The potential role of networks within the European quality strategy
The European common quality assurance framework (CQAF) is based on a deming cycle, covering planning, implementation, evaluation as well as review and improvement of quality.
For each of those phases key questions are formulated, referring to the system level and complementary provider level. In the following scheme I have tried to introduce a network level.
This is some initial ideas, which will need further exploration in order to function within the concept of CQAF. Your comments are welcome!
Planning
Key questions |
Possible answers at system level – core quality criteria |
Possible answers at network level – core quality criteria |
Possible answers at provider level – core quality criteria |
Are your policy goals/objectives clear and measurable?
|
The national and European goals or purposes for VET are known to relevant stakeholders.
Existence of systematic procedures to identify future needs.
A number of minimum objectives/standards have been set. |
priorities and objectives are defined and related to European and national goals
standards defined for network members meet the requirements emerging from national policies |
The European, national and local goals are all known throughout the institution. |
What are the goals/objectives of your system/ institution in relation to VET? |
(Description of the goals/objectives) |
Shared quality policies, as the overall intentions and direction of the partnership with regard to quality, as formally expressed by the network.
Scope statement as a key input to joint quality planning since it documents major deliverables as well as objectives which serve to define important stakeholder requirements.
Taking into consideration application-area-specific standards or regulations that may affect network quality policies |
(Description of the goals/objectives)
|
Are the European goals and objectives for VET included in the goals you have set?
|
An action plan has been drawn up to achieve the European goals.
|
Priorities and objectives of interventions are reviewed by the network in the light of European goals and objectives |
Focus on some European goals in cooperation with VET providers from other Member States. |
How is the degree to which these goals/objectives are fulfilled assessed?
|
The goals are communicated to providers.
Results on specific indicators are systematically collected. |
Benchmarking of local / regional / sectoral VET performance with other networks in order to generate ideas for improvement and to provide a standard by which to measure performance.
The other networks may be within the same geographical area or outside of it, and may be within the same application area or in another.
Assessment of the global and specific contribution of VET organizations to LLL and with respect to different VET fields |
Self-evaluation process takes place every second year.
Departments make reports, supported by specific indicators, to management. |
Describe the procedure for planning within the quality approach. |
(Description of the procedure) |
(Description of the procedure) |
(Description of the procedure)
|
Implementation
Key questions |
Possible answers at system level – core quality criteria |
Possible answers at network level – core quality criteria |
Possible answers at provider level – core quality criteria |
How do you implement a planned action?
|
By legislation:
By funding:
In cooperation with the social partners. In cooperation with VET providers. |
Promoting quality policies and development of systematic quality approach
Network coordinates stakeholder involvement
Network coordinates local adaption process
Local budgeting |
Having a systematic quality approach and plan.
Sharing this with the other actors.
Involving local actors and adapting to local needs.
Investing in staff training.
Developing and communicating a staff policy based on the strategies and planning of the VET provider’s organisation/institution.
Aligning tasks, authority and responsibilities. |
Describe the key principles in the implementation procedure.
|
Giving full responsibility for implementation to VET providers.
Setting up several minimum criteria providers have to meet.
Giving a specific quality approach to be used by all providers.
|
Network supports providers by
|
Organising and allocating funds to:
Demanding transparency and coherence with goals.
Involving different stakeholders in the work.
Ensuring good working conditions and facilities throughout the organisation. |
Assessment & Evaluation
Key questions |
Possible answers at system level – core quality criteria |
Possible answers at network level – core quality criteria |
Possible answers at provider level – core quality criteria |
Describe your process for assessing:
|
Through:
By national standards on input, processes and output.
By assessing coherence between results and policy priorities. |
Core set of common criteria and shared methods for self-evaluation process (very likely to require local / regional accreditation schemes)
Adds criteria and methods not available on institute level, such as global impact, network and societal results
Building area specific indexes for local / regional input, processes and output indicators |
Through:
Comparing actual with expected results.
Results of teaching/training and learning.
Staff-oriented results.
Key performance results.
Societal results. |
How do you ensure that your assessment and evaluation is relevant and systematic? |
By systematic procedures for data collection:
|
Promoting social validity of indicators and measure sticks |
By asking users:
|
Which stakeholders participate in the assessment and evaluation process? |
The system level and the social partners.
A quality institute. |
Promoting multi-stakeholder / participatory approach to quality |
Managers, teachers, students, parents and employers. |
What roles do the different stakeholders play?
|
Participation of relevant stakeholders in:
|
Relevant stakeholders participate in a broad range of activities:
|
|
When do you monitor, assess and evaluate (frequency)? |
Before, during and after VET reforms every third to fifth year. |
Annualy (according to SPEAK evaluation cycle) |
Before, during and after the training activity. |
Review & Improvement actions
Key questions |
Possible answers at system level – core quality criteria |
Possible answers at network level – core quality criteria |
Possible answers at VET provider level – core quality criteria |
How do you organise feedback and procedures for change?
|
The feedback procedures are defined by regulations and revised and changed through reforms of the VET system, e.g. every three to five years. |
Promoting change management and learning approach
Risk management at the development of learning organisations |
Feedback and procedures for change are an integral part of the provider’s own learning organisation.
|
How do you ensure systematic feedback?
|
|
Clearly defined means of feedback on network level
Fixed procedures and time schedules of joint review process |
Each department has to report to management in accordance with a fixed plan. |
How do you make the feedback on quality in VET transparent?
|
By placing data and conclusions on the homepage. By arranging several seminars / conferences on quality in VET. |
Quality policy statements, core indicators, assessment methods, results of assessments are available throughout the network and to the public |
All the information is accessible on the provider’s homepage or on paper.
|
How do you ensure that the results of the assessment/evaluation are being used?
|
|
Evaluation results were reviewed and improvement areas are defined
Joint action plan for improvement is set up |
Through a combination of control and development meetings with different departments in the institution.
Through participation of all the relevant stakeholders in the review work. |
How do you relate goals/objectives to assessment and evaluation? |
During reforms.
When annual tenders are awarded. |
Annual meetings of network committee (adjustment of shared goals and priortities) |
At department and institution meetings as a systematic part of the decisionmaking structure. |