recognition arrangements suitable for the recognition of these degrees? Somewhat suitable 6 Open questions: 17. What further steps could be taken at EU level to promote mutual recognition of qualifications, credits or learning outcomes between the EU and third countries? Could the EQF be useful in this context? If yes, how? In the field of higher education, the 2012 Bruges Communiqué is undeniably a step forward for recognition of comparable academic degrees and compliance with the 1997 Lisbon Recognition Convention. However, the Erasmus Student Network (ESN) has just released a study on Automatic Recognition of Full Degrees (February 2014) showing that this is still a challenge in some cases and that there is a cruel lack of data coming from the students themselves. In that sense, such civil society organisations should be more often consulted when reflecting on improved EU policies in the field, as they counterbalance governments’ input and provide a grassroots feedback. The study shows that 9% of students having taken a full degree abroad encounter problems with the recognition of their degree. A foreign degree seems well accepted and valued by employers but recognition procedures for entering further education looks much more laborious, and incitations at EU level could be made towards Member States to improve the situation. Besides, further efforts have to be engaged for compatibility between the Qualifications Framework of the European Higher Education Area (QF-‐EHEA) and the EQF and to strengthen a common learning outcomes approach (see question 24). Besides the Bologna process, the Commission’s Communication on European Higher Education in the World points out many interesting directions for an increased transparency, recognition and portability of learning outcomes acquired beyond Europe’s borders, i.e. the Erasmus Charter within the Erasmus mobility scheme. The concept of “internationalisation at home” and internationally minded campuses are also very relevant for students to acquire intercultural skills that should be given the possibility to be validated. EUCIS-‐LLL has closely monitored the recast of Directives 2005/71/EC and 2004/114/EC on conditions of entry, residence and rights of non-‐EU nationals for the purposes of research, studies, pupil exchange, remunerated and unremunerated training, voluntary service and au pairing that has just been adopted by the European Parliament and strongly recommends the Commission to encourage Member States to implement them as soon as possible. Furthermore, Erasmus+ (but also Horizon 2020 Marie Skłodowska Curie actions) is a very interesting lever to foster a smoother mutual recognition of learning outcomes with third countries, for instance with capacity-‐building in the field of youth (that should be extended next year to other sectors). However there have been many uncertainties in the first months of the programme implementation regarding those actions as they are financed under MFF Heading 4. The possibilities and budget allocated to international activities beyond Europe should be clarified as soon as possible not to hinder innovation in the internationalisation of our education and training systems. Finally, a far too strong emphasis is put on higher education and VET when tackling mutual learning outcomes recognition with third countries at EU level. While they are understandably the two priority sectors on the EU agenda, recognition of qualifications acquired in other sectors and settings, in particular non-‐formal and informal learning, should be equally valued. Organised civil society can also be of great help in that sense. The European Association for the Education of Adults (EAEA) has for instance many non-‐EU members that committed to follow up on validation of non-‐
formal and informal learning developments and support their national authorities to take this direction. 18. What further steps could be taken at EU level to promote the recognition of joint degrees offered by European higher education institutions in cooperation with institutions from other parts of the world? 7 The existing recognition arrangements are not always suitable for the recognition of these degrees, because there is still a lot to be done for the curricula to be jointly developed. European level coordination is needed to facilitate the recognition of joint work (eg. mobility period or exchanges between students in VET and in HE) so that all joint initiatives can have recognition in their own programme. The Erasmus+ new programme actions such as the Erasmus Mundus Joint Master and Doctorate Degrees seem very promising to foster innovation in the recognition of the learning outcomes acquired through those curricula. Obviously, Open Education Resources also offer an infinite range of new possibilities for setting up joint degrees between higher education institutions and the Commission could encourage Member States in the framework of the Opening Up Education Communication to reflect on validation of those learning outcomes acquired in digital learning environments. The European University Association has conducted a survey in 2002 on Master Degrees and Joint Degrees in Europe highlighting that recognition by then was still an unsolved challenge, but no update has been released in more than ten years; it would be worth leading a new research on the topic collecting the feedback of grassroots actors, including students. 4. Ensuring overall coherence of tools and policies and further implementing the learning outcomes approach Closed questions: 19. In your opinion, are the current tools seen altogether clear and understandable? Partially disagree 20. The learning outcomes approach (what a learner knows, understands and is able to do on completion of a learning process) is a key common principle in European transparency and recognition tools. Its transparent use and full implementation can significantly improve the understanding of and trust in qualifications within and across borders, eventually making the recognition of qualifications smoother. a. Should qualifications and study programmes be systematically described in terms of learning outcomes (knowledge skills and competences to be acquired)? Strongly agree b. Would a common definition of "unit of learning outcomes" and "credit" between higher education and vocational education and training be desirable? Partially agree c. Could the use of the learning outcomes approach support the validation of non-‐formal and informal learning? Strongly agree d. Do you consider the current European tools for the documentation of learning experiences satisfactory or unsatisfactory? 8 Somewhat unsatisfactory 21. Do you consider the possible integration of Europass tools and self-‐assessment tools to document non-‐formal and informal learning outcomes (such as the Youthpass) in a common framework useful? Very useful 22. Would you support a development towards a single supplement documenting learning outcomes acquired in formal education bringing closer together the Diploma Supplement (for higher education) and the Certificate Supplement (for Vocational Education and Training)? Yes Open questions: 23. What are, in your opinion, the obstacles to base curricula design and assessment practices on a learning outcomes approach? Intrinsically, the concept of learning outcomes encompasses a holistic definition of the learning process and the learner, independently of the learning settings (environment, moment in life). The first obstacle to concretise a genuine outcome-‐based approach comes from a narrow vision of why and where it should be implemented. The question itself can be seen as limiting as it mentions curricula design, reducing the reflection to formal education or certain forms of non-‐formal learning while such a paradigm shift should be tackled in a reflection encompassing all types of learning. The motivation lying behind the implementation of lifelong learning strategies in Member States differ and influence the way learning outcomes are defined and used; while some countries will put emphasis on social inclusion and access to education for all through basic skills, others will focus on employability and the acquisition of technical skills for the labour market; others will do both (CEDEFOP “The shift to learning outcomes”, 2008). It is the role of the EU to adopt a more neutral and balanced approach and to sustain efforts in order to influence a shift to learning outcomes not driven by what could be seen as a “growth obsession”. In the same line, recognised international surveys such as PISA or PIAAC have adopted an outcome-‐based approach but interpretations are too often limited to a few data. For example PISA contains key information i.e. on pupils’ motivation but the media or policy-‐makers seldom exploit this data. Further reflection should be engaged on how to measure different kinds of learning outcomes to consider the development of learners as a whole. Due to a limited amount of resources, choices are made, and it is easier to measure what is easy to measure such at attainment levels or mathematic skills as compared to transversal competence such as learning to learn (EUCIS-‐LLL policy debate on “Measuring progress in LLL, December 2013). Measuring the acquisition of transversal competences is often made through quantitative assessment which should be avoided, or through qualitative assessment that is difficult to upscale. However, we believe it is utterly important that more investment is put in this kind of research and that policy-‐makers seriously take it up for example with the support of Horizon 2020. The OECD has engaged into a very interesting path with its Better Life Index taking for instance into account life satisfaction. It can inspire the field of education and training in implementing an approach where learning outcomes would have a holistic meaning, not limited to a single type of education, definition or individual or societal purpose. Changing the way policy-‐makers interpret the learning outcomes paradigm is the only way to have a coherent vision between sectors and even between countries. It is crucial that this holistic approach is reflected in 9 the definition of standards by taking into account transversal competences and related soft skills. Nevertheless, this development should not lead to the neglect and undervaluation of learning processes. Indeed, in non-‐formal adult education for instance, the learning process, as well as the learning environment, plays a big role in the learner’s experience. The BeLL study (http://bell-‐
project.eu/) shows that many benefits for learners actually derive from the learning process (such as more social contacts and a wider social network). A broad support from educational stakeholders is necessary to balance a top-‐down approach and the CEDEFOP rightly emphasises the importance of those communities of practice. The Sectoral Reference Groups set up to establish the ESCO classification is a very good example of how collaboration should work with grassroots experts on the definition of learning outcomes in general. Besides, paying attention to grassroots initiatives is the best way to identify innovation and to upscale them i.e. thanks to Erasmus+ KA3 “Policy experimentations” projects. Many interesting attempts to assess outcomes per school level or class for instance have been created at various decision-‐levels (regional inspectorates, educational structures) and would deserve to be better identified and scaled-‐up. It is also very important in that sense to give those different decision-‐levels a certain freedom to act; the CEDEFOP evokes new forms of decentralisation in some Member States to enable innovative practices (i.e. design of curricula) but also stakeholders’ participation in developments at systemic level. Implementing a learning outcomes approach is therefore also about “thinking out of the box” and revising the way governments perceive decentralisation and participative democracy in a coordinated European approach. 24. What actions are needed at EU level to enhance the synergies between the European Qualification Framework and the Qualification Framework for the European Higher Education. Should the adoption by all countries of a single referencing process combining EQF referencing and QF-‐EHEA self-‐certification be promoted? Further efforts have to be engaged for compatibility between the Qualifications Framework of the European Higher Education Area (QF-‐EHEA) and the EQF and to strengthen a common learning outcomes approach. A single referencing process would be ideal; meantime Member States should develop their National Qualifications Framework while making sure it corresponds with both European frameworks. Joint meetings between national contact points and cooperation between institutions overseeing the implementation of both frameworks should be sustained and intensified. The first joint meeting between the EQF Advisory Group and the EHEA Working Group on Structural Reforms in December is already a great leap forward but again, the fact that some voices were raised in this meeting to point out that other sectors were not addressed show the importance of adopting a global vision when reflecting on synergies between those tools as the key to a coherent area of skills and qualifications. The meeting also interestingly addressed the issue of short-‐cycle higher education and EQF level 5, which crystallises very well the incompatibilities between the QF-‐EHEA and the EQF. The EURASHE project “SCHE in Europe – Level 5: The Missing Link” is a precious research on how to link the QF-‐EHEA and the EQF when it comes to SCHE and how to increase flexibility between secondary and higher education in a lifelong learning approach. Leido, one of EURASHE members, has also created a community of practices with several meetings and newsletters called “Chain5” and specifically linked to this topic. Paying attention to what grassroots stakeholders have to say is again the best way to work towards a single referencing process. 25. Do you have any further suggestions for simplifying and for improving the coherence of the European transparency and recognition tools? The essential priority is to achieve coherence in the terminology used by those tools to reach a true learning outcomes approach, as many incompatibilities arise from this problem. The EQF evaluation report admits the “competence” descriptor is problematic and the ESCO initiators still need to clarify 10 the structure of the Skills/Competences pillar, while the 2006 European Key Competences Framework describes a competence as a set of knowledge, skills and attitudes. This confusion is illustrated by the title of the consultation itself: why do we speak of a “European Area of Skills and Qualifications” and not of “a European Area of Competences” to stick to the common approach adopted ten years ago, or a “European area of Lifelong Learning”? Multiplying qualifications frameworks, recognition and transparency tools is useless if no common approach and terminology can be found. Of course the challenge is huge as Member States have different interpretations of learning outcomes; it comes to make them comparable (i.e. taking the EQF as an overarching reference framework) but accept in the same time that there will be no universal definition but rather a common understanding. 5. Ensuring clarity of rules and procedures for the recognition of skills and qualifications for further learning Closed questions: 26. In order to enable individuals to move more freely between the different sub-‐systems of education and training, within and across countries, the recognition of skills and competences needs to be improved. a. While respecting national competences, should European criteria and procedures for the recognition of qualifications for further learning be developed in the areas of adult learning and general education? Strongly agree b. For the purposes of further learning (and in the context of the autonomy of higher education institutions), are the criteria used by higher education institutions for recognising qualifications acquired in another Member State sufficiently clear, transparent and accommodating of learners' needs? Partially agree c. Should European criteria and procedures for the recognition of vocational qualifications for further learning within and across Member States be developed? Strongly agree d. Would a European system of recognition of skills, competences and qualification in school education help improving mobility and employability of young people? Strongly agree 27. To which extent are validation systems and credit systems suitable to recognise the outcomes of new forms of learning such as digital learning (e.g. Massive Open Online Courses, MOOCs)? Somewhat suitable 11 28. Would it be desirable to develop common criteria and procedures for recognition that could apply to all education and training sub-‐systems (for vocational education and training, schools, adult education), and all qualifications related to European qualifications frameworks (including those obtained through validation of non-‐formal and informal learning, open on-‐line courses, private qualifications, etc.)? Strongly agree Open questions: 29. Which measures, if any, should be taken at the EU level to improve the recognition of learning outcomes related to new forms of learning such as learning through Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)? The fact that learners are now able to better adapt their learning processes and materials to their needs, goals and lifestyles thanks to the digital era is undeniable. However 75% of students enrolled in a MOOC will never complete it. In order to motivate learners into completion it is important to embed their digital experience coherently in their learning pathway and value it for their personal and professional purposes. In that sense, recognition and validation of learning outcomes acquired through OERs is a crucial matter for learners’ personal and professional fulfilment. It would also be a big step towards better quality digital learning (see the MENON network’s LLP project “VMPass – Implementing Recognition of Virtual Mobility and OER Learning through a Learning Passport). The Communication on “Opening Up Education” rightly mentions the 2012 Council Recommendation on Validation of non-‐formal and informal learning to explore validation tools that could adapt to current changes and include recognition of digitally acquired skills. EUCIS-‐LLL calls Member States to acknowledge the development of OERs while setting up validation arrangements by 2018, and has set up a dedicated task force to follow up on the implementation of national validation arrangements. It is now up to the Commission and in particular the EQF Advisory Group to speed up the process and to establish synergies with “Opening Up Education” through systematic opportunities for certification i.e. with a specific credit system. The roadmap proposed by the Commission to the EQF Advisory Group is clearly not ambitious enough while Member States should not procrastinate on such an important way to upskill people, including through the recognition of outcomes acquired through digital learning. Valuing what is learnt in this kind of settings can only be done by giving social recognition to non-‐formal learning outcomes in general. But the recognition of those outcomes in particular raises specific questions on which reflection has to be deepened in Europe: do open online courses have to be validated in order to be equally recognised compared to physical lessons? Is validation an assurance of their quality? Is paying for an open online course validation contrary to the principle of free access to education for all? Should those courses be certified by an educational institution or should alternative validation mechanisms be put in place, i.e. Mozilla Open Badges or open peer community assessment (see 2014 EUA study on MOOCs)? How can learning outcomes be properly assessed in this case while the generational gap is widening between students born with technology and older teachers who may not be IT competent? Again, this debate should not be narrowed down to MOOCs, as it is often the case in the debates that have followed the release of “Opening Up Education”, but rather be embedded in a broader debate on validation and especially on validation of non-‐formal and informal learning. 30. In case you agree with question 28, please provide your suggestions here on how such criteria could be developed. 12 Recognition of learning outcomes acquired through adult education and the non-‐formal education sector in general is clearly the missing link towards the development of common criteria and procedures applying to all education and training sub-‐sectors. Indeed developing validation practices is about valuing a life-‐long and life-‐wide approach to learning by enabling an in-‐depth modernisation of education and training systems to create open, flexible and individualised learning environments. It is crucial to give equal value to knowledge, skills and competences acquired from various learning settings. Beyond the importance of making policy-‐makers understand the urgent necessity to implement validation arrangements by 2018 (2012 Council Recommendation), EUCIS-‐LLL and its VNFIL task force experts wish to express some concrete suggestions. Before all, further progress in data collection remains crucial at national level, based on a qualitative analysis on validation, to help authorities and institutions to be less overcautious about developing validation mechanisms. The CEDEFOP VNFIL Inventory update is an exercise that should be continuously sustained and exploited. Besides, validation should be an individual right accessible for all and especially for the most disadvantaged through targeted measures (this should be taken up in priority by Member States from the Communication), giving opportunities for second chances, enhancing motivation to learn and self-‐esteem and tackling unemployment. A key intent of validation should be the encouragement to take up further learning in order to take further steps. We strongly recommend that the financing of the validation system be carefully considered and to be available for free, at the minimum for those with low qualifications and for the unemployed. Individual willingness to engage into such a process is essential and administrative and financial barriers should be reduced as much as possible. Once the validation process in engaged, respecting individuals’ motives is crucial to keep them on board; EUCIS-‐LLL supports the possibility, for those who wish or need, to get access to a full diploma that is equal in value to those delivered in formal educational systems via validation but in some cases an individual may be better served by going through a more limited identification and documentation of prior learning. More flexible approaches exist such as portfolios; even though they are difficult to link with national and European qualifications frameworks, they can represent a better alternative to help vulnerable groups to identify their skills and be aware of their own value. In that sense validation should not only aim to get a certificate, but when this is the case the diplomas/certificates should have the same value as those delivered in the formal system. To support those various paths towards validation, education institutions should be prepared and encouraged to implement validation mechanisms. Staff should be properly trained and guided in order to provide quality services to their beneficiaries. The same applies for civil society organisations that should be involved in the development, monitoring and evaluation of the validation mechanisms but also in the definition and revision of standards. NGOs can help their volunteer staff or target groups in the two first phases of validation (identification and documentation) in a self-‐reflexive process about the competences they gained in their organisation. A next step can be to support them in liaising with educational institutions or employers to “sell” themselves in getting access to education or employment. At EU level, further reflection should be led on how to include validated learning outcomes in a lifelong learning approach giving equal value to learning acquired in formal, non-‐formal and informal settings. EU programmes such as Erasmus+, Horizon 2020 and the European structural funds should provide opportunities to advance this reflection as well as the setting up of proper national validation systems and favour peer learning. 13 6. Increasing the focus on quality assurance Closed questions: 31. In order to enable learners to assemble their tailor-‐made learning pathways by selecting learning opportunities from different sub-‐systems and forms of delivery, it is necessary to develop a common understanding of quality across countries and different education sub-‐
systems. a. Is it possible to identify some common basic principles and guidelines of quality assurance valid across sectors and applicable to all qualifications? Strongly agree b. Should there be a core of common European quality assurance principles for the provision of learning opportunities in all sectors of education and training? Strongly agree 32. In your opinion, to which extent are existing quality assurance principles and credit systems suitable to support new forms of learning, such as digital learning (e.g. Massive Open Online Courses, MOOCs)? Somewhat suitable Open questions: 33. If you agree with question 31 b, please provide here your suggestions on what could be the common basic principles and guidelines for quality assurance applicable to all qualifications. The consultation background document mentions that EQF quality assurance principles are relevant for other sectors than higher education and VET and that further investigation should be done in this sense. More coherence and bridges are needed. If the EQF shall be the common device for quality principles in various sectors, it should be up to the EQF Advisory Group to reflect on how to match them. This work goes hand in hand with the implementation of validation arrangements since far less research on quality has been done in the non-‐formal sector and as it raises the question of what is considered as useful, relevant and valuable learning. This is also very much an issue in the field of open educational resources today, and several voices pointed out that “Opening Up Education” should tackle in priority the quality of digital learning (i.e. peer and crowd assessment that could be a solution for both validation and quality assurance and need to be look at in depth). Quality assurance is mentioned in all policy frameworks. The Renewed Agenda for Adult Learning for instance strives for professional development of adult learning professionals, organisations accreditation, improved guidance services and links with the EQF. The work of the Commission Thematic Working Group on Quality in Adult Learning is very valuable and their final report striving for a cross-‐sectoral approach and evidence-‐based evaluation should serve as a basis for new actions at EU level. In VET, the 2014 Commission report on the implementation of EQAVET underlines that the tool should be more focused on non-‐formal provision and improved within a global reflection on coherence with other recognition and transparency tools. However, so far the only concrete innovative solutions proposed have been put forward by EU funded projects, such as LLP “QALLL – Quality Assurance for Lifelong Learning” or LLP “QUALC – Quality assurance for Adult Learning 14 Centers” in the field of adult learning for instance. Those quality projects show again the crucial role civil society organisations can play in bringing grassroots innovation that needs to be taken up and upscaled by policy-‐makers. 7. Providing learners and workers with a single access point to obtain information and services supporting a EASQ Closed questions: 34. Could learners and workers benefit from a one-‐stop shop providing integrated services -‐ including their supporting platforms -‐ covering the full range of European services on learning opportunities, career guidance and recognition of qualifications for employment purposes or further learning. Strongly agree 35. In your opinion, to which extent is it desirable to create integrated service-‐points for learners and workers covering the full range of European services currently spread over the networks of ENIC/NARIC, Europass, Euroguidance, NQF-‐NCP? Highly desirable 36. Is the current landscape of webtools in the area of skills and qualifications (Europass Portal, Your Europe, Study in Europe, We mean Business, Ploteus, EQF Portal, European Skills Panorama, ESCO) effective/ineffective? Highly effective Somewhat effective Somewhat ineffective Totally ineffective No opinion ESCO Europass Portal Your Europe Study in Europe We Business Ploteus EQF Portal European Skills Panorama mean 15 37. Do you consider useful/not useful to provide individuals with self-‐assessment tools for measurement of knowledge skills and competences? Very useful 38. If you are working in the ENIC/NARIC, Europass, Euroguidance, NQF-‐NCP networks, please answer the following: a. How frequently do you work with the following networks? The answer categories should list the networks quoted as well as Eures Advisers and Europe Direct, National Agency, Eurodesk. Very often Somewhat often Sometimes Almost never Never This is network National Agency ENIC/NARIC Europass Euroguidance NQF-‐NCP Eurodesk Eures Advisers Europe Direct my b. How would you rate your contacts with other European services in your country in terms of cooperation? 3 2 1 0 No opinion This is my network National Agency ENIC/NARIC Europass Euroguidance NQF-‐NCP Eurodesk Eures Advisers Europe Direct 16 Open questions: 39. If you agree with question 34, please provide here your suggestions on what could be the features of this one-‐stop shop. EUCIS-‐LLL supports the setting up of a unique and user-‐friendly portal on the different recognition and transparency tools as well as guidance on learning and training opportunities. Even though numerous networks and helpdesks support individuals in knowing more about the various opportunities offered by the EU, it is crucial to better reach out to the various target groups addressed, as most of them are not even aware of those opportunities. EUCIS-‐LLL, through its task force on VNFIL, has realised that even EU key stakeholders such as European NGOs are not always clearly aware of all recognition mechanisms; how would unemployed individuals understand and exploit them (see also Europass framework evaluation)? A single portal should also be designed according to the profile of visitors, following for instance the example of the 2012 Commission publication “What’s in it for me?”. Validation arrangements set up by Member States, whether they are already in place or to be implemented, should also occupy an important part in this portal. We also agree that it could be complemented by national single access points but of course no extra structure should be created. Existing organisations such as European Houses or Commission Representations should be properly trained on all new opportunities and policy developments in the field of skills and qualifications in order to be able to inform visitors but also to attract them. Indeed, it is very important that EU staff physically invest the places where target groups are likely to be (educational institutions, town fairs…) and that proper communication tools are allocated to this new portal. More than the readability and simplification of a one-‐stop shop, its reputation and reliability are important to make it exploited. Besides, other key stakeholders can play the role of multipliers of EU action and should be exploited as such. For instance many civil society organisations are well aware of EU opportunities and should be better funded and more often consulted on how to reach citizens. 17